U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–978 2016

PROTECTING AMERICA’S WORKERS: 

REVIEWING MINE SAFETY 

POLICIES WITH STAKEHOLDERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 21, 2015 

Serial No. 114–32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Dave Brat, Virginia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, Ranking 

Member 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 21, 2015 .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Elliot, Mr. Ed, Director of Safety and Health, Rogers Group, Inc., Vincennes, IN ...................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Kohler, Dr. Jeffrey, L., Professor and Chair of Mining Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA ........................................ 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Sanders, Mr. Stephen A., Director, Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, 

Whitesburg, KY ............................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Watzman, Mr. Bruce, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, National 

Mining Association, Washington, D.C. ........................................................ 53 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55 

Wright, Mr. Michael J., Director of Health, Safety and Environment, 

United Steelworkers, Pittsburgh, PA .......................................................... 46 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48 

Additional Submissions: 

Chairman Walberg: 

Letter dated October 19, 2015, from the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Mine Safety and Health Administration ............................................. 66 

Mr. Watzman: 

Letter dated October 28, 2015, from the National Mining Association 86 

Ms. Wilson: 

Letter dated October 30, 2015, from the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Mine Safety and Health Administration ............................................. 91 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

PROTECTING AMERICA’S WORKERS: 

REVIEWING MINE SAFETY 

POLICIES WITH STAKEHOLDERS 

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2261, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Tim Walberg [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Thompson, Rokita, Brat, 

Bishop, Stefanik, Wilson, Pocan, and DeSaulnier. 

Also Present: Representatives Kline, Scott, Cartwright, and 

Courtney. 

Staff Present: Andrew Banducci, Workforce Policy Counsel; 

Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Ed 

Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Jessica Goodman, Legislative 

Assistant; Callie Harman, Legislative Assistant; Christie Herman, 

Professional Staff Member; Tyler Hernandez, Press Secretary; 

Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; John Martin, Professional Staff Member; 

Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alissa 

Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Loren 

Sweatt, Senior Policy Advisor; Olivia Voslow, Staff Assistant; Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Christine Godinez, Minority 

Staff Assistant; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Richard 

Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Veronique Pluviose, 

Minority Civil Rights Counsel; Saloni Sharma, Minority Press Assistant; and Elizabeth Watson, Minority Director of Labor Policy. 

Chairman WALBERG. Good morning. I decided to go with the flow 

here and have a new gavel this morning. Those of you at the table, 

you know what this is from a long wall scaling machine, and possibly a culprit in the past, but also something that is causing great 

opportunity in our coal mining industry as well. Forgive me if I use 

this today. I just have to make sure I release it ever so slowly with 

the weight that is in it. 

A quorum being present, the Committee will come to order. Good 

morning. I would like to thank you all for joining us today and 

thank our witnesses for being here to continue a discussion on the 

health and safety of American workers. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Each day, men and women across this country work hard to earn 

a living and provide for their families. They deserve thanks for 

doing something they should do, but nevertheless thanks as well. 

They also deserve the security and peace of mind that comes 

from knowing their workplaces are safe and effective policies are 

in place to protect them. That is true whether an individual works 

at a desk, behind a counter, or in a mine. 

Two weeks ago we discussed the important role of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and what it plays in that 

process in providing American workers the safe workplaces they 

deserve. 

Earlier this year we heard from Assistant Secretary Joe Main, 

head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, who discussed 

the work his agency is doing to help keep miners safe. 

On each occasion, we urged the administration to hold bad actors 

accountable, as well as to work with employers and other stakeholders to identify gaps in safety and to implement responsible solutions. The goal is to prevent injuries and fatalities before they 

occur, and this responsible approach is the best way to achieve that 

goal. 

Today, we will hear from a number of stakeholders in the mining 

industry, including operators and labor and safety experts. There 

have been significant changes in the mining industry over the last 

several years, including the way health and safety policies are enforced. 

This hearing is an opportunity to hear what is working and what 

is not. As we all know, thousands of miners are employed by an 

industry that is vitally important to our nation’s homes and businesses. I hope all levels of our governmental system hear that and 

acknowledge that. 

We also know these men and women work in an environment 

that is extremely dangerous, where some of the most basic tasks 

can be life threatening. It is hard to imagine working in a place 

where the very air you breathe is hazardous to your health. That 

is just one of the many hazards miners face. 

We have witnessed the deadly consequences that ensue when 

mine safety and health rules are not followed. Upper Big Branch 

is a painful reminder of what happened when bad actors put profit 

before safety, and a trial currently underway in West Virginia demonstrates the role our criminal justice system can play. 

Upper Big Branch is also a painful reminder of what happens 

when mine safety and health rules are not properly enforced. As 

an independent report from National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health noted, and I quote, ‘‘If the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration had engaged in timely enforcement of the 

Mine Act, and applicable standards and regulations, it would have 

lessened the chances of and possibly could have prevented the UBB 

explosion.’’ 

In response, the agency has taken steps intended to improve 

safety, such as requiring the use of continuous personal dust monitors and proximity detectors, launching an impact inspection initiative, and changing the pattern of violations process. 

We have repeatedly called on MSHA to do better, and while we 

have not agreed with each action it has taken, we are pleased the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

agency is showing more of a commitment to using the tools it has 

to keep miners safe. 

Unfortunately, along with reports of effective enforcement, I have 

also heard reports of inspectors being overly aggressive in their citation policy. With one inspector, the majority of citations were 

found to be in error by a court. We agree that oversight of mine 

safety is imperative to worker safety, but we also want to ensure 

mines can continue to successfully operate and provide good jobs 

and security for its workers. 

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these and 

other actions MSHA has taken in recent years, understanding the 

state of the industry, seeing how current rules are not working, 

and discussing what we can do differently are vital to worker safety and job security. 

That is why we have asked you all to join us today. Each of you 

offers a different and important perspective on the policies in place 

to protect America’s miners. Your views and expertise will help us 

answer a number of important questions. 

Are the policies that have been put in place in recent years working? If not, why not? Is enforcement more effective or less effective? 

Are there additional steps MSHA can take to strengthen protections? 

Your testimonies will help us ensure enforcement and regulatory 

policies serve the best interests of miners and their families. Again, 

I thank you for joining us. We look forward to your testimony and 

continuing this important conversation on worker safety. 

With that, I will now recognize our Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 96978A.001
5 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 96978A.002
6 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for holding this hearing and giving us the opportunity to discuss how we 

can better protect the health and safety of miners. Our Ranking 

Member Scott, I want to thank you also for being here. 

When we discuss the health of miners, we must discuss finding 

ways to end black lung disease, and also to help those suffering 

from the disease secure the benefits they deserve. 

I was moved by the story of Steve Day, a miner, featured in the 

Center for Public Integrity’s Pulitzer Prize winning investigation 

into the black lung benefit system. After 35 years working in the 

coal mines and breathing in coal dust, Steve developed debilitating 

symptoms that made it impossible to perform even simple tasks. 

Instead, he was forced to spend his days sitting in a recliner next 

to the oxygen tank he relied on 24 hours a day. 

He was not able to even lie down to sleep next to his wife. To 

do so would overwhelm his lungs and leave him feeling as if he 

were suffocating. His wife slept restlessly in a nearby bedroom, 

jumping out of bed when he gasped for air and pounding him on 

the back until he coughed. I can only imagine the sleepless nights 

his wife spent fearful that if she should close her eyes for only a 

moment, she would wake up to hear he was not breathing at all. 

Steve represents the thousands of miners suffering from the debilitating disease that has killed 76,000 coal miners. Sadly, after 

years of decline, we have seen an alarming spike in the rate of 

black lung disease, including a ten-fold increase in the most severe 

forms of the disease. 

Black lung disease is entirely preventable. MSHA’s respirable 

dust rule will reduce miner exposure to coal dust. Starting February 2016, mine operators must use a continuous personal dust 

monitor. This tool will allow for real time exposure information and 

give operators the ability to make the necessary adjustments to cut 

exposure faster. 

Beyond prevention, we must also ensure that miners who develop black lung disease get the benefits they deserve. Our Committee has not had a hearing on the Black Lung Benefits Act in almost 25 years. I am glad for this opportunity to hear from our witnesses about challenges faced by black lung claimants. 

Steve Day’s story underscores some of those challenges. Although 

he was clearly suffering from black lung, his former employer used 

biased medical reports that led to the denial of his benefits claim. 

Sadly, it was not until Steve died at 67 and an autopsy was performed that he was vindicated. According to experts, Steve suffered 

from one of the most severe cases of black lung they had ever seen. 

Miners with black lung disease fighting for their lives should not 

also have to fight against unfair tactics that needlessly delay or 

deny deserved benefits. That is why we must pass the Black Lung 

Benefits Improvement Act to provide miners with assistance in securing medical evidence and obtaining legal representation. 

Of course, we know that all mines are not coal mines. Today, we 

will also hear about safety issues in metal and non-metal mines. 

