Statement Of Principles

MSHA is the regulatory Agency which administers the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. Although MSHA's principles largely derive from this Act, they do not exculsively derive from it. One might expect that our principles are contained in the regulations we have published to implement the Act. To a degree, this is true; but the regulations we have now were developed and published before the current Act became effective. For this reason, as well as others, there are some principles that we support which are not evident in our regulations, or in the Act. One of these is the ALARA principle. This principle requires that all unnecessary exposure be avoided; that is, all exposures should be kept "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." Almost all professionals in radiation control can agree with this broad principle; but it would be difficult to get agreement on a regulation which would translate the principle into industry practice. Rather, our regulations specify a limit to exposure for any individual. For radon daughters the current limit is four working level months per year. By having an explicit limit such as this, the ALARA principle often becomes lost and the limit becomes the goal. The principles contained in the Act are equally broad in scope. The principles apply not only for radiation protection, but also for toxic substances and harmful physical agents. The Act states that standards for such substances or agents shall most adequately assure on the basis of the best available evidence that no miner will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity, even if such miner has regular exposure to the hazards dealt with for the period of his working life. The Act also provides that, although protection of health must be our foremost concern, other considerations shall be the latest scientific data in the field and the feasibility of the standards. Our regulations reflected similar principles when they were developed and promulgated. From experience with other health and safety laws, Congress realized that setting and meeting an exposure limit may not be sufficient to prevent disease. The Act, therefore, contains a detailed description of additional provisions to be included, where appropriate, in mandatory safety and health standards. One of these additional provisions requires that miners be informed about the nature of the hazards associated with their job and about the means for their own protection. Another provision requires the use of labels and other forms of warning to inform miners about the hazards, about proper precautions for safe use or exposure, about relevant symptoms of overexposure, and about emergency treatment. We have partially implemented these provisions through regulation. The Act requires also that standards shall prescribe protective equipment and control of technological procedures and that they shall provide for the monitoring of miners' exposures. We have implemented this provision to a degree also through regulation. Finally, the Act specifies that, where appropriate, a mandatory standard must prescribe the type and frequency of medical examinations in order to most effectively determine whether the health of miners is adversely affected by exposure. Additionally, when a determination is made that a miner may suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity by reason of exposure, that miner must be removed from such exposure and reassigned. In order to encourage miners to take the medical examination, the Act also provides that the miner shall not suffer loss of pay as a result of being reassigned. This additional provision on medical examinations has not been implemented by regulation for radiation hazards, nor for most other toxic substances or hazardous physical agents. We believe that this conference will provide us with valuable information on medical examinations for radiation exposure, as well as on other considerations to be used in future regulations. We still question whether our basic exposure standard of four working level months per year is adequate to protect a miner's health. This conference is indeed timely because both MSHA and NIOSH have been reviewing this issue for some time. I would like to reemphasize MSHA's commitment to education and training. MSHA strongly believes that miners should be informed fully about the real and potential hazards associated with their work. They should know the nature of the hazard and the means for protecting themselves from the hazard. The Act also emphasizes the need for training miners by requiring that new miners receive 40 hours of training before working underground and 24 hours of training before working on the surface. The Act also requires eight hours of refresher training annually. This training must include information on the relevant health hazards and the potential consequences of overexposure. Before I close, I would like to mention briefly another source of principles that MSHA often consults to obtain guidance for both the development and enforcement of regulations. These are the various court decisions that are handed down from time to time. Two in particular that I want to stress are the recent Supreme Court Decisions on benzene and cotton dust. Although neither of the decisions has a direct impact on mining or radiation, they do clarify some general principles and directions for regulatory agencies, such as the role of cost-benefit analysis and the need for risk assessment. In closing, I wish us all an open exchange of information for a productive and useful conference.