OVERSIGHT ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT, 1978

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1978

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in room 4232, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Williams, Randolph, and Hayakawa.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WILLIAMS

The CHAIRMAN. We will come to order.

Good morning, everybody.

We welcome you to our second day of hearings on the Occupational Safety and Health Act and its implementation.

This law, intended to insure safe and healthful workplaces for America's citizens, has been in effect for nearly 8 years. And although the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has had some successes in carrying out the congressional intent, it remains clear that there have been far too many failures.

When the OSHA program makes unnecessary demands on employers, that is a failure. When the OSHA program is inefficient, and requires actions by employers which are not really calculated to improve the conditions of workers, that is a failure. But the most tragic failure of the OSHA program occurs when the program is unable to protect workers. When workers are killed, or when they become injured or ill because of the inability of our Government and our employers to provide adequate safeguards for them, the true tragedy of OSHA's failures are spread before us.

If these hearings are to have any meaning, we must be able to understand these failures and understand what must be done to fulfill the promise of OSHA.

We welcome our witnesses to this hearing because they bring to us their experience and their knowledge of our successes and our failures. Today's witnesses have experienced OSHA's successes and, tragically, they have known OSHA's failures. From their experiences and these hearings, we can forge a new national commitment to both our workers and their employers.

This is the second day of three hearings this week. I am very pleased that Senator Randolph, despite a very crowded schedule, can join us this morning. His deep interest in the welfare of our workers of this

country has been manifested in every possible way, and his fairness in insuring that the Federal effort is efficient and effective are known. We have worked together for a long, long time in so many ways, and so much of the legislation that is on the books of this country is a result of the dedication and ability, wisdom, strength, and effectiveness of Senator Randolph.

Senator RANDOLPH. When did you become chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that happened in our system here in 1970. I was not senior person on this committee, I was No. 2. No. 1 was Senator Randolph, who was already chairman of one of our most important committees, and you can only be chairman of one committee, so it was 1970 that I became chairman.

Senator RANDOLPH. The reason I asked you to give that date, Mr. Chairman, is because both you and I and members of the committee know that during this particular period, including the prior year 1969, when we passed the black lung law

The CHAIRMAN. Can I interrupt you a minute?

I was chairman of the subcommittee before that. I was thinking of the full committee.

Senator RANDOLPH. You were the chairman of the subcommittee and you will recall that this subject was a very important one. It had been programed for consideration and we hoped for passage in 1969, but it was delayed for a year while we gave attention to the problems of pneumoconiosis. That measure was taken up, in a sense, out of turn because of the immediate hazard to the health and safety of those afflicted with black lung disease from the mining of coal.

During this considerable period of time, you have been eminently acquainted and a leader in the effort to have such legislation bear fruit for not just a few people, but for the men and women who work in the industries, businesses, where a special need exists for legislation as Occupational Safety and Health Act.

I recall the stated purpose of the act. It is, and I quote, "to assure so far as possible every working man and women in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions."

I remember that an earlier period, Mr. Chairman, the work force of this country was, in a sense, crucified on a cross of too long hours of work, and often too short pay, which was often hazardous and in unhealthful working conditions. That goes back, of course, to the period when we were considering a proposal to pay 25 cents an hour to the workers of this country. We did not even have a minimum wage. That was in 1938.

As we attempted to pass that bill, we had, as you know, Mr. Chairman, confined it to work forces that were engaged in products manufactured for interstate commerce. We could not go into the field of intrastate employment. We have come a long way.

The necessary road has been traveled, but certainly no piece of legislation in itself is the answer.

I have often felt that less than perfect legislation can be applied constructively to a problem through good administration of that law. If there is not expertise and determination to do a good job in an agency however, the intent or wordage of the law may be violated.

Today, we are reviewing legislation that reflected the input of citizens and groups which represented them, as well as all sectors of industry and the work force. That legislation reaffirmed months of effort by the Labor Subcommittee which you chaired, Mr. Chairman, and the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, as we were called at that time.

In the 8 years preceding this hearing today, OSHA has been the subject of widespread criticism. You have mentioned that, Mr. Chairman. In many publications there has even been blatant ridicule of OSHA.