Last year, fatalities in metal/non-metal mines reached a seven year 

high. This reminds us that we must ensure that we have the tools 

we need to protect miners’ safety. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

As we discussed in our April hearing, the Robert C. Byrd Mine 

Safety Protection Act provides those much needed tools. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back. 

[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 16 96978A.003
9 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 17 96978A.004
10 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will be permitted to 

submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing 

record, and without objection, the hearing record will remain open 

for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other 

extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted 

in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witnesses. The first 

witness, Jeffery L. Kohler, Ph.D., is professor and the George H. 

and Ann B. Deike Endowed Chair of Mining Engineering at Penn 

State University. Good Big Ten school. Dr. Kohler recently retired 

from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as 

the associate director for mining, Office of Mine Safety and Health 

Research. 

Mr. Kohler teaches mining engineering courses and has conducted research in several areas, including electrical systems, materials handling, ventilation, quarry engineering, and mining methods. Welcome. 

Steve Sanders is director for the Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center (ACLC). Mr. Sanders founded ACLC, an organization representing coal miners and their families on issues of black lung and 

mine safety in 2001. Mr. Sanders has more than 20 years of experience as a public interest lawyer in eastern Kentucky. 

Mr. Sanders has represented miners in whistleblower discrimination cases as well as black lung benefits cases. Welcome. 

Ed Elliott is director of safety and health at the Rogers Group, 

and is testifying on behalf of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel 

Association. Mr. Elliott has been with Rogers Group in various 

safety positions since 1985. Mr. Elliott has earned numerous 

awards including the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association 

Safety and Health Professional of the Year for 2002, to Aggregate 

Managers Magazine Ag Man of the Year for 2004, and Kentucky 

Crushed Stone Association Miner of the Year for 2014. Welcome. 

Michael Wright is director of health, safety and environment at 

United Steelworkers. As a former United Steelworkers’ member 

myself, welcome. 

Mr. Wright has been with the Steelworkers since 1984. He 

served as a representative to the Bhopal accident investigation. Mr. 

Wright is often the Steelworkers’ representative at regulatory and 

congressional hearings. Welcome. 

Bruce Watzman is the senior vice president for regulatory affairs 

at the National Mining Association. Mr. Watzman has worked for 

the National Mining Association and its predecessor, the National 

Coal Association, since 1980. 

Mr. Watzman was recently appointed as a member of the Mine 

Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee. I welcome you. 

I will now ask our witnesses to stand, as is our requirement 

here, and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the 

record reflect our witnesses each answered in the affirmative and 

you may take your seats. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

remind you of our lighting system, and I think most of you underVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:14 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 096978 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A978.XXX A978

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

stand that. It is a traffic light. As long as it is green, keep going 

in your five minutes of testimony. When it hits yellow, rush 

through or slow down, but to the point when it turns red, end your 

comments as soon as possible to give us an opportunity to ask the 

questions, probably to respond to what you wanted to say anyway. 

Now for the first five minutes of testimony, I will recognize Dr. 

Jeffery Kohler. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JEFFERY L. KOHLER, PROFESSOR AND 

CHAIR OF MINING ENGINEERING, PENNSYLVANIA STATE 

UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 

Dr. KOHLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Jeff Kohler, and 

I am a professor and chair of mining engineering at Penn State. 

I am pleased to be here today to provide a forward looking perspective on mine safety based on my experience of more than 40 years 

in mining, working in academia, government, and industry. 

The global economy continues to be powered by mining and mine 

products. Examples include energy sources like coal, construction 

materials that utilize iron, copper, or aggregates, the rare earth 

minerals, pharmaceuticals, agricultural produce, and thousands of 

every day items that depend on mining. 

The associated mining and processing operations are a significant driver for the economies of the producer countries, 15 percent 

of the U.S. and 25 percent of the global economy, for example. 

Fundamental economic value and wealth are created in the 

transformation of materials from the earth’s crust, and the welfare 

of the men and women who make this possible must be of the highest concern. 

Remarkable gains in mine safety have been made over the years, 

but more remains to be done. The goal must be to eliminate fatalities and further reduce injuries. Indeed, many mining companies 

have committed to the goal of zero harm and are to be commended 

for taking actions to achieve it. 

If we are to be successful on this journey to zero harm across all 

commodities and at all mines, what steps should be taken? We 

need to dispel the belief that compliance with regulations is sufficient to prevent adverse safety outcomes. Regulations provide an 

important base to define minimum performance but regulatory 

intervention alone will not do it. 

Engineering interventions such as new technologies and design 

practices will contribute to improved safety, but alone will not take 

us to the goal. 

Training, the third intervention of a triad, that has characterized 

the long-standing approach to improving mine safety, also will contribute to incremental gains. As with the other two intervention approaches, it has limitations. 

Instead, we should recognize that safety performance is the result of a complex system of organizational, managerial, labor, and 

technical components, and we must manage it accordingly, and involve people from every part of the mining enterprise. 

A framework for this is commonly known as ‘‘a health and safety 

management system,’’ and such systems have been put into practice in other industries and countries. The National Mining AssoVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:14 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 096978 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A978.XXX A978

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

ciation, for example, has led the development of a comprehensive 

system for mining known as ‘‘CORESafety,’’ and has developed materials to expedite implementation. Already, companies in the coal, 

metal/non-metal, and aggregate sectors have embraced 

CORESafety and its principles. 

The journey to zero harm with this approach at its core will not 

happen overnight, and it will not be without its challenges. However, in my view, this approach represents a game changer that 

will enable a change in the safety culture and facilitate obtainment 

of the goal much as has happened elsewhere. 

The in-place regulatory interventions will remain important as 

will enforcement of those regulations by well trained and equipped 

inspectors. Training interventions for everyone involved in mining 

will be as important as ever, but to be effective, we must bring our 

training practices and requirements into the twenty-first century. 

As a start, the findings of a recent National Academies’ study on 

improving self escape for mine workers offers important insights to 

improve the effectiveness of training in general. 

The Mine Act brought new technologies into the mines, such as 

the communications and tracking systems in use throughout the 

coal industry, as well as the long awaited improvements in oxygen 

supply. The principles of human systems integration will allow future engineering interventions to be even more successful. 

Occasionally, despite the best efforts of manufacturers, government, and industry, technology falls short. Such is the case with 

mobile refuge chambers. Miners and mine operators have no confidence that these units can be deployed and utilized to save lives 

during an emergency. Rather than continue a fa ̧ cade, we should 

move forward with a known and workable alternative, the in-place 

shelter. While not perfect nor universally applicable, it represents 

a superior alternative for a majority of miners. 

Finally, I would like to underscore once more the importance of 

mining to this nation and the importance of mine workers’ safety 

to mining. Also, I would note that research and the research products from the great mining schools in this country will help this 

vital industry to remain competitive and to achieve its goal of zero 

harm. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Kohler follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 26 here 96978A.005
14 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here 96978A.006
15 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here 96978A.007
16 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN A. SANDERS, DIRECTOR, 

APPALACHIAN CITIZENS’ LAW CENTER, WHITESBURG, KY 

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member 

Wilson, and the other members of the subcommittee. I appreciate 

your commitment to protect the health and safety of America’s 

miners. 

My name is Steve Sanders. I am an attorney, and I have been 

representing miners and widows in black lung benefits claims for 

over 25 years. I have also represented miners who were victims of 

discrimination for insisting on safe working conditions. 

There are three points that I want to make today. First, black 

lung is a serious problem and it continues to disable miners and 

cause deaths. New data shows that the most serious form of coal 

workers’ pneumoconiosis is present at an alarming rate. 

MSHA’s regulations reducing respirable dust levels and requiring 

continuous personal dust monitors and other measures to get accurate sampling of dust exposure are critical for protecting miners. 

Additional safety measures encouraging miners to use their statutory rights as a miner’s representative and to be protected from 

discrimination are needed. 

Third, the black lung benefits program is a good program. It 

serves people well. But there are improvements needed to make it 

a fairer and more efficient program. 

The continuous personal dust monitor is long overdue, and it is 

necessary to fulfill the promise made nearly 50 years ago in the 

1969 Mine Safety Act, which said that the purpose of the law was 

to provide that working conditions in mines are sufficiently free of 

respirable coal mine dust to permit a miner to work during his entire working life without any disability from pneumoconiosis or occupation-related disease. 

Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis is preventable. It is caused by 

breathing minute dust particles, small invisible particles that get 

into the lung and destroy the lung tissue and cause fibrotic reactions. Some individuals develop a more complicated form of pneumoconiosis, sometimes known as progressive massive fibrosis. 

Recent reports from NIOSH show that in the last 15 years, there 

has been an alarming rise in the incidence of progressive massive 

fibrosis, and the disease is at the highest level since the early 

1970s. 

The continuous personal dust monitor will allow miners to monitor their own exposure to dust. This is the continuous personal 

dust monitor if anyone wants to look at it (holds up device). It is 

designed so that it picks up the air where the miner is working and 

it can show on the monitor what the exposure is. Using that information, miners and management can prevent exposure to excess 

dust. 

