Page images
PDF
EPUB

anxious to make a loan of significant size which will not achieve full compliance, because a series of subsequent applications for assistance from the same firm could be fatal.

While this is but a small step, we think it will prove an important one, because it can help small concerns comply with the very necessary but sometimes difficult requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The intent of that Act, as I mentioned earlier, was to better the safety and health conditions which prevail in the plants and factories of this country. This can only be accomplished by honest efforts on the part of every businessman affected to upgrade his plant and equipment in compliance with the Act. It will surely not be accomplished by rigid enforcement which could result in the economic death of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of this Nation's small concerns. Only a spirit of honest and good faith cooperation between the Government and the American businessman will afford the better protection for the workingman which the Congress in 1970 sought to assure.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much.

A good job as always.

Mr. Horton.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Administrator's testifying before us today. He has heard me say on many other occasions that I have a great deal of respect for his ability and the work he is doing as Administrator. I think the substance of his testimony is a further indication of both the type of administration and the type of leadership he is providing to the Small Business Administration.

Although I haven't had a chance to carefully read your testimony, I would gather from what you have said, and from just glancing over the testimony, that this has created a rather severe problem with regard to small business people throughout the country.

Mr. KLEPPE. Not yet, Frank, but I think it has the ingredients of causing a serious problem. This is why I wanted to say what I have said at this stage so that we might preclude the serious problems.

Mr. HORTON. What about the certificate of compliance? How do you evade it?

Mr. KLEPPE. We haven't evaded it because we haven't had it. What we are talking about is to at least have partial inspections where they can make a partial inspection and we can make loans on that basis. Again, this has not created a problem yet. What we are trying to do here is look ahead.

Mr. HUNGATE. Along that line, particularly where you have new businesses or remodeling small businesses, it is not unheard of, I don't think, in the building and construction trade, the advance of stage payments or half a loan and then they will wait for their money if they know the Government is behind it.

After the inspection is made and the certificate, then to provide the rest of the money. But it would be something where you would know when you paid out all your money you would have accomplished the goal of safety.

Mr. KLEPPE. Exactly.

Mr. HORTON. Do you have difficulty with the Labor Department in providing an adequate number of people to enforce the regulations? In other words, do you find that enforcing the regulations is creating some problems or might create some problems with regard to your function in small business?

Mr. KLEPPE. So far, Frank, no problem. Again it goes along the line of trying to preclude problems that might come. But so far, no. Mr. HORTON. Thank you.

Mr. HUNGATE. We greatly appreciate your time and courtesy in being here, with your statement filed. We want to work closely with your Administration. We hope we appreciate some of the difficulties of your job. If you don't make enough minority loans I am sure you hear about that. If you make a few and some of my nonminority constituents don't get a loan they complain you do too much of it.

If you don't make enough loans, we write you a letter. We also hear about the bad ones if you make too many. We are sympathetic and appreciate the kind of public servant we have in you, Tom. With earlier testimony we have had here and I know your concern with North Dakota as well as the entire country-from the Members of Congress, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Texas, maybe they react more strongly there but we have certainly had some great concern there with the problems they are facing in the act.

Some, I would gather from the testimony, would be in regulations that perhaps were adopted too quickly, and some in regulations that could be changed. They were advised they would be changed, such as the shape of the toilet seat and the ice in the ice water, and some more serious than that.

I am sure it has been Mr. Conte's view from his questioning that there are some facts in the statute where the Congress bears responsibility as well as the Labor Department to attempt to alleviate.

We appreciate your efforts here and thank you for coming.

Mr. KLEPPE. Bill, I want to again compliment you for holding these hearings. I think some good is going to come out of this, some good for all levels and all avenues.

Second, I want to express words of thanks and appreciation for your kind comments and yours, too, Frank, I would like the record to also show that I appreciate the courtesy of these gentlemen who were willing to let me proceed.

Mr. HORTON. We have had testimony from several witnesses this morning, particularly in the small business areas, that they haven't had access to information. The homebuilders just presented to us a presentation that they make available to their homebuilders, and we have one that has been published by the American Retail Federation. Have you been concerned about getting information to the small businessman?

Mr. KLEPPE. We are on the loan-making side of it.

