ot re nh el alee ot fatilities in all the years of operation of the AEC. Mr. Parxer. I looked at a chart this morning which would add one to this. I would like, perhaps, the liberty of submitting a second look at this particular numberlater, so that I do not actually misquote it. It is conceivable that it may be wrong by one. Representative Price. If it is, will you correct this table? Mr. Parxer. I will do that, sir. Representative Price. The figure 22, is that absolutely actual for criticality accidents in the Atomic Energy program ? Mr. Parxer. These are supposedly my associate’s counting of the published number ofcriticality accidents. ae hag Me rT fil pret lat eas t als Ae SeeeEeTe ed oe te CEE TSE ORR SRSARENEPigscaeOREEL gant AU ik eRCantypte et babe teenie 8 Mr. Parker. I think one has to go in this direction and do what we can to get a common understanding later. This is partly dependent on the degree to which specific items are included in thefinal code or the extent to which you are willing to go back to basic principles. The basic principles are certainly intended to be the same tmall cases, as I see these points. The minor items to which I refer are indeed minor. One State, Kansas, I believe, has a regulation that characterizes dose in one calendar quarter, and another State would have a limitation on any consecutive 13 weeks. This is just an internal administrative nuisance rather than any reevaluation of the hazard to man. Representative Price. Do you know when the AEC plans to bring their manuals up to date with respect to plans for revisions which must be made to reflect FRC guides for Federal agencies? Mr. Parger. I have no date on that, sir. I just mention in the script, as you say, that we understand from the Commission that it will more directly reflect, in the next revisions, and perhaps Commission representatives could be more responsive to the timing. Representative Price. On page 6 you mention a third group of radiation source users. What seems to be their safety record compared to the others you indicate? Mr. Parker. Thisis the group who were not covered by the Atomic Energy Act, sir. It is very difficult again. We have no comprehensive data which allowsoneto testify, and one goes by impression and conversation in meetings with this group. It is characteristic that those of us with the larger enterprises who have full-time staffs in this work tend to think that our controls are more successful than others. Jt would be rather peculiar if that were not the case. I do believe it is in that direction. The extent to which the situation could be considered bad in this third group, I do not know, and know of no real evidence which points to a poorsituation. Representative Prien. In the charts that you displayed and particularly in table No, 2, you listed the U.S. criticality accident experience since 1945 up until April of 1962. You give the number of criticality accidents as 22 and the number of fatalities as 6. Is this a complete and accurate picture of the accident history of the AEC? Mr. Parser. To the best of my knowledge, sir, this table is intended to contain the total experience on criticality incidents. There can be other accidents. Representative Price. Does this include the SL-1 accident? Mr. Parker. Yes; that would be included. Representative Price. Including that, there is a total of only six Oe albbietet cl. RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT 2 eenep 322