The same postulate applies to governmental occupational health personnel who enforce codes. However, in certain areas, such as special nuclear production and utilization facilities, there is a need for personnel with special qualifications.

PROBLEM AREAS IN STATE LABOR DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES

There are a number of problem areas which exist on the State enforcement level. On the whole the problems differ, depending upon the administrative framework, the degree of industrialization, and the extent of the progress in the State. The following illustrate some of these areas:

1. Budgetary considerations

The budgetary needs vary with the scope and type of program necessary to provide adequate safeguards. A comprehensive program to control the increased hazards created by the expansion of the atomic industry will require increased budgetary supplementation. Data obtained by the U.S. Public Health Service on the radiation program in 12 States indicate that in general, the present budgetary allowances should be increased. Continuing financial support is needed to recruit additional personnel and to provide additional training for those already engaged in radiation protection in order to keep pace with the expansion of the industrial utilization of atomic energy. Many States are looking to the Federal Government for financial assistance for these purposes.

2. Nuclear energy development and radiation protection

The extent of the development and acceleration of the nuclear energy industry in the State is closely tied to the regulatory requirements. Regulations which are too stringent and excessive inhibit and discourage nuclear development. Conversely, inadequate regulations which fail to prevent injury or serious incidents may, by arousing public opinion, be as serious a deterrent to the expansion of nuclear energy programs as inflexible rules.

Adequate data based on experience, proper dissemination of information at all levels, and a continuing effort to resolve differences when and where they arise is essential to meet this dual need for safety and progress in atomic development. The contemplated revisions of the industrial radiation code of New York State are in keeping with these two objectives.

42561 0-59-17

3. Interstate problems

The use and transportation of portable radioactive sources outside the State in which they are registered present problems in administrative control. In New York this is a problem in which the State labor department has a vested interest. This can be met by the formulation of interstate compacts and adoption, by the several States, of consistent regulations for radiation protection. An interstate agency may be of value in resolving issues of common interest to the States.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

From the experience of the New York State Labor Department, a comprehensive code has proven to be the most effective instrument for the control of industrial radiation hazards. This is based on a 3year administration of this code.

The current major industrial radiation hazards arise from radiation producing equipment rather than from radioactive sources. The former is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the States while the responsibility for the latter is shared by both the Federal and State Governments.

Certain problem areas have been highlighted, such as the interrelationship between regulation and nuclear energy development. There is a need for practical radiation protection requirements to strive toward the dual objective of safety and progress in this field.

(References and tables accompanying Dr. Kleinfeld'stement follow :)

REFERENCES

1. Martland, H. S.: "Occupational Poisoning in Manufacture of Luminous Watch Dials; General Review of Hazard Caused by Ingestion of Luminous Paint, With Especial Reference to New Jersey Cases." J.A.M.A. 92: 466, 552, 1929.

2. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States: "Selected Materials on Employee Radiation Hazards in Industry," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1959.

3. Frampton, George T.: "Radiation Exposure The Need for a National Policy," Stanford Law Review, volume 10, No. 1, December 1957 (reprint). 4. McAdams, W. A.: "Radiation Protection in the Industrial Use of Radiation," appearing in "Selected Materials on Employee Radiation Hazards in Industry," by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1959, pages 173–179.

5. Personal communication to the author from Richard Marx, assistant regional engineer, U.S. Public Health Service, region II, 1959.

TABLE I.-Distribution of registered installations by industry as of Mar. 1, 1959

TABLE II.-Number of registered sources, by type and strength, as of Mar. 1, 1959

1 Items wholly or partially exempt from AEC jurisdiction.

?Source strength does not include classified quantities of fissionable material.

Source strength less than 1 curie.

4 Source strength 1 curie or more.

+23 +175 +28

+26

-33

+400

+14

63,276

+380

39, 123, 900

+15

7, 242, 422

+20

7,967

+151

10, 209

+77

0.015

-76

Chairman ANDERSON. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Mr. Ramey has a question.

Mr. RAMEY. What are the relations between your department and the health department or the group that regulates nonindustrial users? Do you have a working relationship?

Dr. KLEINFELD. We have a very close relationship with them. We have almost simultaneous codes. They are rather close. The sanitary code of the State health department and the code rule of the State labor department, are closely written and identified in terms of proper standards and dose limits.

We have taken the definition which is clearcut, that anything that occurs within the industrial framework is under the jurisdiction of the labor department. Anything outside the industrial framework belongs to the State department of health. That is within their purview.

Mr. RAMEY. Would that include medical and dental X-ray equipment, for example? Would it be under the State health department? Dr. KLEINFELD. It would be under the State health department if they are outside an industrial establishment. Within the industrial establishment we have assumed the responsibility for radiation protection.

Mr. RAMEY. What are your relations with your new atomic coordinator?

Dr. KLEINFELD. Our relationship with him is rather a close one. His responsibilities will be:

(1) To coordinate the functions of the various departments that have a vested interest in the field of radiation protection;

(2) He has a common interest of promoting the atomic development within the State in which the various departments have a similar interest and desire.

He is concerned with radiation protection. In this regard he closely identifies himself with our efforts.

I believe that the atomic development office will meet periodically through an intragovernmental council to review the administrative procedures that are occurring within the various State agencies and also perhaps act to resolve gray areas should they arise in terms of jurisdiction. To date we have had none. At the same time foster and facilitate our efforts to procure personnel, obtain financial support, and so on.

Mr. RAMEY. Did your department handle the prosecution of the outfit that was burying waste in its backyard? There was a great deal of publicity about it a year or two ago.

Dr. KLEINFELD. I am not sure whether you have reference to a company located in Westchester.

Mr. RAMEY. Yes.

Dr. KLEINFELD. This was a joint effort of the labor and health departments, since the areas of noncompliance affected both departments. Compliance within compliance, noncompliance with the dose limits was a problem of the State labor department, and we were concerned with that. The waste disposal was a problem of the State health department, and they joined their efforts with us in seeking compliance.