Mr. HORTON. I realize this is not your function, but perhaps you might try to urge the Labor Department to make available this type of information. We heard testimony from one of the witnesses that it was almost impossible to get even a copy of the regulations in the Federal Register. As the voice of small business, you perhaps might be somewhat helpful in encouraging them to expedite providing this type of information.

I am not very upset about it because this gives the American Retail Federation and the National Association of Homebuilders a good opportunity to correspond with their membership and show they are doing some fine work for them. These really are fine publications.

But especially in regard to small business, the small businessman doesn't have a voice in the councils of government, except by way of an individual or getting in touch with his Congressman. Perhaps you

will be of some assistance in making available this type of information. Mr. KLEPPE. We would be glad to attempt to, yes.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much.

The next witness will be Dr. Marcus M. Key, Director of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

TESTIMONY OF MARCUS M. KEY, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, HEALTH SERVICES AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. HUNGATE. We are pleased to have you, Dr. Key. We appreciate your courtesy and patience. You may proceed as you wish.

Dr. KEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the indulgence of the committee in taking me ahead of schedule.

In the interest of time, perhaps I could submit my statement for the record and outline our responsibilities in HEW under the new act. Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, the statement will be accepted and made a part of the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MARCUS M. KEY, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, HEALTH SERVICES AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the role of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and to review our experiences in implementing the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. These responsibilities include research, development of criteria for standards, hazard evaluations and toxicity determinations, and manpower development.

The Institute was organized approximately one year ago as one of the 16 programs within the Health Services and Mental Health Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Our current appropriation is $26.5 million and 702 positions. The administrative headquarters is in Rockville, Maryland, with the main research-training-technical assistance facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, and a field station in Salt Lake City, Utah. Research activities under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act are carried out in Morgantown, West Virginia. NIOSH has regional operations, primarily for hazard evaluations and review of State occupational safety and health plans, in each of HEW's ten Regional Offices.

Occupational safety and health research is one of the most important funetions of the Institute. Under provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, a wide range of research projects are conducted in-house or through grants. The Institute conducts research on effects of exposure to toxic substances and harmful physical agents and to combinations of exposures. We also develop instruments to monitor the level of environmental hazards in the workplace and develop personal monitoring devices for individual workers. One of our most important research goals is to develop reliable tests for identifying and predicting the level of individual tolerance to workplace hazards and we must develop medical surveillance programs necessary for early detection of incipient health hazards.

The Act requires us to conduct research and publish industrywide studies on the effects of chronic or low-level industrial exposures which may have the potential for disease or functional impairment. Examples of these are the studies on asbestos, beryllium, cotton dust, and noise which are currently underway. In these environmental-medical studies, we look for long-term and latent health effects and for possible causes of shortened life span.

We are conducting a two-year national occupational hazard survey to assess potential health hazards in a sample of 8,000 representative workplaces. The survey will provide, for the first time, a national estimate of industrial health hazards, based on Standard Industrial Classification codes. This information will be used to set priorities for standards development and research.

Another major responsibility under the Act is to develop criteria documents, which are forwarded to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor, for their consideration in standards setting. The first standards, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on May 29, 1971, emphasized procedural-type safety standards and environmentaltype health standards.

Developing criteria for standards is complex. We are engaged in applied research, concentrating on dose-effect studies of occupational exposures. Recommendations are developed for limits on environmental concentrations, work practices, medical surveillance, protective equipment and clothing, labeling, apprising employees of hazards, monitoring, and recordkeeping.

Criteria packages are developed according to priorities established by a consensus method of weighting. Factors used to set priorities include:

A population index of workers exposed.

A relative toxicity index of substances, ranging from those which produce mild transient effects to those which produce permanent disability.

An incidence index, measuring the number of workmen showing effects from exposure to a particular substance or hazard.

A quantity index, such as the numbers of injury producing devices or the amount of a substance produced annually.

A trend index, giving a projected estimate of usage.

This fiscal year, NIOSH has produced one criteria document (asbestos) and by the end of June, four others (beryllium, carbon monoxide, noise, and heat stress) will be completed. Fifteen such documents are scheduled to be produced during the next fiscal year including arsenic, benzene, cadmium and compounds, chromic acid mist, cotton dust, fibrous glass, lead, mercury, parathion, silica, trichloroethylene, and ultraviolet light.

