Statement Of Principles

Dr. Emrick, honored guests, distinguished speakers, ladies and gentlemen, I am Langan Swent, Vice President for Environmental Affairs and Occupational Safety and Health, of Homestake Mining Company. Today, I appear on behalf of the American Mining Congress, as chairman of its uranium mine health subcommittee. The American Mining Congress is a trade association of several hundred members, which include the producers of a large proportion of the nation's uranium. I've been asked to make a statement of principles for the uranium industry. There are two types of principles that apply to industry in general, and specifically to the uranium industry. Some have external origins and apply regardless of what industry does or thinks. Others are generated by industry itself and serve as goals for the industry. I'll discuss some of each type. I'll limit my statement to those principles related to the subject of this conference--radiation hazards in mining. I won't take your time trying to explain some of the unrelated principles that we must all contend with, such as Parkinson's Laws, Murphy's Law, and the Peter Principle. First and foremost, industry has a sincere interest in the well-being and health of its employees. There are two basic reasons for this. One is a basic respect for human lives, especially those of people we see and work with every day. No one in management wants to carry the lifelong burden of blame for a life lost due to poor working conditions. Most uranium and other mining is done in small communities. Production workers, maintenance workers, service workers, shift bosses, foremen, superintendents and managers all live in the same community. They attend the same churches. They serve together in civic activities. Their children go to the same schools. If one employee in such a community loses his life due to poor working conditions, those remaining know in a daily and intimate way the resulting personal tragedy, usually of a bereaved widow and fatherless children. This sad experience makes the community, including industry management, intensely sensitive to the need for maintaining good working conditions in the mines. But what about the segment of industry that does not live in the mining communities? Corporate and owner's offices are frequently hundreds of miles from the communities where the mining takes place. Many of these people are not personally acquainted with the workers, and there are few close personal ties between the two communities. The distant staff are, however, still human beings and motivated by the same basic human respect for life. Mr. Manuel Gomez of MSHA and a member of the planning committee for this conference summed this point up expressively when he told me: "No one group has a corner on compassion." In addition to compassion, there is another factor. In both communities the basic assignment to everyone is to produce profits. In carrying out this assignment, supervisory and management people are acutely aware of the high cost of illnesses and accidents. Their objective of maximizing profits is advanced significantly by minimizing illnesses and accidents at the mines. A business that has illnesses and accidents generally suffers from poor employee morale and high employee turnover, both of which detract from profits. Next, I would like to talk about what industry has done in the field that is the subject of this conference. We have worked at all sorts of methods to reduce exposure of employees since the exposure standards were first introduced and then lowered. Other speakers will go into details of technology, and I'll simply comment on exposure results. These are best shown in Table 1. The table shows the average WL to which miners in U.S. underground uranium mines have been exposed since 1937 through 1980. The trend of decreasing radon daughter concentrations throughout the period is obvious. Figure 1 presents this data graphically and shows the trend at a glance. This record begins in 1937 when uranium, as such, really wasn't being mined or sought. The concentrations given by the U.S. Public Health Service were for a few small vanadium mines which carried uranium as a by-product. A few years later, when the Manhattan project to develop the atomic bomb was begun, these mines became the first U.S. uranium mines and the vanadium became the by-product! The radiation hazard then also received attention and the average concentrations began to decline. As knowledge of the reality of the hazard spread, conditions improved. The search for uranium in the U.S. turned up new and larger ore bodies that had to be mined by large underground mines. These mines involved ventilation planning from the beginning, and when they came into production in the late 1950's they lowered the average concentrations greatly. Then in 1960 the American Standards Association adopted a standard setting 1 working level as a satisfactory condition, and several action levels up to 10WL, at which point removal of people from exposure was called for. As a result of the uranium producing states governors' conference in December 1960, state mine inspection agencies, in the early 1960's, began to adopt and enforce the ASA standards. As a result, average concentrations again declined. In 1967, the Federal Radiation Council recommended an annual limitation of 12 WLM per individual. This represented a great change in the methods of