RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT : j ou no } Bo 1. 321 As I mentioned in the script, sir, 1 received a very recent Report No. 3, and it is a very valuable contribution in this area m making value judgments relative to fallout. Representative Pricz. You state on page 3 that the FRC Report No. 2 carries the promise of introducing much needed flexibility. In what way doesit offer flexibility ? Mr. Parker. I think it is conceived generally in the field that through this concept of the three ranges, one gets away from some earlier objections to what was wrongly interpreted but was interpreted as a rigorous edge-of-night limit; namely, the permissible limits of the NCRP for a specific situation, such and such a number would be a limit and beyond that is bad and below it is good, has been to some extent in the past a misinterpretation of the intent. By having these three ranges, there is introduced the thought that it is perfectly reasonable to go along with a situation in which the possible exposures being received may be creeping up, provided that the looking at it, namely, the measuring devices and controls which are stipulated along with the requirements for these range applications, are in proportion to the degree of exposure that may be being received. Representative Prick. You further state that the FRC Report No. 2 may have advantages for those working with modest amounts of one or two radionuclides. What are some of these advantages? Forde tay aes Ra WORD Dep Pt tas 7 Representative Price. You refer to transfer of responsibility from the AEC to the State for certain ractioactive materials. Do you foresee about50 different State regulations in connection with this? Mr. Parner. I foresee more than one. Whether it will ever get to 50—I suppose one could make 50 different variations if you tried hard. I would see perhaps a dozen variations. Representative Price. What is your own feeling on the matter? What do you think should be donein this area? | Ah edpe oe te Wie i nee wats FON toeae tee able, sir. pe agli’ Mr. Parger. This gets back to a point that I hoped to makeclear in the script, sir. My report as a whole I would like to characterize as perhaps not fairly representing the problems andsituations of the very small users, since we ourselves come in contact with this rather superficially. His situation is such that he cannot have his own specialist who can study and offer professional local judgments on interpretation of cases, or say an interpretation of what the three ranges of the FRC would mean. He hasto have a textbook which gives him anumber. I intended this reference in that sense. Representative Pricr. On the bottom of page 4, when you are talking about NCRP Report No. 29 and the reference to emergency exposure, was this an outgrowth of the Windscale incident? Mr. Parker. No, sir. Dr. Taylor is in the room and is perhaps better qualified than I to particularize this. But I believe this work was primarily started in the interest of civil defense preparation in this Nation and was finally put together in the present form. I am stipulating here that it turns out, allowing a little leeway for interpretation, to be very useful in the industrial situation, and we have already had occasion ourselves so to use it. It was not specifically prepared for that case, as I see it. Mr. Ramey. Did you use that in the case of one of the emergencies at Hanford ? we Parker. In our recent critical incident it was extremely valu- Ins IN aldog bah ON Gee sai PTSSETAETbBsSRERRR,