I also support MSHA’s new requirement that dust sampling be 

done at no less than 80 percent of average production and that 

sampling be done for the full working shift, not just for eight hours. 

As this dust monitor becomes a tool for miners to use to detect 

high levels of dust, it is important that miners use their statutory 

safety rights. It is important that MSHA strengthen the role of 

what is known as a ‘‘miner’s representative,’’ and MSHA assist 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

miners who feel they have been retaliated against for making safety complaints. 

In my written testimony, I discuss the cases of Scott Howard and 

Reuben Shemwell. They illustrate how some coal companies try to 

discourage miners from making safety complaints, and how they 

retaliate against miners who do make complaints. 

As the judge noted in Mr. Shemwell’s case where the company 

sued him in state court after he had filed a protected mine safety 

complaint, ‘‘The primary effect of the civil suit was to discourage 

future complaints from other miners.’’ 

The coal communities often are small populations, and that word 

goes out, if you will, that the company has responded in a heavyhanded manner. 

I also wanted to make a few comments about the black lung benefits program. It provides much needed financial support for disabled miners and widows, and it provides the miner with medical 

treatment for his respiratory condition, but there are areas that 

need to be improved. 

The facts in the Gary Fox case showed that some companies 

cherry picked their evidence that they showed to the pulmonary experts, that they submit to judges, to support their defense of a 

claim. No family should have to endure what the Fox family suffered. 

Any medical information that the coal company acquires concerning the miner’s condition should be disclosed. 

I see I am running out of time. But if I could just mention that 

the other part of the bill that I think is very important is a provision in there to assist miners in getting attorneys to represent 

them in these claims, because they are complex claims, and to assist miners in obtaining sophisticated medical evidence to support 

their claims. 

Finally, there are unnecessary delays in processing these claims, 

and if the Committee could assist in seeing that backlog of claims 

pending at the Office of Administrative Law Judges was able to be 

processed in a more speedy way, it would be a great service to miners and their widows. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Sanders follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 34 here 96978A.008
19 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 35 here 96978A.009
20 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 36 here 96978A.010
21 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 37 here 96978A.011
22 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 38 here 96978A.012
23 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 39 here 96978A.013
24 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 40 here 96978A.014
25 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 41 here 96978A.015
26 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 42 here 96978A.016
27 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 43 here 96978A.017
28 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 44 here 96978A.018
29 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 45 here 96978A.019
30 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 46 here 96978A.020
31 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 47 here 96978A.021
32 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 48 here 96978A.022
33 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 49 here 96978A.023
34 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 50 here 96978A.024
35 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 51 here 96978A.025
36 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. Mr. Elliott, I recognize you for your five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ED ELLIOTT, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND 

HEALTH, ROGERS GROUP, INC., VINCENNES, IN, TESTIFYING 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member 

Wilson, and members of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. 

My name is Ed Elliott. I am the Director of Safety and Health 

for Rogers Group, Inc. Today, I am pleased to testify on behalf of 

the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. Rogers Group is 

the largest privately owned crushed stone producer in the nation, 

providing construction grade aggregates, transportation, and infrastructure construction services in 11 states. 

The shareholders and leadership of Rogers Group, Inc. are committed to the safety and well-being of their employees, neighbors, 

and communities. 

The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association is the world’s 

largest mining association by product volume. NSSGA represents 

the crushed stone, sand and gravel industries, and its member 

companies produce more than 90 percent of crushed stone and 70 

percent of the sand and gravel consumed annually in the United 

States. 

The aggregate sector has a long history of commitment to becoming the safest and healthy as possible in the production of aggregates. 

We collaborate with government agencies, most notably MSHA, 

with which NSSGA signed an alliance agreement for education and 

training 13 years ago. This has given birth to a number of effective 

compliance assistance programs such as safety alerts derived from 

MSHA injury data. 

Also, we collaborated with MSHA on the development of an instructional video for MSHA inspector trainees on the operator perspective on compliance. 

Nevertheless, we find many of MSHA’s regulations overly burdensome without requisite benefits to health and safety. We believe 

the proposed civil penalties reform rule does not meet its stated 

goals and is likely to result in dramatic increases in penalty assessments. 

Additionally, we are concerned that MSHA’s regulatory agenda 

calls for a rule on crystalline silica to be proposed next April. We 

believe that an objective rendering of the relevant scientific evidence demonstrates that the current permissible exposure limit, if 

fully complied with and enforced, is protective of worker health. 

MSHA is to be applauded for its good stakeholder outreach which 

has been ramped up in the past several years. Also, the agency has 

achieved important reductions in inconsistent enforcement by its 

inspectors, but improvements are still needed with ongoing vigilance by agency leadership. 

Regrettably, however, we believe that MSHA enforcement efforts 

have not focused as much as they should on those conditions of 

highest risk, especially in today’s resource challenged environment. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

We believe that MSHA enforcement should focus on areas of greatest potential peril. 

The dichotomy of more expansive enforcement simultaneous to 

operator success in continuing to reduce injuries and fatalities risk 

undercutting the cost for safety and health. It also jeopardizes the 

perception of MSHA as a genuine respected government entity 

working for the common good. 

Many operators fear there is a bureaucratic push within the 

agency for inspectors to meet a quota of citations written. While 

agency leaders deny any quotas, it is difficult for operators to conclude anything else based on experience. 

One excellent operator last year saw around half of all routine 

inspections result in zero citations. This makes sense because the 

operator has been diligent in investing time and capital into clearly 

meeting all of MSHA’s standards. 

However, what does not make sense, in 2015, inspectors have 

issued a significant increase in the number of citations simultaneous to the company having further improved its safety performance. Inspectors arrive saying in advance this will not be a zero citation inspection. 

I hope you understand operators cannot help but wonder if a decision is based on the facts or on bureaucracy based pressure within the agency to boost the number of citations issued. 

We believe that improvement would be achieved if MHSA would 

establish a pattern of compliance program. This would enable the 

inspectorate to grant some form of enforcement credit to operators 

for outstanding adherence to MSHA standards and keeping low 

rates of injuries. 

We support further investment in compliance assistance as called 

for in the Mine Act. Quality training materials that demonstrate 

compliant practices should become an agency point of emphasis. 

Also, we support revitalization of the agency’s provision of quality compliance assistance to small mine operators. 

Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to work with MSHA in a common 

sense approach to regulation and enforcement. Further, we urge 

that MSHA seek new and innovative ways to help us achieve our 

common goal of zero injuries in a way that the limited resources 

of the Federal Government can be targeted at the most serious hazards. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to respond to any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Elliott follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 58 here 96978A.026
39 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 59 here 96978A.027
40 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 60 here 96978A.028
41 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 61 here 96978A.029
42 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 62 here 96978A.030
43 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 63 here 96978A.031
44 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 64 here 96978A.032
45 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 65 here 96978A.033
46 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Mr. Wright, I recognize you 

now for your five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 

SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT, UNITED STEELWORKERS, 

PITTSBURGH, PA 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Wilson, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Mike Wright. I am the Director of Health, Safety 

and Environment for the United Steelworkers. Our union represents 850,000 workers in a wide variety of industries, including 

the majority of unionized metal and non-metal miners in the 

United States and Canada. Altogether we represent more than 

15,000 miners who work in about 138 mines in the U.S. We represent another 18,000 in Canada. 

I have never worked as a miner personally and do not consider 

myself to be one, but I have done safety and health work in several 

dozen mines in the United States, Canada, Poland, and Russia. I 

am also a member of NIOSH’s Mine Safety and Health Research 

Advisory Committee, and for what it is worth, my Part 48 training 

is updated. 

MSHA’s impact has been enormous, even if we take into account 

the decline in mining employment since 1977, the year the Mine 

Act was passed, the death rate from traumatic injury in our nation’s mines has dropped by 77 percent. That number does not include the miners saved from lingering deaths from diseases like 

black lung and silicosis. 

Of course, MSHA was not the sole cause of the decline. Technological change, mine safety research, mine operators themselves, 

mining unions, all played a part. MSHA was the driving force, the 

catalyst for all the good things that happened. 

Even so, there is lots of room for improvement. We lost 45 miners in mine accidents last year, 25 so far this year. Let me offer 

a few suggestions for improving mine safety and health. Most importantly, there should be no backward steps. Every year there are 

proposals to exempt a particular group of mines from some set of 

legal requirements or to cut back on inspections and penalties, or 

to shift MSHA’s resources away from enforcement toward voluntary programs, or to reward so-called ‘‘safe mines.’’ 

The problem is determining that a mine is truly safe and stays 

that way. Our union had some sad experience with this issue. On 

April 9, 1992, the Westray Coal Mine in Nova Scotia won the prestigious John T. Ryan Award given annually to the Canadian coal 

mine with the fewest injuries. Exactly one month later a methane 

and coal dust explosion killed all 26 miners underground at the 

time. 

We were working at the time to bring the mine into our union, 

and although it never reopened, we continued to represent the families and the remaining miners through the long years of inquests 

and hearings, and that is the worse mining disaster in recent Canadian history. 

