APPENDIX The Chairman's questions of March 5 and the answers thereto are as follows: (1) From 1952 to present, what has been the dollar amount expended in rescarch and development in coal mine health and safety by respectively, the coal industry, the coal mine equipment manufacturers, and the Department of the Interior? (2) For the same period, what has been the dollar investment in health and safety education and training programs, as distinguished from research, by the industry and by the Department? (3) For the same period, what has been the monetary investment in research and development respecting (a) increased coal production and (b) conversion of coal to other products by the coal industry and by the Department of the Interior? The answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 regarding funds expended on various research activities are shown in the table attached and this is footnoted to indicate how the estimates were made. There are several problems involved in making these estimates: (1) the term research and development is used differently by the respondents to surveys estimating research and development expenditures; (2) the distinction between health and safety research and other research is not sharp so that classification problems arise; and (3) there can be large unreported activities in the private sector that may be classified as research, but about which we have no knowledge. Nonetheless, we are fairly certain that the monetary figures reported in the attached table are sufficiently accurate to provide your committee with an order of magnitude estimate that will be useful. (4) When occupational damage (either injury or disease) requires a mine worker to be shifted from a hazardous job to a non-hazardous job, do you favor saving the worker harmless from wage reductions, if any, that would otherwise result? Question 4 relating to saving the worker harmless from wage reductions on transfer to a new position as a result of injury or disease is a problem inherent in all industrial activities. Accordingly, we would defer to the views of the Department of Labor on this question. (5) How many mines can presently meet the standard of 3.0 milligrams of respirable dust per cubic meter of air? How many can comply with the 4.5 standard? What number of miners work in the 3.0 category and how many in 4.5? What are the production statistics for the respective categories? Relative to question 5, until now the Bureau of Mines has only preliminary and unevaluated data on dust concentrations in 20 mines of the United States. The mines were selected because 20 men or more were employed underground, the mines have reserves sufficient for 10 years of operation, and because of their geographic location. Ultimately it is expected that approximately 350 mines will be sampled. Recognizing the very incomplete nature of the sample and the possible bias imposed by the limiting conditions mentioned above, we found that about 40 percent of the sections, when sampled at the mining machine (some continuous and some conventional) had dust concentrations of less than 4.5 milligrams per cubic meter of air and 22 percent were less than 3.0. Although dust concentrations were sampled for other occupations underground, the data have not yet been analyzed. We believe, however, that most of these occupations would be expected to show lower dust concentrations than those measured at the mining machine. Other than the above, we are unable to provide an answer to the questions relating to the number of miners presently exposed to these two dust concentration levels or the amount of production associated with their employment. (6) Regarding the 4.5 level of dust, what period of time is involved for the typical miner to have incipient lung damage? Relative to question 6, although the Public Health Service x-rayed a number of active and former miners and, from the data, developed the figure attached, the data does not indicate the onset of lung damage to the miner. In addition, the data could not be related in any way to the dust concentration levels to which these miners were exposed. A proposed joint survey by the Bureau of Mines and Health, Education, and Welfare has been designed to develop just this type of information. You may wish to refer this question to HEW for additional comment. 26-491-69-pt. 1- -34 No systematic survey has been conducted, but it is estimated that the expenditures are less than $15,000,000. 2 No systematic survey has been conducted, but it is believed that expenditures are less than $5,000,000. 3 Based on extrapolation of a systematic survey by BCR and BM in 1955, and 1 by the Bureau of Mines in 1963. 4 Includes approximately $5,000,000 for testing permissible equipment. #195 5168 In the 1955 survey, equipment manufacture expenditures were approximately 40 percent of the private sector expenditures. INCIDENCE OF PNEUMOCONIOSIS AMONG PERCENTAGES IN EACH GROUP DERIVED ON THE BASIS OF DEFINITE DIAGNOSIS BY X-RAY. MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG PROPOSED SENATE BILLS, 1952 ACT, AND INTERIOR'S PROPOSED BILL Health X-rays. None. Secretary has authority to issue No. mandatory health and safety standards. $25 minimum, $500 maximum. Standard 3 milligrams per $50 minimum, $1,000 maximum. None. Standard 3 milligrams per No. Yes. Yes. Yes-on objections of interested MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG PROPOSED SENATE BILLS, 1952 ACT, AND INTERIOR'S PROPOSED BILL-Continued Note: S. 467 is a bill covering just coal mine health. S. 467 provides that the Director of the Bureau of Mines administer a coal mine health program which would establish a dust standard of 3 milligrams of respirable dust per cubic meter of air. The bill would direct that a health danger exists if the dust level in any part of the mine exceeds the 3.0 standard and require the inspector to issue an order causing all persons to be withdrawn from the area. The order shall be subject to review by the Director and the Board in much the same way as orders are subject to review under the present safety act. Court review is also provided The bill requires that each operator monitor coal dust level with an approved means and keep records thereof. In bituminous and lignite underground coal mines procedures must be adopted to assure that all coal mined must first be undercut, centercut, topcut, or sheared. The bill would establish criminal penalties. The bill would also establish an X-ray program. Secretary HICKEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to read this into the record. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. O'Leary, do you have a prepared statement? Mr. O'LEARY. I do not, Mr. Chairman. Senator WILLIAMS. How do you want to proceed, after we finish inquiring of Mr. Hickel? Mr. O'LEARY. I will simply be here to assist in any questions that the subcommittee may have, Mr. Chairman. Senator WILLIAMS. Senator Randolph, do you have any questions? Senator RANDOLPH. Secretary Hickel, Under Secretary Train, and Director O'Leary, this was a comprehensive statement and one which I shall read carefully. I did not have the opportunity to read and study your statement prior to the hearing today. I am not critical of the time of its arrival on Capitol Hill, but there was no opportunity, as you understand, for us to go into it. Sometimes, as we listen and observe under the glare of lights we can't always make up our mind on something too quickly, and we should not. I have noted, however, that the so-called Johnson administration proposal which I have introduced, the bills introduced by Chairman Williams, and now the introduction of the Nixon administration measure by Senator Javits and Senator Cooper do not create an overabundance of conflicting provisions. I observe that of 23 provisions in S. 355, and in the proposal for which you speak, there is agreement, Mr. Secretary, on at least 15 of the provisions out of the 23. This is a rough check, quickly made. So, we are better than 65 percent in agreement as we begin. Now, I would like to check just a few of these agreements. The authority in the directorate: Am I correct that there is no disagreement on this point, that it would be within the Secretary of the Interior? Secretary HICKEL. That is right. Senator RANDOLPH. Then we come to the imminent danger definition. S. 355 and the administration proposal for which you speak are exactly the same; is that right? Secretary HICKEL. They are. Senator RANDOLPH. Then we come to the qualifications of inspectors. You have very properly discussed that subject, the need for education, the need for certain types of specialized study and preparation. In S. 355, we would leave this to the discretion of the Secretary. In your bill, you would have minimum qualifications. Please explain. Secretary HICKEL. Would you like to answer that, Mr. O'Leary? Mr. O'LEARY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We are not asking for the rigid requirement for preservice in the mines that is contained in the 1952 act, that is the current law. Senator RANDOLPH. The 1952 act, as amended. Mr. O'LEARY. Yes. We are simply saying here that they must be qualified, and leaving the decision on what the qualifications are to the Secretary. Senator RANDOLPH. Really, this is not a disagreement then. So there will be 14 points of agreement rather than the 13 I indicated earlier. |