The Institute also has the responsibility for responding to requests for hazard evaluations from either an employer or employee representative. In making its evaluation, NIOSH determines whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found.

Request forms will be sent to NIOSH's Division of Technical Services in Cincinnati where sampling recommendations and trade names information will be added before the forms are referred to NIOSH's regional operation offices. The industrial hygienist from the Regional Office will be able to determine toxicity, after visiting the workplace in many instances, although some of the cases will require medical examinations, and a small number will result in detailed animal toxicity studies. Whenever we make a toxicity determination, we will attempt to recommend an environmental limit and send this recommendation to the Secretary of Labor, together with all other pertinent data.

The compilation of an annual list of toxic substances is another responsibility of the Institute. Toxic substances are broadly defined to include those that demonstrate the potential to induce cancer, tumors or neoplastic effects in man or experimental animals; to induce a permanent transmissible change in the characteristics of an offspring from those of its human or experimental animal parents; to cause the production of physical defects in the developing human or experimental animal embryo; to produce short or long-term disease or bodily injury, to affect health adversely, or to endanger the life of man when he is exposed to the substance via the respiratory tract, skin, eye, mouth or other routes in any quantity reported.

The 1971 list contained over 8,000 substances, with toxic concentrations and references. This year's list will contain about 16,000 substances including more neoplastic chemicals, such as teratogens and mutagens, and more pesticides which will be identified by trade name. A new column will be added for Chemical Abstract Service Registry Numbers.

Another major responsibility is conducting education programs to provide an adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry out the purposes of the Act. To fulfill this responsibility, we have begun implementation of an enlarged manpower development program. Training grants have been awarded to educational and other nonprofit institutions providing graduate or specialized programs in

occupational safety and health. These grants have as a purpose initiating, strengthening, and expanding graduate, undergraduate and special training programs in order to ensure an adequate supply of qualified occupational safety and health personnel. In 1971, 734 students were enrolled in NIOSH supported courses of which 152 students received stipends.

Short courses have also been established by NIOSH to provide introductory, intermediate, and advanced training and continuing education for the various types of professionals in occupational safety and health. In 1971, 6,500 man-days of training were provided to occupational safety and health professionals, the majority of whom were employees of Federal, State, or local government agencies.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Committee and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Dr. KEY. I think it is important that the committee understand the distinction between our activities in HEW and the Department of Labor's activities. Our major responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are research, development of criteria for standards, hazard evaluations, and manpower development.

Among our responsibilities there are several activities which affect small businesses.

For example, we have provided technical consultations for a number of years to small businesses, and we will continue to do so. This can be obtained either by letter directly to us asking us about particular problems in the health area, or a more formal route through the State Occupational Health Agency, or a new mechanism set up by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and that is a request for hazard evaluation.

We recognize that in general there are more occupational safety and health problems among small employers than among the large employers. In general, the small employer is not as aware of the health hazards as is the larger employer.

Mr. HUNGATE. Let me see if I understood that. Would you repeat that please?

Dr. KEY. In general, there are more occupational health and safety problems arising in small industry than in large on a per capita basis. That is, if you look at, say the workmen's compensation reports, a greater per capita percentage of these come from small employers than from large employers.

Mr. HUNGATE. When we say small, what do we mean?

Dr. KEY. We use the 500 figure as a rough breaking point between large and small industry.

Mr. HUNGATE. You just took all the large industry out of my district. Well, perhaps not all. For example, on the exemption the House proposed and the Senate disposed would have been as to 25 or less. How would that work out? Would it be less hazardous?

Dr. KEY. I do have some figures from a recent survey we did in the Chicago metropolitan area, which I would be very happy to submit for the record. Unfortunately, the employment size group does not cut off at 25. It goes from 8 to 19 and then 20 to 49.

Mr. HUNGATE. The 20 to 49 area would be nice.

Dr. KEY. I will be glad to submit this information. (The information follows:)

In the past, the general public has related occupational safety and health issues to problems of large industrial corporations. However, occupational health

« PreviousContinue »