Other proposals would disallow MSHA’s citations for first violations, giving those mine operators a free pass to violate the law 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

until caught. Miners, of course, get no such free pass, and do not 

spring magically back to life the first time they are killed, like in 

some video game. 

Others would give more weight to voluntary compliance. We are 

all for voluntary compliance, but the problem with voluntary compliance is not everybody volunteers. In fact, enforcement stimulates 

voluntary efforts. Reduce the one and you will reduce the other. 

What about forward steps? Let me suggest a few. First, MSHA 

enforcement is based on a rule book of mandatory standards. Those 

standards are necessary but no effective corporate safety program 

relies on passive compliance with a rule book. Instead, good programs actively seek out and correct workplace hazards. 

MSHA began preliminary work on a new safety and health program standard six years ago, but it has languished. No new regulation or initiative would have a greater positive impact on mine 

safety and health. 

Second, MSHA should take a careful look at the effectiveness of 

its current Part 48 training programs. The problem is not so much 

the length of the training but the content and especially the methodology. Too often miner training, especially refresher training, 

consists of bored miners watching PowerPoints or videos from 

equally boring instructors without any real interaction or discussion of the safety problems they encounter on the job. A full scale 

review by MSHA including experts in adult education could lead to 

new guidance, regulation if necessary, and in the end, better 

trained miners. 

Third, there should be greater collaboration between OSHA and 

MSHA. There are some hazards that overlap between the two 

agencies. We have seen too many examples where OSHA and 

MSHA go their separate ways and do not work together. That 

should change. 

Finally, let me turn to what Congress could do. The Mine Act is 

a good law but it has a few key flaws which could be corrected. For 

example, MSHA should be given subpoena authority. That is enjoyed by OSHA and by other Federal agencies. MSHA needs that 

to conduct investigations. 

Second, there should be a better way to collect uncollected fines. 

We think that could be done through withdrawal orders, but 

MSHA would need legislative authority to do that. 

Finally, criminal penalties need to be increased. It is scandalous 

that the penalty for killing a miner through a willful violation of 

a standard is one year in prison. To give a counter example, the 

penalty for damaging a coral reef or for harassing a wild burro on 

Federal land is five years. What message does it send when the 

Federal Government values the serenity of a burro over the life of 

a miner. 

These problems and others could be corrected by H.R. 1926, the 

Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act of 2015, introduced by 

Representative Scott, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, 

and co-sponsored by Ranking Member Wilson, and many others. 

We urge its passage. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 72 here 96978A.034
49 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 73 here 96978A.035
50 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 74 here 96978A.036
51 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 75 here 96978A.037
52 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 76 here 96978A.038
53 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. I now recognize for five minutes 

of testimony, Mr. Watzman. 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE WATZMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WATZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

In the time I have, I want to cover two areas, what we are doing 

voluntarily to drive safety performance improvement, and problems 

with MSHA that are impediments to improvement. 

In 2011, after having concluded that the current pace of safety 

performance was not acceptable, NMA initiated CORESafety, a 

first of its kind safety and health management system designed 

specifically for U.S. mining, to take a more aggressive approach to 

improve performance. 

At the heart of CORESafety is fatality prevention and risk management. CORESafety is not about saving miners after accidents. 

It is about identifying at risk conditions, practices, and behaviors 

that lead to accidents in order to prevent them, and it is making 

a difference. 

In our view, risk based safety and health management systems 

are more likely to move safety performance to the next level. Experience shows that safe behavior does not occur in a vacuum. It is 

shaped by leadership and culture. These are characteristics that 

are taught and nurtured, not legislated or regulated. They are at 

the heart of CORESafety. 

Beyond what the industry is doing voluntarily, we are long past 

the time of debating the need to reform MSHA, to modernize the 

agency in the manner in which it conducts its business. 

Despite what some believe, impact inspections, rules to live by, 

and pattern of violations will not get us to zero fatalities. MSHA 

enforcement initiatives by focusing on conditions represents a reactive approach to safety that has had and will continue to have limited access. 

We have an opportunity to drive further improvement but not in 

the enforcement environment that exists today. Today, the mining 

industry is undergoing fundamental change, but the agency is wedded to a model with diminishing returns. From 2010 through the 

end of 2014, the number of operating mines has declined precipitously. 

Yet, during this period, MSHA’s budget, including the request for 

this year, is at a 12 percent increase. The reduced number of mines 

provides an opportunity to re-evaluate how MSHA allocates its resources and how the resources are applied. 

MSHA remains a fix to a model where today it is not uncommon 

for multiple inspectors to be on site every day. This is unnecessary 

and counterproductive, and as one might inspect, enforcement 

leads to adjudication, and this is the second area in need of reform, 

the broken citation conference process. 

Another area in need of reform is MSHA’s selective recognition 

of the incorporation of new technology. The Miner Act established 

within NIOSH the Office of Mine Safety and Health. The office is 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

responsible for research, development, and testing of new technologies and equipment designed to enhance mine safety and 

health. 

While MSHA is not bound by NIOSH’s recommendations, they in 

some respects have become the technical advisor to NIOSH. In this 

regard, we are concerned that MSHA in certain instances prematurely promulgates regulations that impose technology requirements in advance of NIOSH completing the necessary research. 

An example will illustrate this. On September 15 of this year, 

MSHA issued a proposed rule to require operators of underground 

coal mines to equip certain pieces of equipment with what is known 

as proximity detection technology. While proven on an earlier category of equipment, this technology suffers from interference problems on the category of equipment covered by this proposed rule. 

Despite this and despite the fact that NIOSH has not tested the 

technology, MSHA’s proposed rule requires the wholesale application of this where practically every application is unique and most 

are untested. 

Furthermore, this structure of the rule creates a huge disincentive for operators to apply the technology ahead of the rule. 

Similarly, we continue to face problems relative to the new technology required by MSHA’s final coal dust rule. The inability to differentiate between rock dust and coal dust particles gives rise to 

a conflict between the coal dust rule and the agency’s enhanced 

rock dust requirements. 

Additionally, the difference in sample compliance determinations 

using the current sampler and the new sampler continues to raise 

concerns, especially as the February 2016 date for the phase in of 

the second part of the rule looms. 

Finally, it is time for MSHA to adopt the voluntary protection 

program for mining. Some will take this to mean that we are advocating an end to what is commonly referred to as the 4s and 2s, 

the statutory requirement for inspection of all mines. 

Let me be clear. That is not what we are advocating. Rather, a 

VPP would provide MSHA the ability to shift its focus of exemplary 

mines, which it would determine, from an enforcement to a compliance assistance approach. 

In closing, let me stress that to modernize and improve safety 

performance, we need to move beyond a model based strictly on enforcement. Enforcement is necessary, but we have to develop higher standards that engage employees and encourage cooperation. 

CORESafety and the VPP program are positive steps that would 

move the industry in that direction. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Watzman follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 83 here 96978A.039
56 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 84 here 96978A.040
57 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 85 here 96978A.041
58 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 86 here 96978A.042
59 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 87 here 96978A.043
60 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 88 here 96978A.044
61 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 89 here 96978A.045
62 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 90 here 96978A.046
63 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 91 here 96978A.047
64 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 92 here 96978A.048
65 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. As I listened to each of you, it 

is interesting to think about the impact of mining. I jumped on a 

Great Lakes freighter at the Port of Monroe in my district this past 

Sunday night, watching the unloading of tons of coal into the hopper from a Great Lakes’ 1,000-foot cargo ship headed up through 

the Detroit River, Lake Sinclair, Sinclair River, Lake Huron, St. 

Mary’s River, to the Soo Locks. 

All along the way, I saw either piles of aggregates, metallic, nonmetallic, piles for steel mills and power plants all along the way. 

All the results of the mining industry. 

Each of you represent portions of that that we want to make sure 

works, so thank you for your testimony. 

Let me welcome also to our Committee a distinguished colleague 

from Pennsylvania, Congressman Cartwright. Thank you for joining us. Without objection, Congressman Cartwright is permitted to 

participate in our hearing today. I certainly hear no objections. 

Also, it is a delight to welcome a good friend and colleague, Mr. 

Courtney, joining us today as well. 

I recognize myself now for five minutes of questioning. Mr. 

Watzman, on September 26, the Committee requested MSHA provide information related to the mandatory operation of continuous 

personal dust monitors—we have evidence of one here in the 

room—in light of the potential for a new rock dust composition to 

prevent CPDMs from accurately reading coal dust in the atmosphere. 

Just Monday of this week, we received a letter back from MSHA. 

I will place that letter into the record, without objection, hearing 

none. 

[The information follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 95 here 96978A.049
67 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 96 here 96978A.050
68 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 97 here 96978A.051
69 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 98 here 96978A.052
70 

Chairman WALBERG. MSHA states ‘‘The concerns expressed in 

the letter are unfounded.’’ Mr. Watzman, I know you received a 

similar letter this week. Do you agree with MSHA’s assessment of 

CPDM as it relates to changes to rock dust? 