I think it has been often misplaced criticism, advanced by those persons who are uninformed. I feel that although the opposition has been well intended, it has not been as perceptive as one might expect. Because the public at large, as well as industry and labor, is a very definite partner in whatever we do, it is not surprising that criticism has come. We should not become angry. We should look at it, dissect it, and attempt to improve the administration of OSHA.

Criticism is not unexpected in a law of this nature or in the Black Lung Act, which first passed in 1969. In subsequent oversight hearings we found that the Social Security Administration was not giving consideration to what we believed to be black lung cases worthy of attention and affirmative action.

Therefore in 1972, we authored a new act to include not only the use of the X-rays as evidence of that disease, but also pulmonary and respiratory ailments.

No law is a static law if you are dealing with human beings and problems. Finally, we came back a third time in 1977 to enact a reform act for the black lung program.

There were three legislative steps over a period of 8 or 9 years. It was necessary to do that.

We are now reviewing all pending cases and cases that were denied, giving to workers, widows, and orphaned children the fullest opportunity to have each case considered.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this legislation, although the subject of criticism and misunderstanding, is well-intended legislation which will work and work fairly, to assure a safe workplace for ail Americans. Workplaces must be, insofar as possible, free from recognized hazards of serious injury or death.

Secretary of Labor Marshall and Assistant Secretary Bingham have been in office for 21 months. They have been diligently trying to implement significant and positive improvements in the administration of OSHA. I recognize their efforts for the record. The effort to improve OSHA, however, must not cease.

I have indicated that in the Black Lung Act it was necessary that we had to act three times to make the legislation as it is now. The same has been necessary, Mr. Chairman, with occupational programs and technical programs under our Subcommittee on the Handicapped, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

Many times, we have moved it through the Senate only to have it vetoed by the President. Some said-let us quit, we cannot pass this bill. We did not do that. We brought the bill back to this committee. We have even had it stopped even a second time, and finally, the third time we were able to bring the bill into being.

In the final analysis, perhaps I am taking too long this morning, but you know that the Federal Government, the State government and the local government do not pay the bills. The bills, all of them, at all levels of government are paid by people.

So when some say we have so much from the Federal Government, so much from the State government, so much from the local government, and try to point to it as something Federal, State, or localit is not. it is all the taxpayers' money.

It only comes through channelization by committees with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

This morning, Mr. Chairman, there are two West Virginians who sit at the witness table. Peggy Coffman from St. Marys and David Copen from Parkersburg. They represent the Willow Island Disaster Organization.

There is no need to go over the tragedy at Willow Island. Fifty-one Americans lost their lives, when the scaffolding on which they were working collapsed. It fell 170 feet to the ground below. OSHA has had an ongoing investigation. The investigation has revealed numerous violations of OSHA standards and the general duty clause.

Sometimes accidents happen that we cannot put our finger on. It will be difficult to put the finger on the recent accident over San Diegovery difficult. Whether it was two planes involved or three planes involved, to determine what happened. These matters are not easily determined.

As I have said, we have here today Peggy and David. They would not be here if something had been done in compliance with not only the word but the spirit of the OSHA law.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I am very glad that you took this time to put us all in perspective. Nobody can do that better than you, Senator Randolph. The historical view is useful, always. I think it would not be out of way to say that you are, I think, the only Senator who was a Member of Congress during the developing years after the depression, the New Deal days, am I right?

Senator RANDOLPH. I am the only one left on the Hill, from either body, of those first 100 days. I do not want to live in memory, however. I want to live working with you now and tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your introducing your friends and we welcome the witnesses representing the Willow Island Disaster Organization.

Mr. Copen and Ms. Coffman, welcome.

STATEMENT OF DAVID ALLEN COPEN, WILLOW ISLAND DISASTER ORGANIZATION, PARKERSBURG, W. VA., ACCOMPANIED BY

PEGGY COFFMAN

Mr. COPEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is kind of awkward for me to testify in front of a subcommittee like this. After all, I am just a layman, but we are going to give this a good try.

First of all, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in this hearing. We were asked to give our ideas on how you could improve the capability of OSHA to more efficiently do their job.