Se Gath bebeEL UDaNTRCRRbE aot ate tady 312 RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT standards to safety performance as a whole. For reference, the final table (table ITI, p. 320) I have which 1 will not read gives the data for AEC contractors compared with similar experience by all industries. It is suggested that continued performance of this type should lead to a better appreciation by the general public that the Atomic Energy installations are indeed among the safest. of our industrial plants. Thank you, gentlemen. (Mr. Parker’s prepared statement follows:) RaDIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS: THE INDUSTRIAL SITUATION (By H. M. Parker, manager, Hanford Laboratories, General Electric Co.') INTRODUCTION My name is Herbert M. Parker, and I am employed by the General Electric Co. ag manager, Hanford Laboratories, Richland, Wash. The material that I am reporting was assembled by a number of my associates, including particularly A. R. Keene, L. A. Carter, J. W. Vanderbeek, and R. F. Foster, whose help I acknowledge. I shoutd also identify my position as chairman of the NCRP subcommittee on basic radiation protection criteria. PRINCIPAL RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO INDUSTRY In the hearings on “Radiation Protection Criteria and Standards” conducted by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in 1960, one of the most knowledgeable and respected men in the the radiation protection field presented his usual thought-provoking testimony to the committee on the development and status of the bases for radiation protection standards. He also included some observations which he titled “Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due.” In this last section of his testimony he offered his congratulations to the Joint Committee on the excellence of the public hearings which were conducted by the committee. He stated that these hearings have “served the purpuse of clarifying the probleis in the public mind and the printed reports provide an up-to-date summary of the scientific status of this field.” (1)? It is a privilege to contribute to the hearings which the Joint Committee is conducting at this time, to bring these matters up to date. The 1962 hearings will be missing the mature and valuable contributions of Dr, Gicacchino Failla whose well-balanced observations were an important contribution in the 1960 hearings. His loss both as a friend and as an unselfish principal contributor to the foundations of radiation protection in this country has beenfelt and will continue to be feit for many years by all of us. In his testimony, Dr. Failla also gave credit to the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) for the “introduction of many new concepts on radiation protection which are now standardpractice throughout the world.” (1) His testimony emphasized the importance of the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in the matter of permissible limits for large populations. Many others noted that the bases for most of the standards used for the protection of individuals and populations against radiation at that time were the recommendations of the ICRPand the NCRP. This situation is essentially unchanged teday. Important activities in formulation of radiation protection standards and regulations continue in the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Radiation Council, some of the States, the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Standards Association, and other such agencies or bodies, The bases for such standards development and application continue to be predominantly the recommendations of the independent NCRP. _1 Work done under prime contract AT(45-1)- 1550 to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 4 References at end of statement. Sengea MERC COURERattan caroaRedagale