Mr. WATZMAN. We do not agree with the agency. We similarly 

have reached out to the agency to try to work cooperatively with 

them. We sought their participation in undertaking studies underground, looking at rock dust and coal dust, and the possible contamination of one by the other, and up to this point, the agency has 

not been willing to participate in a robust peer review study with 

all of the stakeholders. 

We think it is a problem. We think it is something that needs 

to be studied, and hopefully that will occur before the February implementation date of the second phase of the rule where the CPDM 

is required. 

Chairman WALBERG. What might be the reason for a problem in 

participating in that study? 

Mr. WATZMAN. That is left best to be answered by MSHA. We do 

not know why. We are all seeking the same goal here and the same 

objective, and that is to protect miners, and to do it in an accurate 

manner. We do not know why MSHA has been resistant and not 

willing to participate with us. 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Elliott, MSHA is a unique agency in 

that it is required to inspect all facilities under a regulatory arm, 

at least bi-annually. NSSGA members, your members, will see an 

MSHA inspector at least twice a year if not four times, if I am correct. As a safety and health professional, what do you think would 

improve the interaction between mine operators and MSHA? 

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is a good question. When you look at the circumstances in many instances where an inspector comes on-site, 

they are looking—primarily focused on regulations and what violations they might be able to find. 

I think by opening up a broader dialogue, as Mr. Wright talked 

about, looking at the overall safety and health program at a mine, 

that inspector could get a better idea of what is going on in the 

process of managing safety every day. 

To your point about the inspector may come one, two days, three 

days, maybe even four days in a large mine, but the rest of the 

year, they are not there. They cannot regulate how those miners 

are going to act or the operator is going to act once they are not 

there. 

I think just opening up a broader dialogue about safety as a 

whole versus just regulatory enforcement would be of great benefit 

coming from both sides. 

Chairman WALBERG. A true partnership. 

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes, sir. 

Chairman WALBERG. Dr. Kohler, you have extensive experience 

in this field, especially in the area of safety. You have been following the CPDM rock dust debate, I am certain. Can you provide 

additional insight about the concerns each party is expressing? 

Dr. KOHLER. Yes, I can. First, the use of real-time monitoring devices represents a great opportunity to deal with a lot of occupational health problems that we could not deal with before. The advent of a technology like PDM we viewed 10 years ago, five years 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

ago, as being the single greatest opportunity to eliminate black 

lung because for the first time people would know in real time 

what the exposure was and they would be able to address that exposure. 

More recently, that vision that I and others shared to do that has 

developed a problem, and that is a conflict with the rock dusting 

practice. A few years back in NIOSH’s investigations they determined that the amount of rock dust being used was not protective 

and the amount needed to be increased. 

Further, they determined that the existing standard for rock 

dust and the definition for rock dust also were in need of modification to make it more protective. 

The end result of this is that there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of rock dusting and also rock dusting more 

extensively throughout the mine. 

A few years back we looked at rock dust as a nuisance and we 

never really thought a lot about the impact of rock dust on something like a respirable dust sampling program. It turns out rock 

dust is a confounder. Rock dust shows up on the cassette in the 

PDM the same as coal dust does, and effectively wipes out the ability to know what the coal dust exposure is, which is the bad actor 

we are trying to deal with. 

There are important reasons why this needs to be resolved and 

it is essential that we resolve it through additional testing/experimentation, and we make an informed decision about how to go forward with this important technology. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. My time is expired. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, for her five minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. I yield to Mr. Scott. 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Ranking 

Member asking me to be recognized first. 

Mr. Sanders, the device beside you does real-time monitoring. 

How is that different from what is going on now and why is that 

important? 

Mr. SANDERS. It is important, Mr. Scott; the real-time monitoring 

enables the miner and the mine management to know what the 

level of respirable dust is in the atmosphere where the miner is 

working. 

I am not an expert on these devices but this clips to the miner’s 

clothing and it actually takes in a sample of air. 

Mr. SCOTT. How is that different from what is going on now? 

Mr. SANDERS. What is going on now, the miner is generally not 

being able to get the real-time readout, that is, the information is 

collected but then it is later processed, and the information comes 

back days or even weeks later. The atmosphere is continually 

changing, they are moving forward or retreating in the mine. The 

information that comes back may indicate there was a violation but 

it does not help us to correct the problem to prevent the injuries. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Sanders, the black lung benefits program is an adversarial system. In your testimony you talk about 

the fact that workers are not well represented. What specific proposals would you have to level the playing field so that workers 

could be better represented in this adversarial proceeding? 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

Mr. SANDERS. I think the legislation that has been proposed, the 

Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act, has a very good basis. What 

I think are the problems are partly that attorneys are deterred by 

the complexity, the need to develop sophisticated medical evidence 

with a client who has no resources to pay for that, and the attorney 

cannot be paid for his services by his client. Under the Federal 

black lung program, the attorney that represents the claimant gets 

a fee if the claimant is awarded benefits and if the award is upheld 

through appeals so the award is final. 

In many of these cases, I would say the average is at least four 

years before you get to that point, and in many of the cases, they 

go on longer. 

There was an article recently in the Charleston Gazette about a 

case that went on for 21 years. The attorney representing the 

miner in that claim gets no compensation unless the miner wins 

and the award is upheld. 

The Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act created a way that an 

attorney could get a partial fee through the Trust Fund if they are 

successful at various stages in the proceedings, and then that payment from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund would eventually 

be paid back by the operator if the award is upheld. It also provides for a payment for medical expenses incurred by the claimant 

to develop the kind of sophisticated evidence they need to prove 

their case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Speaking of medical evidence, the Department of 

Labor has decided not to accept medical evidence from a particular 

physician whose diagnoses turn out to be somewhat questionable. 

If someone has been disadvantaged by bogus medical evidence, 

what can be done or what should be done in those cases? 

Mr. SANDERS. In the particular case you are talking about, the 

Department of Labor determined that a particular radiologist’s 

readings where he never read an x-ray to show complicated pneumoconiosis or progressive massive fibrosis despite many cases 

where miners died and their autopsies proved they had that condition. They said that any claimant whose claim turned on that doctor’s reports would get another shot at it. I think that was a good 

result. 

I think so much of this really is a battle of medical experts, so 

it is hard to know at what point does the expert simply become a 

fraud. It is hard to remedy that, other than good representation in 

the individual claim. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Wright, you indicated the importance 

that safety inspectors have subpoena power. Why is that important? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Because in doing especially a complicated investigation like Upper Big Branch, they need to be able to compel testimony and they need to be able to compel the production of documents which may not be documents that are normally required 

under the Mine Act but which are nevertheless relevant. 

In the Upper Big Branch investigation in particular, since MSHA 

did not have subpoena authority, it had to work through the state 

agencies and really do its investigation through the state, which 

did have that subpoena power. That worked in West Virginia. It 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

would not work in Nevada, it would not work in Wyoming, where 

there is no such state power. 

It makes a lot of sense to us that since OSHA has that kind of 

authority, since many other Federal agencies have that kind of authority—I think the example I used in my written testimony was 

the Federal agency charged with promoting the use of popcorn actually has subpoena authority. MSHA does not, and that should be 

corrected. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize now the 

gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairman, I appreciate you organizing 

this hearing. I appreciate the witnesses’ testimony this morning. 

Mr. Sanders, are you familiar with the concept of a voluntary 

protection program as used in other agencies, not MSHA, but in 

other agencies? 

Mr. SANDERS. No, I am not. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. Mr. Wright, are you familiar with the 

concept of a voluntary protection program as used in other agencies? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, very familiar. 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you have positive things to say about such a program? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I have positive and negative things. 

Mr. ROKITA. Tell us the positive. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I think a lot of companies want to be in the voluntary protection program in part because—this is OSHA now—in 

part because it frees them from routine OSHA inspections, but it 

also is kind of a badge of honor. 

Mr. ROKITA. Creates good competition, higher level. I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. One of the things we like about it is that a 

company that is unionized cannot be in the VPP unless the union 

agrees. There is a pretty good check on that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. Thank you, Mr. Wright. For the benefit of 

Mr. Sanders, I would like Mr. Watzman to go into some detail 

about the voluntary protection program. I have a bill that several 

of us in Congress are on that is trying to codify that as an eligible 

use across agencies, including MSHA. 

I would like to know in particular more detail on how you think 

MSHA and therefore miners would benefit from using a VPP. 

Mr. WATZMAN. Thank you for the question. We think it will work 

for MSHA. We think the experience in OSHA shows that it is 

transferrable to MSHA, and MSHA can structure the program, put 

in the proper safeguards, so that if a mine falls off the wall, as 

Mike talks about, and does not maintain a certain level of performance, they can be removed from the program. 

Most importantly, we think it will give MSHA the ability to 

refocus how it allocates its resources and conducts its work. Right 

now, the inspection regime is very rigid. The Mine Act uses the 

phrase ‘‘in its entirety,’’ and MSHA interprets ‘‘in its entirety’’ in 

the broadest sense possible. 

There are areas of mines where hazards present themselves. 

There are other areas of mines where those hazards do not exist. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

There are mines in this country that have existed for 30 or 40 

years or more, where you travel down entries where rocks do not 

move. They have not moved in 30 years. Yet, MSHA commits the 

same resources inspecting that portion of the mine that they do 

where the hazards present themselves. 

That is what we think that would afford the agency. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. In fact, the VPP companies that I have 

seen in different industries, to get to that standard, to be let go 

from some of the routine inspections that Mr. Wright kind of described, you have to get to even higher levels of compliance than 

you would normally. Is that correct? 

Mr. WATZMAN. That is exactly right. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. Mr. Elliott, you talked about a pattern 

of compliance program. Is this the same as VPP or is this something different, or just as useful or another tool that could be in 

MSHA’s tool box? 

Mr. ELLIOTT. I think to your point, it is very similar and it would 

be a situation where if the mine could demonstrate compliance, as 

the VPP points to, then I think the similarities would be very close. 

Mr. ROKITA. Anything else about a pattern of compliance program that works at the state level somewhere or any kind of model 

we might study further? 

Mr. ELLIOTT. My experience has been in a number of states that 

they are more focused on coal. The crushed stone, sand and gravel 

is not the coal industry. When we look at those agencies that may 

come in and are supportive and helpful—I think the MSHA Small 

Mines Office was an example of that, where they went into the 

small operators and tried to help them understand compliance and 

tell them the ways they could be more efficient if they were more 

compliant. 

I think those are the steps where MSHA was somewhat moving 

in that direction. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Now, reading my 

script here, I recognize my Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Sanders, I want to commend 

you for your 25 years of commitment to representing coal miners 

and their survivors attempting to obtain black lung benefits. 

Can you explain to us why it is often difficult for miners to find 

legal representation for black lung benefit cases? Why are we seeing a spike in new cases of black lung? How do you think the new 

respirable dust rule will affect this trend? People are dying. 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes. I think it is difficult for miners and widows 

to find representation because of the complexity of the claims, the 

bureaucratic complexity, and sophistication of the medical evidence. We are talking about proving disability in a pulmonary system and cause of disability. Those are fairly complex questions and 

require—you really have to develop some knowledge about that. 

In addition, because the claimant cannot pay their attorney, 

many attorneys do not want to take this kind of work on with the 

expectation that they are not going to get paid until the award is 

final, which may be several years from now. There is other legal 

work that you can do that you can get paid up front or you are 

going to get your fee soon after. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

The amount of the fee is not that high. On an individual claim, 

it is based on your services. It is based on the amount of time you 

put into the case. It is not as if you are handling a large fee contingency type case. 

With regard to—did you ask why are we seeing an increased 

number of cases of black lung? There is some speculation about 

that. My own opinion is that modern mining methods using continuous mining machines generate a great deal of really fine particulate, really fine coal dust and rock dust. 

In eastern Kentucky, a lot of the coal seams that they are mining 

now are separated by bands of silica rock, so when a continuous 

miner operates, it cuts into both the coal and the rock, and the 

miners are exposed to that in the air. 

I think years ago in eastern Kentucky a lot of the mining was 

done shooting the coal, and they were not creating this fine particulate matter, mixed coal and rock. I think that is part of the problem. 

Another part of the problem could be miners are working longer 

shifts consecutively so there is not time for the dust to clear out 

of their lungs before they go back to work and are exposed again. 

That is another theory that is being looked at, I think. 

Was there a third part to your question, Ms. Wilson? I am sorry. 

Ms. WILSON. Yes, I wanted to know how the continuous personal 

dust monitors would help. 

Mr. SANDERS. They could help a great deal because if you are 

using this and it has this digital readout area and you can look at 

that and you can see what the exposure is where you are working, 

then you can say I do not have good quality air, something needs 

to be done. 

Mines use environmental controls to get good quality air into the 

areas where the miners are working. It could be a matter of changing the way the curtains are aligned or increasing the amount of 

air flow into that particular area. It would reduce the miners’ exposure to excess respirable dust immediately. 

Ms. WILSON. Mr. Watzman, you suggested that MSHA was not 

cooperating with the industry, and that you had some complaints 

about the continuous personal dust monitor and the possible interference caused by rock dust. Can you elaborate on that for me so 

I understand exactly what you mean? 

Mr. WATZMAN. Yes, I can. Let me state first that we were involved in the development of the CPDM. We support it. We supported the development. We support its application and use. 

We have to make sure that we are not substituting one problem 

for another. There is little confidence in the technology that is used 

today, the gravimetric sampler. We need to make sure the results 

from the CPDM are accurate, and that is what is lacking today. 

When we are sampling, rock dust becomes entrained in the air, 

and the dust sampler is picking up both rock dust and inert dust, 

and we did a search and could not find any health studies that indicated any adverse health outcomes related to rock dust exposure. 

Ms. WILSON. I do not want to run out of time. We have a letter 

from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, 

and he says he is working with you and in collaboration with the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

mining industry to conduct in-mine evaluations to identify and 

apply best practices for managing rock dusting and dust sampling. 

Mr. WATZMAN. We wish them well on that. 

Ms. WILSON. Let’s hope that is taking place and you have the opportunity to experience that. 

Mr. WATZMAN. It may be taking place episodically at individual 

mines, but I can tell you that it is not taking place with the industry as a whole, to the degree that we conducted our own sampling 

and provided the results to the agency, and have yet to have a response from the agency in terms of meeting with us to discuss the 

results we presented. 

Chairman WALBERG. The gentlelady’s time is expired. We will 

move on. 

Ms. WILSON. We do have a response. Perhaps it just has not gotten to you. 

Chairman WALBERG. We look forward that all responses go to 

the right sources and we take appropriate action and save miners 

and an industry as well. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for 

Mr. Watzman and Dr. Kohler. When I visited Nyco Minerals in my 

District, which is one of the few mines in the world that produces 

wollastonite, a mineral with wide commercial use for ceramics, 

brakes, clutches, and plastics, it was clear to me that we need to 

do more to support the workers that help keep our nation’s global 

competitive edge. 

What can be done in your opinion to strike that intelligent balance between protecting these workers and making sure we do not 

curb further economic growth by stifling these companies with litigious regulations? I will start with you, Mr. Watzman. 

Mr. WATZMAN. I think it goes back to what we have touched 

upon on so many occasions here, and that is creating a cooperative 

environment where we and the agency sit down and address problems rather than going to our respective corners. 

Mining is a very tough business and it is a very challenging business today. I look at the coal industry where the number of mines 

since 2011 has dropped by 18 percent. The number of mines in this 

country has dropped overall in that same period by 4 percent. Yet, 

MSHA is getting more resources and is refusing to change the way 

they conduct their business. 

I think we all honestly have to ask ourselves the question is the 

old model working. We have been under the Mine Act for 46 years. 

We have made phenomenal progress as an industry working with 

our workforce, working with regulators, but after 46 years of one 

model, should we not be better than we are? 

That is really what drove us to CORESafety, to look outside the 

box, to look for a different model that is not enforcement oriented, 

but is proactive rather than reactive, identifying risks at the outset 

and engineering those to the degree you can out of the work environment to better protect our workers. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Dr. Kohler? 

Dr. KOHLER. I would say two things. First of all, I think that sitting down and talking, a partnership, is critical. The toughest problems we faced in mine safety and health in the past 15 years were 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

best solved when industry, organized labor, MSHA, NIOSH, manufacturers, all came together, rolled up their sleeves and tried to 

solve the problems. I think we have to have that kind of partnership. 

Secondly, I fully support this idea of health and safety management systems, whether we call it CORESafety, which the NMA has 

rolled out, or implementation of VPP, I understand there are good 

and bad parts, there are good and bad actors. 

It might be appropriate for an august body like the National 

Academies to actually resolve that question and provide guidance 

on how we can implement that fully. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Elliott. 

Following up on concerns for maintaining worker safety, one mine 

safety group in my district raised concerns that workers have become increasingly concerned with being held personally liable for 

accidental non-compliance. It is my understanding and you shared 

today that over the last few years, the number of citations given 

at mines has increased greatly. 

How do we ensure worker safety and maintain an appropriate 

oversight system while also reforming the current challenges with 

this burdensome citation policy? 

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is a heck of a question. If I could do that, I 

would probably be in Congress. 

Really, when we look at the circumstances around trying to look 

for people to come in this industry, it is tough today. It is hot, it 

is cold, it is dirty, it is muddy, all those things are involved. 

Like Mr. Watzman said about the approach of the agency, from 

maybe many, many years ago, when the Mine Act first took effect, 

there was methods that were successful at that time. 

I think today, we are in the twenty-first century, and we need 

to get greater efficiency to reach the root issues that are affecting 

the mining environment. Generations change. My generation is 

slowly but surely leaving the industry. Younger people are coming 

in who are more dynamic and more concerned about their safety. 

I think the agency has to look at ways to change to meet the 

changing demographics of mining. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the 

gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wright, I am going 

to go back to a question that Mr. Rokita asked you because I think 

you got cut off a little bit. You mentioned there were positives and 

negatives to the VPP. If there are any more positives you want to 

mention or any negatives, now is your chance. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I would like to mention some of the negatives. The 

program started out, I think, very usefully, but in the last administration in particular, the metric for its success as the administration saw it was how many companies they could get into VPP. We 

saw company after company that really did not deserve to be there. 

One of the things that sort of taught us that was we saw a lot 

of fatalities happening in VPP companies. We went back and 

looked at what caused the fatality, and it was really in some cases 

non-compliance with standards, and in other places, it was a real 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

failure to find and fix hazards that should have been obvious. 

Those companies should never have been in VPP. 

In addition, we think what drives companies into VPP—what 

drives voluntary compliance in general—is a strong enforcement 

program. We generally supported the program, but we did not support and would not support taking resources away from enforcement and putting them into VPP. 

Enforcement—there are just too many hazards out there. We see 

too many violations of law. Even with the 4s and 2s, we still see 

people dying in mines from hazards that went unrecognized, from 

hazards that may have been recognized by the company but they 

did nothing about it, and from things that may not be covered by 

the standards but are nevertheless very serious problems. 

Enforcement is what drives voluntary compliance. We cannot cut 

that back. VPP might be fine but not at the expense of a strong 

enforcement program. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. Mr. Watzman, you looked like you wanted to respond when Mr. Sanders was talking about why we are at 

levels back to the early 1970s with black lung. I just wanted to give 

you the chance. You had that look on your face. 

Mr. WATZMAN. Well, I appreciate that opportunity. I have said 

before, there is a problem in the industry with black lung, but it 

is not the problem that has been characterized in the public domain. It is not the problem that has been characterized by the 

agency. It is a geographic problem in a small area. 

What I do is I go back to the NIOSH x-ray surveillance program 

data. NIOSH conducts an x-ray surveillance program. They take 

their van around the country, and they examine miners who want 

to voluntarily participate. We wanted it to be mandatory, but it is 

still voluntary. 

When I look at Utah, for example, they conducted 500 examinations. They expected the rate of black lung to be 4 percent, the rate 

was zero. In Illinois, they expected it to be 4 percent, it was one. 

In Indiana, they expected it to be 4 percent, it was one. In Maryland, they expected it to be three, and it was zero. 

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Watzman, just for time reasons, that is the main 

point? 

Mr. WATZMAN. It is not the problem that has been characterized 

is the point I want to make. 

Mr. POCAN. I assume you would agree this is not a fair characterization either. In a recent phone call released during the criminal trial of former CEO of Massey Energy, Don Blankenship, he 

said that—these are his words—‘‘Black lung is not an issue in this 

industry, that it is not worth the effort that they,’’ meaning MSHA, 

‘‘puts into it.’’ I assume you do not agree with that statement. 

Mr. WATZMAN. As I have said before, there is a problem but it 

is not the problem that has been characterized. 

Mr. POCAN. You do not agree with that statement? 

Mr. WATZMAN. I do not. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. Mr. Wright, in the remaining very little 

time I have left, there has been some talk about removing stone 

quarries from coverage under the Mine Act, putting them under 

OSHA. We had a hearing recently on OSHA, they can inspect one 

site every 140 years, if they get around to everything. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

Can you just talk a little bit about why that might be a problem? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I will just give you one sentence, this is actually 

two sentences. Last year, we had 15 deaths. I am sorry. This year 

so far, we have had 15 deaths in metal and non-metal mines. Nine 

of them have been in stone, sand, and gravel. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. I apologize for stepping 

out of the Committee meeting, but I was talking about coal while 

I was there. 

Chairman WALBERG. Good for you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And the export of some great coal that I think 

is mined in Mr. Cartwright’s district that we export. 

Thanks for having this hearing. It is an incredibly important 

hearing for me personally. My grandfather was a coal miner, surface miner, but had black lung, diagnosed with black lung. 

I will just put a plug in for advocacy when folks are trying to advocate for whatever they are pursuing from a Federal perspective, 

use your members of Congress as advocates as well when you are 

looking at programs like that. 

Dr. Kohler, it is always great to have someone here from home, 

we are proud of your leadership and the work that you do at Penn 

State and for mining and preparing mining engineers. 

The first question is for you. I apologize if this has been covered 

already. It has to do with the use of the refuge alternatives in the 

event that a miner cannot leave in an emergency. These alternatives are supplied with food, water, breathable air, and have 

been required since 2009. Based on NIOSH concerns, MSHA has 

issued a request for information related to the use of refuge chambers. 

Can you discuss the concerns about refuge alternatives in underground coal mines? 

Dr. KOHLER. Yes. The specific concern with respect to the mobile 

alternatives is in principle, it is a great idea, but given the spatial 

constraints in an underground coal mine, given the requirements, 

the time period in which they need to remain functional, given the 

complexity it takes to understand how to deploy these systems, and 

given a number of engineering problems that have surfaced over 

the last five or six years, it is clear that this technology, despite 

the best efforts of manufacturers, MSHA, NIOSH, and everyone 

else, is simply not making it. That is the reason why miners have 

no confidence in it at all. 

We have better alternatives out there. We need to get on with 

that. While it is true that the in-place shelter, for example, will not 

work in every single mine, and in some cases, there are distance 

concerns, it would serve a majority of miners, unlike the current 

technology. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mining engineering obviously is a highly technical specialty and there is a great need for mining engineers in 

the United States. How can the industry and government attract 

students to that profession? 

Dr. KOHLER. The greatest deterrent to students moving into the 

profession is the public image that the industry has. Most people 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

do not realize how modern mining has become and in most regards, 

environmentally sustainable, responsible from a safety and health 

perspective. Most people do not understand the value of mine products in the economy. They do not understand that 15 percent of our 

gross national product is tied to mining. 

To the extent that the industry can do a better job of marketing 

itself, and we like to say, we do not often have to convince the kids 

to come into mining, it is their mothers that present the real challenge. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Watzman, over the last 10 years, 

the number of coal mines operating in the country obviously has 

been sharply reduced. We have sadly watched that occur, as really 

the coal industry has been under attack. 

How many coal mine inspectors does MSHA currently employ, 

and what have the mine operators seen as a result of having fewer 

mines but the same number of inspectors. 

I would also like you to reflect on—I have an MSHA unit in my 

district. They are great people. I have gone early morning’s before 

they go out, so it is a real early start. Some of the things I have 

heard from the individuals in the coal mines is some of the new 

ones coming on just do not have practical experience. They have a 

great education. 

Any reflection on how the experience as we have attrition have 

lost people who have actually worked in mining that have gone on 

to become inspectors, and now sometimes we do not have that practical experience today. 

Mr. WATZMAN. Let me start with your first question. I do not 

know the exact number, but I believe MSHA has approximately 

700, give or take a few, coal mine inspectors. That number has remained pretty constant for the last number of years, even though 

the number of coal mines has dropped precipitously. 

What that means is you have a greater presence of MSHA inspectors at the mines that remain operating in those districts. Let’s 

be clear. When MSHA is on-site, that involves management as 

well. That takes away from their normal safety activities because 

they accompany MSHA as they go through the mines. 

There is a detrimental effect to a degree from the perspective of 

how companies manage safety at the operations. 

As I said in my testimony, it is not uncommon today in some of 

the mines, especially in Appalachian, to have four, five, six MSHA 

inspectors on-site every day the mine is operating. That is a dramatic change from what we saw in the past. 

You are right. As the generation has changed, inspectors who 

were better seasoned—this will change over time as this generation 

learns more about what they are doing—we are seeing things that 

were not cited in the past, that are being interpreted differently by 

this generation as they come out of the Academy. What they have 

learned is they have learned the book. That is what they follow. 

They follow 30 CFR. That is their gospel, if you will. 

We have seen that dynamic change. Hopefully, with time, as 

these individuals become more experienced, we will see the pendulum swing more back towards the middle. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s 

time has expired. I now recognize, staying with Pennsylvania, the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 

having me here in the subcommittee. I also want to recognize Mr. 

Thompson, thank you for having me as well. Thank you also for 

sharing that, it was your grandfather that had black lung. 

I have an awful lot of black lung sufferers and recipients in my 

District. We can argue about the prevalence level, you know, the 

amount of black lung that is out there, but nobody would disagree 

that we want to make the process fair, and thank you for nodding 

in agreement, Mr. Watzman. I appreciate that. 

I am moving this microphone as far away as I can. 

Chairman WALBERG. It may be black lung in the system. I am 

not sure. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Sanders, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that doctors at 

Johns Hopkins who were hired to help coal companies fight black 

lung disease—— 

Chairman WALBERG. I wish we were more accommodating to a 

member who joins this Committee. My apologies. We are not taking 

your time away for that. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

This Pulitzer Prize winning study found that doctors at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore who were hired to help coal companies fight 

against black lung claims have systematically misdiagnosed miners 

with black lung as having other non-compensable diseases, thus 

preventing those miners from accessing benefits. 

It is not a funny situation. The report found that more than 

1,500 black lung claims since the year 2000 were handled—— 

Chairman WALBERG. If you would like to join us up here, we 

have not had that problem. Let’s try that. I know it can be irritating when you have that going in your own ear. This makes us 

wish for our new Committee chambers, right? 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. My first day and I get to be on the upper dais, 

pretty good. 

Chairman WALBERG. This is a great subcommittee. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are talking about 

Johns Hopkins and how they had a doctor who misdiagnosed black 

lung disease. His name was Dr. Paul Wheeler. The investigation 

revealed that in more than 1,500 black lung claims since the year 

2000, Wheeler had never once in more than 3,400 x-ray readings 

interpreted an x-ray as positive for complicated black lung, a condition that would presumptively entitle somebody to black lung benefits, but many other doctors in autopsy results revealed the presence of the disease. 

In response to this Pulitzer Prize winning investigation, Johns 

Hopkins suspended the program to their credit. 

My question to you is what should be done to remedy this situation for miners or their survivors? Mr. Sanders? 

Mr. SANDERS. I think that the miners or survivors whose claims 

contained evidence from Dr. Wheeler or the other radiologists at 

Johns Hopkins should be reviewed. That is they should have an opVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:14 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 096978 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A978.XXX A978

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

portunity to have their case readjudicated without the questionable 

evidence. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Even more troubling to me, Dr. Wheeler was 

certified by NIOSH to classify lung x-ray readings. He had to pass 

a rigorous test and become a so-called ‘‘B Reader.’’ You are familiar 

with that term? 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. He had to be re-tested every four years, and 

he apparently read the x-rays correctly on the NIOSH test, but he 

chose to under read x-rays in litigation. What should be done about 

that? 

Mr. SANDERS. That is a very difficult question. NIOSH has operated the B Reader program as a way of classifying x-rays in what 

is called the ILO system for pneumoconiosis for some time. It is 

supposed to provide us with a good quality reading, not just for evidence purposes in black lung benefits claims, but actually it is useful for epidemiological studies. 

I think there needs to be some type of a quality assurance program, and NIOSH has to investigate questionable B Reader practices, and suspend or terminate the person’s B Reader status as a 

result of their investigation. They have to have that authority. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. That makes sense. Mr. Sanders, this investigative series also revealed something that was even maybe more disappointing. It showed that coal company lawyers withheld medical 

evidence from claimants and their counsel where evidence proved 

that the miners had black lung. 

My question for you: is it true that coal companies have fought 

claims by cherry picking medical reports to support their defensive 

claims and withholding medical reports that would corroborate the 

presence of compensable black lung disease? 

Mr. SANDERS. That is true. In the written materials, I discussed 

the case of Gary Fox, and if you look, it is a reported decision from 

the Court of Appeals. If you look at the facts of that case, it corroborates it, absolutely, not only did they withhold evidence from 

the adjudicator, but they cherry picked the evidence that they sent 

to pulmonary specialists. Then when they got the report from the 

pulmonary specialists, they submitted that as evidence. They really 

had skewed the record in Mr. Fox’s case, and it has happened in 

other cases. Hopefully, it is not very common. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Sanders, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has reported that many black lung claimants 

are without the necessary medical and legal resources to secure 

benefits, and you have discussed that here today. 

Given the adversarial nature of black lung proceedings, DOL 

says only 30 percent of miners have legal representative where 

they file a claim. The coal companies always have lawyers, do they 

not? 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, they do. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Why are so few miners represented by counsel? 

Are there obstacles beyond the ones you have already discussed to 

securing legal representation? 

Mr. SANDERS. You know, there is a limited number of attorneys 

frankly that are willing to take these kinds of cases on. I am pretty 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

familiar with most of the ones that are in the region of the country 

that I live in. They are just not very many of us. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Let me ask you this. I filed—I am the author 

last month of the Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act of 2015, 

and I am proud to say I have original co-sponsors, Ranking Member Wilson and Representative Scott, on the bill. Are you familiar 

with that bill? 

Mr. SANDERS. I am. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Do you believe it remedies many of the situations you and I have been discussing here today? 

Mr. SANDERS. I do. Earlier, we talked particularly about representation, the opportunity for an attorney if they are representing a claimant to get compensation for their time during the 

course of the adjudication. I think that would be very helpful. 

I think also the opportunity to get reimbursement for medical expenses so you could better develop the evidence that proved the 

claimant is entitled to black lung benefits. I think those are very 

important provisions. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I thank Mr. Sanders, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I am sorry I broke your PA system. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. We will find an attorney. 

Thank you for participating, and thank you to the panel, appreciate the work all of you do for the industry, for individuals, for the 

economy, and all that goes with it. 

Now we have time for closing, and I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, for her closing comments. 

Ms. WILSON. First of all, I would like to thank the witnesses for 

being here today. I would like to thank Chairman Walberg for holding this hearing. I appreciate the conversation from the members 

of the Committee. 

This is very emotional for me. I just cannot even imagine, in fact, 

I am planning a trip to a mine, because I want to see. I am from 

Miami, Florida. I have never experienced this. 

In the recent news, we have heard some questions about whether 

black lung disease is worth MSHA’s efforts. 

One cannot possibly look at the steep rise in the rates of the disease and conclude black lung is not worth MSHA’s efforts. One cannot hear Steve Day’s heart breaking story and stories of other men 

and women who have suffered from this incurable disease and conclude black lung is not worth MSHA’s efforts. 

One cannot think about Steve Day’s widow and the thousands of 

widows she represents and conclude black lung is not worth 

MSHA’s efforts. 

Mining is one of the most dangerous jobs in America, and the 

men and women who take on this work deserve MSHA’s reasoned 

efforts to protect them against this horrible disease. Black lung disease is man-made, and we have the power to end it. 

More than a year after MSHA’s new respirable dust standards 

went into effect, sampling results showed that coal operators are 

complying with the rule and miners are better protected. The upcoming phases of the rule do even more to protect miners. 

Most coal operators are deeply committed to the health of their 

employees and recognize their responsibility to care for those 

former employees with the disease. Unfortunately, some coal operaVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:14 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 096978 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A978.XXX A978

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

tors refuse to live up to that responsibility, choosing instead to use 

the medical and legal system to deny miners their deserved benefits. 

Steve Day’s story brings to life the heart breaking consequences 

of unfair tactics designed to release coal mine operators of their responsibility to afflicted miners. 

I thank the witnesses again today for being here and helping us 

better understand the obstacles claimants face in securing their 

benefits. We have to do better. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you are just as committed as I am 

to protecting miners’ health. I hope we can find common ground 

and work to pass provisions in the Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act. 

I also want to thank the witnesses for their discussion on the legislative reforms needed to improve the Mine Act. As mentioned 

during our April meeting, I hope we can work together on needed 

improvements to the Mine Act. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. I appreciate those 

remarks. I think we do certainly agree that this is an industry 

across the board, whether it be coal mining—I had the privilege of 

going down into underground mining operators on several occasions, including once with Mr. Main. In fact, we drove past his 

house, boyhood home, on the way to that mine. We saw families 

who have had their lives affected in a positive way from having 

mining operations there for generations, and a continuous operation. 

We also have had the opportunity to meet miner families who 

have now lost their occupation. There is that challenge we have as 

well. 

I have had the opportunity to be in surface mining operations in 

North Dakota, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, with coal, with 

metallic/non-metallic mines, also to be under the City of Detroit in 

its salt mines, a totally different operation, with gas powered 

Gators running around in that mine, not like you would find in a 

coal mine. 

It is a diverse industry, and it is an industry that needs to work 

cooperatively with the regulator, but vice versa as well. There has 

to be a partnership. I do not know how in the world it can be 

moved forward in safety factors as well as the continuity needed 

for providing a secure industry without a partnership relationship, 

that a regulator looks to the best practices of the industry, and the 

industry makes sure its operations with as much as possible compliance from everyone in the industry, works together and to ferret 

out the bad actors, that thankfully are far and few between. 

When we look back at the impact of Upper Big Branch, for instance, and now the industry that has taken over that and is struggling with the economy because of the challenges brought on by a 

bad actor, we need to make sure that we do not just step in with 

regulation, but we do it right. 

That is what I think this testimony has given today from all 

sides of the ledger to help us as we move forward, but move forward with a purpose in mind, individuals, miners, families, and operators remain as the central focus for success in the industry, and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

ultimately success for what they produce in the lives of the rest of 

us. 

Thanks again for the Committee members, the staff, as well as 

those who have given testimony today for making this, I believe, 

a valuable hearing. 

There being no further agenda for the Committee, with the bit 

in hand, I declare it adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Watzman follows:] 

[Additional submission by Ms. Wilson follows:] 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 01 here 96978A.059
87 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 02 here 96978A.060
88 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 03 here 96978A.061
89 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 04 here 96978A.062
90 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 05 here 96978A.063
91 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 137 here 96978A.053
92 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 138 here 96978A.054
93 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 139 here 96978A.055
94 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 140 here 96978A.056
95 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 141 here 96978A.057
96 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 142 here 96978A.058
97 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS