Research Programs of the U.S. Bureau of Mines : First Assessment, 1994 [1 ed.] 9780309586450

Citation preview

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

i

RESEARCH PROGRAMS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES–FIRST ASSESSMENT, 1994

Committee on Research Programs of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources National Research Council

National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1994

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ii

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Support for this study was provided by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Copies of this report are available from Board on Earth Sciences and Resources National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 Cover: Stormy seas are depicted in this original sketch by Shelley Myers. Copyright ©1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iii

Committee on Research Programs of the U.S. Bureau of Mines ROBERT R. BEEBE, Chairman, Consultant, Tucson, AZ EARL H. BENNETT, Idaho Geological Survey, Moscow CORALE L. BRIERLEY, Consultant, Salt Lake City, UT MAURICE C. FUERSTENAU, University of Nevada, Reno DONALD W. GENTRY, Colorado School of Mines, Golden RHEA L. GRAHAM,* Science Applications International, Inc., Albuquerque, NM DONALD C. HANEY, Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington FREDERICK C. JOHNSON, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD MICHAEL E. KARMIS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg HAROLD W. PAXTON, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA ROBERT W. PULS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK DALE F. STEIN, Michigan Technological University (retired), Tucson, AZ NRC Staff JONATHAN G. PRICE, Staff Director THOMAS M. USSELMAN, Associate Staff Director SHELLEY MYERS, Project Assistant U.S. Bureau of Mines Liaison Representative ROBERT S. KAPLAN

*Resigned October 1994.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iv

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources FREEMAN GILBERT, Chair, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA GAIL M. ASHLEY, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ THURE CERLING, University of Utah, Salt Lake City MARK P. CLOOS, University of Texas at Austin NEVILLE G. W. COOK, University of California, Berkeley JOEL DARMSTADTER, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC DONALD J. DEPAOLO, University of California, Berkeley MARCO EINAUDI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA NORMAN H. FOSTER, Independent Petroleum Geologist, Denver, CO CHARLES G. GROAT, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge DONALD C. HANEY, Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington ANDREW H. KNOLL, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA PHILIP E. LAMOREAUX, P. E. LaMoreaux and Associates, Inc., Tuscaloosa, AL SUSAN LANDON, Thomasson Partner Associates, Denver, CO MARCIA K. MCNUTT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge J. BERNARD MINSTER, University of California, San Diego JILL D. PASTERIS, Washington University, St. Louis, MO EDWARD C. ROY, JR., Trinity University, San Antonio, TX NRC Staff JONATHAN G. PRICE, Staff Director THOMAS M. USSELMAN, Associate Staff Director WILLIAM E. BENSON, Senior Program Officer KEVIN CROWLEY, Senior Program Officer ANNE LINN, Program Officer LALLY A. ANDERSON, Staff Assistant JUDITH L. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant SHELLEY MYERS, Project Assistant

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

v

Commission on Geosciences,Environment, and Resources M. GORDON WOLMAN, Chairman, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, PA EDITH BROWN WEISS, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC JAMES P. BRUCE, Canadian Climate Program Board, Ontario WILLIAM L. FISHER, University of Texas at Austin EDWARD A. FRIEMAN, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, University of Virginia, Charlottesville W. BARCLAY KAMB, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena PERRY L. MCCARTY, Stanford University, Stanford, CA JUDY L. MEYER, University of Georgia, Athens RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park ELLEN K. SILBERGELD, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parson, Tallahassee, FL WARREN WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO NRC Staff STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director JEANETTE SPOON, Administrative Officer SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vi

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acade my has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

vii

Preface

The U.S. Bureau of Mines, in a letter dated July 12, 1993, from Dr. David R. Forshey, Associate Director of Research, requested that the National Research Council (NRC) consider establishing a committee for ongoing assessments of the bureau's research programs. The stated overall objective of the effort was to provide advice that would help to continuously improve the quality of the bureau's research programs. Within its research division, the Bureau pursues a spectrum of activities ranging from fundamental processes involving minerals and materials to applications of new and existing technologies in the mining and minerals industries. Programs in the bureau's Information and Analysis Division are not included in the NRC's charge. In part, the bureau was responding to a recommendation in Competitiveness of the U.S. Minerals and Metals Industry (National Materials Advisory Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1990, 140 pp.), stating that the bureau “should ensure that organizations or groups of individuals will serve as visiting committees to review and evaluate the research programs of the bureau's in-house mining and metallurgical laboratories in terms of their scientific merit and research operations.” The Competitiveness report also provided a brief summary of a debate over U.S. minerals and metals policy and pointed out three consistent themes. These were (1) international free markets; (2) interdependence of the United States and its trading partners, backed up by stockpiles of strategic materials; and (3) a national minerals and materials policy mandated by Congress and implemented by the executive branch. Embedded in this last item was a general belief that cross-cutting management was needed to coordinate research, regulation, and other activities involved in the production, use, and recycling of minerals and metals and in the disposal of their waste products. The Committee on Research Programs of the Bureau of Mines was established by the NRC in early 1994. The committee operates under the aegis of the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources within the NRC's Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. With the help of panels, the main committee oversees assessment of the bureau's research and research infrastructure. A panel was established to assess facilities and research at the bureau's research centers through a series of intensive center visits. Three of the bureau's centers (those in Salt Lake City, Reno, and Albany, Oregon) were visited in 1994. In addition, the committee established a panel to conduct an in-depth review of the bureau's occupational health program.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

viii

The committee intends to provide its input to the bureau through annual reports, of which this is the first. The present report incorporates the committee's overall findings and assessment of the bureau's research organization and the quality of its products, along with findings of the specific panels. The report contains recommendations that the committee believes will improve the quality of the bureau's research programs. The appendixes contain panel reports prepared for the committee to use in the preparation of this report. Many of the findings and conclusions in the appendixes have been incorporated into the main report. However, the committee did not attempt to reach a consensus on the entire content of the appendixes, particularly some of the highly detailed material on the bureau's occupational health program in Appendix A. During 1994 the U.S. Bureau of Mines was in the process of reorganizing much of its operations, following government-wide recommendations within the National Performance Review prepared under the direction of Vice President Gore. Because of this reorganization, questions were raised concerning the bureau's structure and how its research programs are managed. While this caused some difficulty, the committee trusts and expects that future annual reports will be able to deal with an established organizational structure for the bureau. The committee will have to replace one of its members: Rhea Lydia Graham was confirmed as the Director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines in October 1994 and resigned from the committee. Prior to her nomination in August 1994, she participated at the first meeting of the committee and meetings of the Occupational Health Panel and the Salt Lake City Panel; however, she did not participate in revision of the draft panel reports or in the preparation of this report. 1994 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES The committee held three meetings in 1994: March 17-18 in Washington, D.C.; June 27-29 in Salt Lake City; and September 25-27 at the NRC's Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The first meeting involved discussion of the charge to the committee, a discussion with bureau staff about expectations, and a series of briefings on the bureau's organizational structure and highlights of the three research divisions—(1) Health, Safety, and Mining Technology, (2) Minerals and Materials Sciences; and (3) Environmental Technology. The committee's second meeting was primarily devoted to the first center visit (at the Salt Lake City Research Center). The third meeting was devoted to consideration of the committee's findings and overall recommendations. Input to this meeting included information provided by the bureau (e.g., program descriptions, staff profiles, budget documents) and reports from the Occupational Health Panel and the three panels that visited the research centers.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

ix

Occupational Health Panel This panel (three members of the committee and three guest panelists) was established to conduct an indepth technical review of the occupational health program of the bureau. The panel held two formal meetings, one at the Pittsburgh Research Center (May 1994) and one at the Twin Cities Research Center (June 1994). During these meetings, the research center directors described their programs and several investigators summarized their individual research projects. The panel visited the research facilities and laboratories; met with user groups in Pittsburgh (regulatory agencies, mine operators, and labor unions were represented); reviewed research reports, documents on project selection, and memoranda of agreement; and examined publication and technology transfer activities. The panel report is contained in Appendix A. Panels on Facilities and Research Panels (comprised of several committee members and invited guests) visited three of the bureau's research centers to assess their facilities and research programs. The Salt Lake City Research Center was visited first (June 27-29, 1994), and all 12 members of the committee participated as the panel. This was followed by visits to the Reno Research Center (July 18-20, 1994) and the Albany (Oregon) Research Center (August 18-19, 1994). All three visits included briefings and discussions on the operations of the individual centers, highlights of their research projects, their research staffs, and technology transfer activities. Each visit involved also tours of the facilities and laboratories, where selected individual researchers provided short summaries of their research. The panels held closed discussions (without bureau supervisors and managers) with center employees; similar discussions were also held with bureau cooperators (e.g., industry, universities, and other government agencies). Final discussions were held with the respective center directors. The reports of the panels appear in Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D. FUTURE COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES The committee will continue operations through at least 1996, focusing on visits to the remaining bureau research centers, additional in-depth reviews of specific research programs, and assessments of the broader program areas. These program areas will probably be Health and Safety, Environmental Remediation, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Materials Partnerships. The three in-depth program reviews by the committee tentatively scheduled for 1995 include research on ground control, biotechnology, and in situ mining.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE x

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xi

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

1

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION Historical Context Users Existing Research Structure Reinvention Plans Implementation of Program Review Closures and Consolidations Management Reorganization Future of the Mineral Institutes Program Research Partnerships

5 5 8 9 11 12; 14; 14; 18; 18

2

RESEARCH PROGRAMS Brief Summaries of Activities Health, Safety, and Mining Technology Minerals and Materials Sciences Environmental Technology Selection Process

20 20 20; 22; 23 25

3

RESEARCH CAPABILITIES Facilities Equipment Staff

27 27 27 28

4

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Research Goals Finding 1 Discussion Recommendation 1 Research Strategies Finding 2 Discussion Recommendation 2 Project Selection Finding 3 Discussion Recommendation 3 Research Quality Finding 4 Discussion Recommendation 4 Facilities Finding 5 Discussion

31 31 31; 32; 32 32 32; 32; 33 33 33; 33; 36 36 36; 36; 38 39 39; 39;

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

Recommendation 5 Dissemination of Results Finding 6 Discussion Recommendation 6

xii

39 39 39; 39; 41

APPENDIXES A

B

C

REPORT OF THE PANEL ON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES Overview Background Occupational Health Research Program Issues, Present Research Respirable Mine Dust Dust Control in Noncoal Mines and Mills Dust Monitoring Diesel Emissions Noise Industrial Hygiene Research Capabilities Staff, Facilities Funding Management of Research Project Selection Project Management Users' Evaluation of Research Technology Transfer Assessment of Research Respirable Mine Dust Diesel Emissions Noise Industrial Hygiene General Findings REPORT OF THE PANEL ON FACILITIES AND RESEARCH AT THE SALT LAKE CITY RESEARCH CENTER Factual Data on the Salt Lake City Research Center Environmental Technology Control of Mine Drainage and Liquid Wastes Cooperative Remediation Projects Hazardous Wastes Solid Waste Management and Subsidence Minerals and Materials Sciences Facilities, Support, and Staff User Comments Technology Transfer Issues and Conclusions Staff Project Selection REPORT OF THE PANEL ON FACILITIES AND RESEARCH AT THE RENO RESEARCH CENTER

43 43 43; 44; 45 48 48; 51; 51; 52; 52; 53 54 54; 55; 57 58 58; 60 61 62 63 64; 67; 68; 68; 69 70 70 72 72; 75; 76; 76 77 79 81 83 86 86; 87 89

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

Factual Data on the Reno Research Center Research Programs Facilities, Support, and Staff Technology Transfer User Comments Conclusions

D REPORT OF THE PANEL ON FACILITIES AND RESEARCH AT THE ALBANY RESEARCH CENTER Factual Data on the Albany Research Center Research Programs Process Metallurgy Characterization Materials Sciences Facilities, Support, and Staff Technology Transfer User Comments Conclusions

xiii

89 90 95 97 99 100 102

102 105 105; 106; 107 108 111 113 114

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS xiv

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A successful high-quality research program requires, as a minimum, the following key ingredients: concise, clearly articulated programmatic goals with supporting sets of objectives and specific research strategies; consistency between research strategies and objectives and budgetary realities, over both the short and the long term; high-quality professionals to conduct research activities; adequate physical plant and supporting equipment and facilities; and efficient and effective measures for transferring accomplishments to customers. It is within this general framework that the Committee on Research Programs of the U.S. Bureau of Mines carried out its assessment of the quality and type of research being carried out by the bureau. This report is the first of an ongoing assessment of these research programs; the overall objective is to provide advice that would help to continuously improve their quality. In this regard, the committee offers a number of findings and recommended actions for the bureau to consider. The committee's findings arise from its meetings, site visits, and the reports of its panels on facilities and occupational health. The facilities panel conducted intensive visits at three centers (Salt Lake City; Reno; and Albany, Oregon). The Occupational Health Panel conducted an in-depth review of the bureau's occupational health program. Under each finding the committee has made specific recommendations that will contribute to improvement of the bureau's research programs. Going beyond these specific recommendations, however, the committee believes that the review and self-examination process itself, if followed vigorously and consistently, will contribute to the development of a research environment where continuing improvement becomes a natural and desirable outcome. Finding: The U.S. Bureau of Mines has a need to communicate its research goals more clearly and effectively to employees, customers, and those responsible for annual funding. Recommendation 1. The U.S. Bureau of Mines must identify, well in advance, the research goals necessary to achieve its mission and communicate those goals to its employees, its customers, and its funders.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

Finding: The U.S. Bureau of Mines has a need to develop a well-defined set of research strategies focused on the accomplishment of carefully defined research objectives. Recommendation 2. The U.S. Bureau of Mines must define specific research objectives and strategies to achieve its goals. Both the objectives and individual research project strategies should be challenging, internally consistent, timely, relevant, achievable, measurable, and economically viable. Finding: Implementation of the research goals of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and achievement of its objectives and strategies depend critically on the process of selecting individual research projects and the availability of well qualified professionals to conduct the work. Recommendation 3. To select projects that will meet its research objectives, the U.S. Bureau of Mines should reexamine its selection methodology, including both internal and external reviews. Finding: The quality of research of the U.S. Bureau of Mines varies within and between research programs and centers; this is linked to the qualifications of the researchers. Recommendation 4. To meet its research objectives, the U.S. Bureau of Mines should strive to hire, develop, and retain the best researchers. Specific areas that need attention include the following: • a credible dual-ladder reward system for professional research staff; • increased staff visibility through publication credit and participation in professional meetings; • increased communication of internal and external scientific and technical developments through regularly scheduled seminars; and • national level searches for research positions and compensation of the best qualified scientists and engineers at levels commensurate with capabilities and competitive with other employers.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

Finding: The present research facilities of the U.S. Bureau of Mines are capable of supporting high quality research. Efforts to progressively upgrade equipment are laudable. Recommendation 5. To maintain the capability to conduct high-quality research, the U.S. Bureau of Mines should continue its existing efforts to upgrade equipment and facilities. Finding: The internal and external efforts of the U.S. Bureau of Mines in technology transfer can be greatly improved; they currently tend to hamper the achievement and dissemination of high-quality research. Recommendation 6. To ensure that research results are put to effective use, the U.S. Bureau of Mines must improve technology transfer. Specific areas that need attention include the following: • communication and publication of research results, in widely read journals, and increasingly through electronic on-line means; • active participation in professional activities and meetings; and • development of close working relationships with industry, leading to partnerships, collaborative programs, and cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs).

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

5

1 THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

PUBLIC LAW 179 (MAY 16, 1910)

Section 2. That it shall be the province and duty of said bureau and its director, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, to make diligent investigation of the methods of mining, especially in relation to the safety of miners, and the appliances best adapted to prevent accidents, the possible improvement of conditions under which mining operations are carried on, the treatment of ores and other mineral substances, the use of explosives and electricity, the prevention of accidents, and other inquiries and technologic investigations pertinent to said industries, and from time to time make such public reports of the work, investigations, and information obtained as the Secretary of said department may direct, with the recommendations of such bureau. Since its establishment by Congress in 1910, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (hereafter “the bureau” or USBM) has had mining and minerals-related research (see box) as one of its major missions. The definition given this mission was deliberately broad, covering everything from research and development related to safety in mines and mills and preservation of workers' health, to advances in metals and materials. Over the years, the bureau's research mission has evolved as science and technology have changed, so that in its budget justification for FY1995 the bureau states its mission as “to ensure that the Nation has an adequate and dependable supply of minerals to meet its defense and economic needs at acceptable environmental, energy, and economic costs.” HISTORICAL CONTEXT For more than 50 years the bureau was a peer of leading universities and research laboratories at home and abroad in its fields of interest, boasting a long list of

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

6

research accomplishments. These ranged from coal mining and utilization to the production of refractory and rare metals. In a number of instances bureau research led directly to the initiation of new industries that produced goods as diverse as reactor-grade zirconium, iron from taconite, and gold from ores long thought to be too poor in grade to be economic. Despite such successes, by the 1970s the bureau had begun to lose ground to more specialized federal research organizations, especially those charged with advancing national priorities regarding defense, aerospace, and energy. Certainly, the bureau could not have undertaken all or even much of this work, but there were significant portions (requiring new bureaucracies and facilities created in other cabinet departments) that could have been performed competently in USBM laboratories. That this did not happen may have been due, in part, to the association of the bureau with an industry—mining—that had a worsening public image. Another reason, perhaps more valid, may be the historical placement of the bureau within the Department of the Interior (DOI). Long a leading department in peacetime, DOI in successive cold war administrations lost ground, not only to other existing cabinet functions but also to new departments and independent agencies. Taken together with the awkward relationship between the bureau's mission to assist in the exploitation of resources and DOI's charge to maintain, manage, and preserve public lands, a decline in the USBM was perhaps unavoidable. Despite the negative trends affecting the bureau, Congress passed several bills in the 1970s and 1980s that should have had positive influences on its research mission. Among these were the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (expanded upon in the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977), the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, the Surface Mining Act of 1977, and the State Mining and Minerals Resources Research Institute Program Act of 1984. This latter piece of legislation is important, as it expanded the so-called mineral institute programs at eligible universities; established a mechanism to coordinate research in federal, state, and private laboratories; and created a Committee on Mining and Mineral Research reporting to the secretary of the Department of the Interior. Congress specified the sectors to be represented on this committee and charged it to, among other things, develop a “national plan for research” on mining and minerals resources topics. The Committee on Mining and Mineral Research was also to recommend to the secretary an annual program to implement the national research plan. Although the mineral institutes and generic research centers established by this act and related legislation were of some benefit to the universities, the Committee on Mining and Mineral Research found itself in difficult circumstances from the start. For example, its government members rarely supported the concept of the committee, its co-chairman was an assistant secretary of DOI, and its recommendations failed to

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

7

garner the necessary political support at department and administration levels. In general, successive DOI secretaries chose to omit funds for the committee's operation, making it a “poor relation” of USBM, on which it was dependent for even routine support services. In response to budget cuts from DOI, the bureau usually omitted requests for appropriations to support the mineral institutes and generic centers as well, and the universities fell into the dubious habit of lobbying Congress to restore the funds. In this respect the bureau and the universities became competitors for parts of what was already a small and shrinking portion of the federal research pie. From its inception the Committee on Mining and Mineral Research was exempted from the requirement to hold open meetings, as mandated by section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. While the committee was never particularly secretive about its activities, the Competitiveness of the U.S. Minerals and Metals Industry report 1 contended that the exemption limited public participation and worked against public support for a coordinated federal-academic-private plan for mining and mineral research. It is not surprising that by the early 1990s the committee was increasingly viewed as irrelevant, core congressional support for the mineral institutes had eroded, and the bureau itself had come to believe that, without proper funding and better integration with USBM research, the program should be abandoned. Any review of the historical context in which USBM operates would be incomplete without mention of the numerous external reviews the bureau and its research programs have undergone. The more recent of these include a series of visitations and reports by the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America 2 and the 1990 National Research Council (NRC) Competitiveness report. In addition, the American Mining Congress's Subcommittee on Technology and Mining Research recently (September 1991-June 1992) visited all the bureau's research centers in a series of information exchanges. The important distinctions that set the present NRC effort apart from previous studies are:

1National

Materials Advisory Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990, 140 pp. The bureau has implemented all but one of the recommendations in this report; the last of these, an outside advisory committee reporting to the director of the bureau, has been approved and should be in place in early 1995. 2The Report on US Bureau of Mines Research Center Visits by the Mining and Metallurigical Society of America Metallurgical Evaluation Team letter report to bureau from Mining and Metallurgical Society of America dated Feburary 17, 1988, 6 pp.(also six center specific reports).

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

8

(1) The current committee is intended to establish an ongoing system of review and assessment of the bureau's research, similar to that established by the NRC for the Commerce Department's National Institutes of Standards and Technology and (2) The work of the committee is being conducted concurrently with a major “reinvention” of the bureau and reorganization of its management. These factors make it likely that the current committee's work will have a more lasting impact on the bureau than some previous efforts have. USERS The principal user of the bureau's research is the domestic mining industry, defined in broad terms to include not only the production of commodity metals and minerals but also the health and safety of those engaged in the industry, the development and production of advanced metals and materials, and pollution minimization and remediation of environmental damage, from both past and current operations. Less obvious but significant users include the Departments of Defense, Energy, Labor, and Agriculture; agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); a number of state governments; and a variety of federal activities with interests in trade and foreign relations. The list would be even longer if the bureau's substantial activities in information and analysis were included. As discussed more thoroughly later in this chapter, DOI itself is increasingly becoming a major customer of the bureau's research. Traditionally, most users of USBM research have had a nonspecific interest, using research results without having a role in the choice of topics and without paying a share of the costs. In other cases, industrial and government users have been able to influence the research directions being taken without paying any costs, and these users have sometimes come to expect pertinent responses from the bureau even though they have not financially supported the work. Where such work is parallel to identified bureau research missions, there is little harm done, but the bureau has been widely and frequently criticized for doing research too narrowly focused on the interests of a single industry segment, a single government entity, or even a single company. For this reason, in an era of declining budgets the bureau has been trying for some time to engage users in cooperative agreements to spread costs, facilitate USBM missions, and improve relevance and the bureau's image among budget makers in Washington. Until now, the bureau's cost sharing has, in general, been quite favorable to users

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

9

in terms of their share of the costs, as well as in whether certain “in lieu” contributions are accepted in place of cash. At the same time, the search for cost sharing has been conducted on a fairly broad front by most USBM research facilities. Under the “reinvention” scheme to be discussed more fully in a subsequent section, this broad emphasis will change. Certain research will be done only if cost sharing can be arranged, while other topics will be recognized as falling within the boundaries of the bureau's national research missions. This is not to suggest that cost sharing in these mission areas will not be sought, but specific research directions may be less open to influence by users. It is no surprise that traditional mining companies have been slow to avail themselves of USBM research cost-sharing opportunities. What is surprising is that other government entities, state and federal, seldom pay for USBM research that they suggest and even specify. In some cases this is a recognized and desirable means of carrying out federal research missions, as exemplified by relationships such as that between the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and USBM in the areas of occupational health and safety (as established by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977). Such arrangements allow the bureau to receive appropriate credit for its work at budget time. In other cases the bureau may be happy to receive partial contributions from governmental partners if the work being performed furthers USBM priorities and therefore might have been done even without partners. Certainly there are many similar instances involving industrial partners who leverage contributions to work that broadly conforms with bureau programs. Depending on the connection to the bureau's overall mission, costs for a given project might be shared on a sliding scale, although contribution levels as high as the 50 percent now being posited for materials partnerships could lead to a loss of identity for the research as a bureau product. USBM research laboratories are not “job shops,” and they should not be available to do such things as routine analyses and tests that would otherwise be sent to the private sector. The “reinvention” and management reorganization plans so far available do not propose specific costsharing standards bureau-wide, but they imply that the DOI will become an important, if not the most important, “customer” of the bureau. It is not clear whether certain costs would be shared by sister agencies within the DOI. EXISTING RESEARCH STRUCTURE As the USBM presently exists (Figure 1.1), it is headed by a director, who is a presidential appointee, a deputy director (currently a career civil servant but could be a presidential appointment), and three associate directors who are senior civil ser

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

10

vants. The associate director for research manages three major research programs: Health, Safety, and Mining Technology (HSMT); Minerals and Materials Sciences (MMS); and Environmental Technology (ET). Other programs and support activities fall under other associate directors.

FIGURE 1.1 Existing research structure (Source: Draft, U.S. Bureau of Mines Proposed Organizational Structure, by the Organizational Issues Team, August 3, 1994, p. B-18). Research administration is accomplished through division chiefs in Washington, one for each major program. They operate through nine center directors in the field with the assistance of staff in Washington. The present organization places four layers of management between an individual researcher and the bureau director —namely,

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

11

a group supervisor, a research supervisor, the research center director, and the associate director of the bureau. To these should be added one of the three division chiefs and the Washington office staff engineers, who appear to largely control research priorities, project selection, and budgets. Bureau headquarters, as presently constituted, should have the largest role in establishing broad research directions and goals, measuring progress toward those goals, and making “midcourse” corrections as requirements and budgets change. Yet in this role, headquarters—in the eyes of many bureau researchers— seems remote, arbitrary, noncommunicative, and possibly out of touch with the mainstreams of research. Even without “reinvention” of the bureau, reforms at headquarters are probably overdue. In the field, at the research centers where research is presently conducted, considerable emphasis is given to the system of “miniproposals” under which researchers can put forward their own ideas for projects. In practice, however, the miniproposals are handled somewhat differently at different centers, and in Washington they may be accepted, rejected, modified, or sometimes even allocated to different centers. Although modifications are not made unilaterally, researchers can and do feel excluded from the selection process. Here again, the existing system could be modified to help researchers understand it better. Well-defined priorities and goals, clearly communicated from headquarters and center directors, could help channel miniproposals into more fruitful areas. From the perspective of the individual researcher, there may be too many layers of management in the existing structure. Some researchers noted, however, that competency of research management is a more disturbing issue. A few researchers, in fact, argued that they should be allowed to continuously pursue their own particular specialties, relying on peer review and collegial discourse to link their work with the larger aims of the bureau. It may prove easier to change the bureau's organizational structure than to attempt to change the personalities and skills of the bulk of the people who actually do the research. REINVENTION PLANS The National Performance Review initiated by the Clinton Administration in March 1993, had as its aim making the federal government work better, cost less, waste less, and function through a smaller bureaucracy. As directed by the DOI, the USBM conducted a program review that was essentially completed in time for the bureau's FY1995 budget request. Passage of the FY1995 Interior Appropriations Bill by the appropriate House and Senate committees essentially validated the bureau's

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

12

program review at the budget and employment levels recommended in the administration's budget request. The bureau's FY1995 budget is approximately $20 million below that of FY1994, and the full-time employee (FTE) level is approximately 211 positions (roughly 10 percent) less. Implementation of Program Review The program review and its attendant management reorganization cannot be accomplished in a single year; instead, it is planned for phased implementation extending at least through FY1996. There will be far-reaching effects throughout the bureau, but because the mission of this committee is limited to research, nonresearch effects will be discussed in this report only to the extent they may affect research performance, selection, and quality. Clearly, the most significant effect on research will stem from changes in research emphasis and resulting budget redirection. By referring to Figure 1.2 and the bureau's written summary of the program review, several inferences can be drawn, including: (1) That health and safety research, which will continue to include some work on safer mining technologies, has its FY1995 budget reduced by about 10 percent and (2) Environmental technology, including both remediation and pollution prevention and control, receives about a 25 percent budget increase after allowances for materials partnerships. Materials partnerships, the name now applied to the bureau's research on metals and advanced materials, is specifically addressed in the program review. Continuance of this program is made contingent on the availability of matching funds from outside sources, presumably other federal and state agencies as well as industry. Such a 50 percent match is considerably larger than typical match the bureau is able to obtain today and could result in what might basically become contract research. Since materials research is essentially irrelevant to other DOI programs, the tactics being followed in the program review may represent a shift of responsibility for this program, staking its future on outside resources. The current minerals and materials science program, after removal of materials partnerships, is further reduced under the bureau's program review and redirected to pollution prevention and control. Emphasis is placed on research aimed at extraction, separation, and recycling technologies, provided that such work is primarily related to pollution prevention and control. The program review relegates research on com

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

13

petitiveness of commodity-specific activities to phased out if not cost shared. This position fails to take into account that most minerals-related pollution arises from the mining, processing, and recycling of a handful of very large tonnage commodities and that the technologies employed are indeed commodity specific.

FIGURE 1.2 Changes in the bureau's research program, FY1994 to FY1995 (Source: Reinventing the USBM, Draft Report of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Program Review, December 7, 1993, p. 3). A further discontinuity arising from the program review's plans for pollution prevention and control research has to do with cost sharing of commodity-specific work for which no federal budgets exist. The program review mentions such cost sharing several times but fails to allow any budgetary flexibility for its accomplishment.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

14

Under the program review, the existing environmental technology program is directed toward remediation almost entirely, and its budget is significantly increased. The new program is expected to work closely with the Abandoned Mine Land Program, and to demonstrate techniques at sites selected with land management agencies, but no mention is made of cost sharing with these other agencies or with industry. With respect to health and safety, the program review argues that progress toward such goals as removing workers from the most dangerous workplaces would not be accelerated by committing more resources to research and so cuts the budget for such work. The program review also recommends a small cut for occupational health and a much larger one (nearly 20 percent) in programs aimed at short-term gains in worker safety. In the latter case the program review makes specific reference to the bureau's hope for financial help from outside sources and states that USBM should lead in forming partnerships with industry, labor, and the MSHA. Since health and safety research is necessarily a notoriously political area, and one rather far from DOI's core interests, the bureau may have great difficulty in dealing with the subject. Closures and Consolidations Research activities at the Rolla (Missouri) and Tuscaloosa (Alabama) research centers are slated for closure during FY1996, together with the Alaska Field Operation Center. Downsizing, albeit modest, is also planned for Washington headquarters and the Denver Research Center. These and other changes are summarized in Table 1.1, Table 1.2, and Table 1.3. Consolidation of research activities, as set forth in the program review, will begin during FY1995. Although reorganization will not be completed until the end of FY1996 at the earliest, the proposed geographical and management structure of the bureau after its reorganization is shown in Figure 1.3. Management Reorganization If the new structure of USBM research is the most important aspect of the bureau's program review, the next most important is the bureau's management reorganization plan. Referring to Figure 1.3, its most significant features from the standpoint of research include: 1. The Management Council, which will include the seven program directors, four program support directors, the budget director, and the director and deputy director of USBM;

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

Table 1.1 U.S. Bureau of Mines FTE Levels FY1994 Ceiling Facility Washington, DC Pittsburgh, PA Denver, CO Amarillo, TX Twin Cities, MN Spokane, WA Albany, OR Salt Lake City, UT Reno, NV Rolla, MO Tuscaloosa, AL Anchorage/Juneau, AK Unallocated Total

494 374 333 208 194 184 131 113 79 70 60 32 -2,272

15

Projected FY 1994 After Buyout 446 358 331 207 188 188 125 106 77 65 55 32 -2,179

FY1994 End-of-Year Count 420 341 315 195 178 174 117 98 71 56 44 31 -2,040

FY1995 Target 403 367 243 192 193 169 158 112 79 0 0 0 145 2,061

SOURCE: Letter to Congressman Sidney R. Yates (Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies) from Bonnie R. Cohen (Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management, and Budget, DOI) dated May 31, 1994. 2. the Office of Program Planning and Coordination, charged with developing long-range plans for all current technical programs and candidate long-range plans for emerging issues, coordinating all implementation activities, and monitoring programmatic progress and accomplishments; and 3. the Office of External Affairs, with responsibility for gathering information for a base continuing evaluation of USBM programs. The Management Council will have responsibility for strategic planning. The bureau's view of how this will operate, as taken from the August 3, 1994, draft proposed organizational structure, is as follows: In the proposed bureau of Mines organization, the strategic planning process starts with the mission and general goals and objectives which are defined and articulated by the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary, and the Director of the Bureau of Mines. The Management Council, which includes the bureau Director, Deputy Director, Office, Division and Center Directors, is responsible for translating that broad guidance into a strategic vision, i.e., program direction for the Bureau of Mines. The Management Council then communicates the strategic vision to all elements of the Bureau of Mines. The Program Centers and Divisions and the headquarters Program Support Offices then develop long-range plans for their activities to be submitted to the Management Council for consideration during the strategic planning process.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

16

TABLE 1.2 Possible U.S. Bureau of Mines FY 1995 Scenariosa Approximate Number of Employees Facility Currently on Maximum Likely to Board FY1995 Relocate Anchorage, AK

14

10

4

Maximum Time Frame for Closure or Consolidation 1 year

Juneau, AK

17

8

4

2 years

Rolla, MO

56

2

14

2 years

Tuscaloosa, AL

44

22

11

2 years

Denver, CO

341

242

12

1 year

District of Columbia

420

405

10

1 year

Comments

General Services Administration (GSA) rental, 10 FTEs remaining, transfers to Twin Cities and Pittsburgh USBM owned, transfers to Twin Cities and Pittsburgh USBM owned, transfers to all centers of excellence USBM owned, transfers to all centers of excellence GSA rental, transfers to all centers of excellence GSA rental, transfers to all centers of excellence

a

Transfers will be offered to all employees. Number likely to relocate column assumes about 25% of those requiring transfers will accept. All transfers would be to centers of excellence. SOURCE: Letter to Congressman Sidney R. Yates (Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies) from Bonnie R. Cohen (Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, DOI) dated May 31, 1994. TABLE 1.3 U.S. Bureau of Mines FY 1995 Scenarios (dollars in millions) One-Time Cost of Closure Facility FY1994 Relocation Other Costs Funding Alaska Field Operations Center Rolla Research Center Tuscaloosa Research Center TOTAL

3.1

0.40

0.59

Minimum Cost to Keep Center Open in FY1995 3.0

Savings in FY1995 with Early Closure 2.0

4.1

0.75

1.09

3.3

1.5

4.3

0.60

1.10

3.1

1.4

11.5

1.75

2.78

9.4

4.9

SOURCE: Letter to Congressman Sidney R. Yates (Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies) from Bonnie R. Cohen (Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management, and Budget, DOI) dated May 31, 1994.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

17

FIGURE 1.3 Proposed USBM structure (FY1997). (Source: Draft, U.S. Bureau of Mines Proposed Organizational Structure, by the Organizational Issues Team, August 3, 1994, p. 11.)

the Director of Bureau of Mines. The Management Council, which includes the Direcotor, Deputy Director, office, Division and Center Director, is responsible for translating that broad guidance into strategic vision. i.e. program direction for the bureau of Mines. The Management Council then communicates to the strategic vision to all elements of the Bureau of Mines. The Program Centers and Division and the headquarters support the offices then develop long range programs for their activities to be submitted to the Management Council for consideration during the strategic planning process.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

18

The Management Council concept will be extended to program centers, divisions, and field offices, as shown in Figure 1.3. This structure is intended to link program managers with the directors, who themselves provide the next up-link to the Management Council itself. The necessary down-links are still being developed, and details of the management substructure are not available at this time. It should be made clear that the bureau's new management structure is still undergoing internal review, and its final form may not be available and approved until late 1994. In particular, the role of the Office of Project Planning and Coordination is still open to considerable debate. The questions of how research priorities will be established and projects agreed upon also are unanswered. Future of the Mineral Institutes Program While the intent of program review is to phase out the mineral institutes program, including the generic mineral technology centers, over five years, the bureau recognizes that some of the university research is both worthwhile and consistent with USBM's new research priorities. Accordingly, the bureau could replace some of the program with specific research contracts at selected institutions. Univerity-based research would be drawn closer to the bureau and its research priorities and would be funded by and more closely coordinated with the bureau. Research Partnerships Just as reinvention of the bureau is in line with the administration's National Performance Review, so too should its research partnerships be in line with the aims of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) of making industry a full partner, and even the leader, in such partnerships. It is unreasonable to expect funding comparable to that available for industry partnerships through the committee on Civilian Industrial Technology (CIT). The CIT, one of eight NSTC committees, is chartered with ensuring close communication with industry, designing federal technology programs to meet industry goals of improved profitability and global competitiveness, and focusing on critical industry sectors. Mining and minerals are not ordinarily considered parts of the manufacturing, electronics, or advanced materials industries on which CIT concentrates, but there are other NSTC committees that reflect the missions of DOI and the bureau and on which both organizations are represented. Progress is being made: a draft memorandum of agreement linking USBM and DOE national laboratories has been prepared, and contacts with industry are being expanded. There are even hopes that, under the umbrella of NSTC, the EPA may join the federal group.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE BUREAU'S RESEARCH MISSION

19

USBM's program review contemplates research partnerships in several different forms. In the first of these, covering materials, it is stated that work will continue only if 50 percent cost sharing is achieved. In another, partnering is expressed in the form of a hope that outside sources, presumably other agencies as well as industry, may be willing to make up budget shortfalls. Finally, there are references to partnerships in areas such as pollution prevention and control but without specific budget allocations to cover the USBM share. This latter can, of course, be made good if there is sufficient flexibility in bureau budgets or if funds can be redirected into partnerships. Considering the very low levels of partner contributions so far achieved by the bureau, it is difficult to criticize any lack of emphasis on research partnerships in the program review. There is, however, another factor that may work against partnerships and that concerns the relationship between DOI and the bureau. The program calls for “relevance” of USBM programs to the aims and missions of the department, and that is entirely as it should be. Indeed, DOI includes several agencies that have special need for the expertise and facilities of the bureau. At the same time, this makes DOI a “customer” as well as proposer of the bureau's budgets. This could result in DOI and its other agencies having a preferred position, with the potential for “squeezing out” other potential partners.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

20

2 RESEARCH PROGRAMS

BRIEF SUMMARIES OF ACTIVITIES The U.S. Bureau of Mines conducts research in three program areas: Health, Safety and Mining Technology; Minerals and Materials Sciences; and Environmental Technology. Activities in each program area are described briefly in this chapter. Health, Safety and Mining Technology According to the long-range research plan of its Health, Safety and Mining Technology (HSMT) program, the bureau conducts research on issues . . . where there is not sufficient economic incentive for individual mining companies to perform the research, but where the potential benefit to the Nation justifies federal involvement. Focus is on eliminating the hazards before they develop, on providing technology for inherently safer and more productive mining systems, and on providing adequate attention to the human element in order to assure safe and efficient interaction among mine workers, the environments they work in, and the equipment they operate.

The bureau's HSMT program consists of some 182 separate projects, with FY1994 funding of approximately $52 million. The program is grouped into seven research elements, which include • occupational health (24 projects, $8.20 million, not including about $2.5 million for respirable dust generic center research), • ground control (37 projects, $9.91 million), • mining safety systems (36 projects, $9.98 million), • human factors (12 projects, $3.31 million), • mine disaster prevention (36 projects, $7.69 million), • experimental facilities (four projects, $2.34 million), and • advanced mining systems (33 projects, $10.29 million).

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

21

Much of the HSMT research is driven by the existence of and need for regulations. As examples, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA, Department of Labor) requires a sound basis for promulgation of regulations and methods for determining compliance; mine operators want to stay in compliance by applying improved health and safety procedures; and labor unions wish to ensure the health and safety of their members. This regulatory driver is formalized within the HSMT program by agreements with MSHA on ranking and directly participating in many of the research projects. This interrelationship between research (bureau), regulation (MSHA), and those regulated (coal mining industry) is key to the success of the program. The occupational health research element was the subject of detailed assessment by a panel of this committee (see Appendix A). The principal subelements that comprise the program are (1) respirable dust generation, control, and monitoring; (2) diesel emissions control and monitoring; (3) noise; and (4) other physical and chemical agents. The goal of the ground control research element is to produce technology to maintain structurally sound and stable excavations or openings at mines and to reduce accidents caused by ground failure. The research emphasizes ground control methods and techniques and procedures to characterize rock masses, detection and monitoring systems, and ground hazard evaluations. Funds for ground control research are slated to be reduced by about 30% in FY1995. A detailed assessment by the committee of ground control research activities and future plans has been requested by the bureau for calendar year 1995. In the 1994 long-range plan, research on occupational safety comprised the elements of mining safety systems and human factors listed above. The research is directed toward technology to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities in underground and surface mining operations and to improve the interface between the miner and the mining systems. The principal six subelements of the occupational safety element (the first three in mining safety systems, the latter three in human factors) are (1) electrical hazards, (2) equipment hazards, (3) haulage/ transport, (4) optimization of human resources, (5) training and evaluation, and (6) ergonomics. Related activities in mine disaster prevention involve the development of technologies and strategies that will either prevent mine disasters or enable miners to survive them. The four subelements included in this research are (1) fires and explosions, (2) survival and rescue, (3) gas migration and outbursts, and (4) explosives. Research on all four subelements needs to be considered in a balanced, or systems, approach to address mine emergencies. The bureau maintains four experimental facilities to conduct full-scale tests in a controlled mine environment. These facilities consist of the Lake Lynn (near Fair

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

22

child, PA) large underground facility in limestone plus two experimental coal mines and a mine roof simulator at the Pittsburgh Research Center. These facilities support research in most of the HSMT areas, with the mine roof simulator primarily designed for ground control research. Research on advanced mining systems focuses on systems that might be more efficient and productive while moving workers to a safer and more secure location. These systems also can be less intrusive from an environmental or aesthetic perspective. Activities include (1) the use of robotics and computer-assisted mining technologies, particularly in coal mines; (2) in situ leach mining and other selective extraction techniques; and (3) novel rock breaking and cutting systems. Minerals and Materials Sciences The Minerals and Materials Sciences (MMS) research program consists of 82 separate projects, with FY1994 funding of approximately $25 million. The program is grouped into two research elements: • mineral research (57 projects)— clean processing ($6.12 million), control technology ($3.50 million), minimization/recycling waste ($6.49 million); and • materials research (25 projects)— materials performance ($3.89 million), materials synthesis and processing ($4.57 million). A sizable portion of the MMS research is performed at the Salt Lake City, Reno, and Albany research centers; additional discussions of these activities can be found in the respective site visit panel reports (see Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D). As mentioned in the previous chapter, the bureau plans to transform the materials research element of the MMS program into a materials partnership program. The MMS long-range plan states that this should be phased in, for new projects, as follows: cost sharing should be at least 20% of total project budgets in FY1995, 40% in FY1996, and 50% in FY1997 and thereafter. The plan states that at least half the cost share should be in cash as opposed to in-kind contributions. Minerals research emphasizes pollution prevention and control within the minerals cycle. Clean processing research focuses on mineral processing and extraction technologies and includes research on environmentally acceptable reagents or lixiviants for leaching of metals from ores, particularly for in situ leaching of copper sulfides and for developing cyanide-free leachants for gold ores. Other research is

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

23

directed at developing techniques to enhance selectivity in metallurgical processes. Work on control technologies includes research and technology transfer to monitor and regulate processes and to treat waste streams before discharge from mineral processing plants. Much of the current effort in this area concentrates on process modeling and sensors to enhance control. Waste minimization and recycling activities include research and technology development to minimize and recycle scrap, residues, and effluents from mineral processing operations. Efforts are also directed toward developing technologies for recycling specific advanced materials, such as new rare-earth magnets, alloys in rechargeable batteries, fiber-reinforced alloys, titanium aluminides, and other materials that are appearing in the marketplace. Some projects involve applications of biotechnology for metal recovery and ore beneficiation. Materials research focuses on understanding processes that cause materials degradation and on the design and synthesis of new kinds of materials. Much of the research is concerned with (1) predicting and controlling the degradation of materials by wear, corrosion, and fracture and (2) developing and characterizing the degradation of new materials. Recent and ongoing research has included corrosion performance of coatings on coastal bridges and processing and characterization of nitrogen steel powders and titanium-based advanced materials. Other research includes the joining of advanced materials and lightweight intermetallic compounds and composites. Environmental Technology The bureau's Environmental Technology (ET) research program consists of 85 projects, with a FY1994 budget of approximately $21 million. The program is divided into four major elements: • • • •

control of mine drainage and liquid wastes (29 projects, $7.91 million), solid waste management and subsidence (25 projects, $6.89 million), hazardous waste management technologies (20 projects, $3.92 million), and abandoned mine land research (11 projects, $2.04 million).

The FY1995 budget request proposes that ET will increase substantially; this growth reflects the DOI's efforts to strengthen environmental research within the bureau.1

1The

bureau and the U.S. Geological Survey recently signed (September 9, 1994) a memorandum of agreement for the coordination of mineral-related environmental assessment, technology development, and remedial investigations.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

24

Most of this increase is slated for the hazardous waste management technologies element, for which an 88% increase is proposed. The mission of the ET program is (1) to provide sound technology to support DOI's land management and regulatory obligations and (2) to develop new technologies for innovative and cost-effective methods to eliminate environmental problems from minerals production and related industrial operations on federal lands. Presumably these technologies would be transferable to nonfederal lands. The research element on control of mine drainage and liquid wastes largely deals with acid mine waters from inactive or abandoned coal and metal mines. Acid mine drainage commonly is produced from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals exposed to the atmosphere, resulting in sulfuric acid that can enter the surrounding waters, dissolve trace toxic constituents, and endanger the ecosystem. The research deals with prediction, mitigation, and control and treatment technologies. The immediate goals of prediction are to understand the water and mine systems in order to prevent acid mine drainage in future operations. The mitigation and control aspect concentrates primarily on isolation of sulfide minerals to avoid the oxidation reactions that produce acid. Treatment technologies include biological and other means to immobilize dissolved toxic elements in waste streams. The solid waste management and subsidence research element focuses on developing better technologies for the disposal of mining and mineral processing wastes from current operations and on ameliorating environmental damage caused by past activities. Although there are huge volumes of rock removed and disposed of during mining operations, the research targets those solid wastes containing toxic metals that can be rendered environmentally benign. The wastes considered are those from both mining and processing of ores and other materials. The removal of rock during underground mining also can result in subsidence that can damage surface topography, hydrological conditions, and the mine infrastructure; research focuses on understanding and predicting those conditions that lead to subsidence. Research in the hazardous waste management technologies element is treated in two subelements: (1) improved characterization capabilities for complex metal-contaminated sites and (2) application of extractive metallurgical technologies appropriate for cleanup of metal-contaminated sites. Characterization of hazardous metal wastes is fundamentally similar to the mineral exploration process and shares many of the same basic problems—what is there, how much is there, and what are the remediation options. Similarly, the cleanup technologies can use technologies developed for the extraction of the metals from ores. As stated above, funding for this element is planned to double in FY1995. The abandoned mine land (AML) element differs from the others; it is a congressionally mandated program (PL 95-87, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

25

of 1977). The research component for AML was transferred from the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to the bureau in 1987 (PL 99-591).2 This research supports a national AML program administered by OSM. Individual projects are recommended on an annual basis by a joint federal-state government panel from responses to an annual solicitation. The bureau's current AML projects deal with subsidence issues, mine fires, water quality, revegetation, slope stability, and ground control around abandoned shafts and adits. SELECTION PROCESS The bureau has a formal process for research project selection that includes solicitation of “miniproposals.” The miniproposals provide a mechanism to evaluate research ideas without requiring excessive time to develop full-scale project proposals. Researchers who prepare miniproposals should be in touch with problems as they occur in the mining industry and elsewhere. Miniproposals are not prepared in a total vacuum; research center directors provide guidance based on the current long-range plan and the multiyear funding plan, which may target priority areas. Miniproposals are submitted annually (about November 30) to the directors of the research centers. They are reviewed and ranked, first by a research center director, then by the research division. Miniproposals are evaluated based on the following questions and criteria:3 1. Does it meet the objectives of the research program as defined in the long-range plan and the multiyear funding plan? 2. Does it meet the intent of administrative/organizational goals? 3. Could it be part of a potentially new budget initiative? 4. Does the proposed research duplicate ongoing research being done in the bureau or elsewhere? 5. Is it technically sound? 6. Would the results be readily adopted by the mining and minerals processing industries? 7. Would the private sector do the work needed to solve the problem?

2See

Setting Priorities for Abandoned Mine Land Research, 1987, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 98 pp. 3These

are summarized from the bureau's Research Policy and Procedures Manual, version 1.2, October 1991.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

8.

26

Does the research have the potential to have significant impact on the industry or only marginal incremental impact? Do the anticipated benefits justify the costs? Is there potential for cost sharing by industry? Those reviewing the miniproposals are expected to rank them numerically based on these criteria. Miniproposals in the areas of safety and occupational health are also screened and evaluated by MSHA. In March those miniproposals that have a good probability of successful and relevant research and being funded in the next fiscal year are then prepared as full project proposals. Those proposals that pass a final review then have detailed work plans, budgets, milestones, and authorizations prepared for initiation of the research once the final congressional appropriation is enacted.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH CAPABILITIES

27

3 RESEARCH CAPABILITIES

FACILITIES All of the facilities visited by the committee (comprehensive site visits at the Salt Lake City Research Center (SLRC), Reno Research Center (RERC), and Albany Research Center (ALRC); site visits related to occupational health research at the Pittsburgh Research Center (PRC) and Twin Cities Research Center (TCRC)) have campus-type atmospheres. The facilities provide good working environments and are clean and well maintained. The committee observed no physical limitations that might otherwise hinder research. Laboratory space ranges from analytical chemistry laboratories to large areas for operating mining and metallurgical equipment in high-bay buildings; there are even experimental underground mines (near Pittsburgh) that permit mine-scale tests to be performed. The Salt Lake City and Reno research centers are near major universities with interests in hard-rock mining and mineral processing; the Pittsburgh and Twin Cities centers are each about a 30-minute drive to major universities with interests in coal mining and materials research. This proximity alleviates much of the need for the centers to maintain extensive libraries. It also offers the potential for cooperative projects, sharing of major analytical equipment, and student intern programs. EQUIPMENT In general, equipment at the various sites is adequate to conduct the types of research normally done within the centers. Much of it has been acquired over the past 10 years and is state of the art or nearly so. Discussions of specific equipment at the various centers are given in Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C through Appendix D. Little, if any, unnecessary duplication of equipment was observed. Several of the centers, because of a specific research focus (e.g., ALRC in surface studies, TCRC in diesel measurements), have unique capabilities that do not exist elsewhere in the bureau. There appears to be

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH CAPABILITIES

28

adequate machine shop and other infrastructure support at the centers visited by the committee. The research centers have an informal committee, representing all the centers, that coordinates and schedules the acquisition of major new analyttical equipment. As the bureau proceeds with reorganization, analytical equipment can perhaps be consolidated into centers to maximize cost efficiency while maintaining service to researchers, quality assurance, and turn around time. STAFF The distribution of government service grades (by GS level) and the distribution of highest degrees held by the overall research staff of the bureau are shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2.

FIGURE 3.1 Distribution of general schedule grades (GS level) of the bureau's research staff within the centers.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH CAPABILITIES

29

FIGURE 3.2 Distribution of highest degrees held by the bureau's research staff within the centers. The backgrounds and capabilities of the research staff vary depending on the center or even the program. In some situations they perform excellent work; in others they appear to have a limited ability to adjust to new areas of research. The percentage of researchers with Ph.D. degrees at the ALRC (19%) is significantly higher than at the SLRC (7%) and the RERC (6%). At the three centers, a majority of the principal investigators (those at the full performance level of GS-12 or higher) have at least an M.S. degree. The modest number of advanced degrees held by staff members may not be comparable to other research organizations engaged in more basic research and may be in the low range of many industrial applied research laboratories. Those bureau employees with less than a bachelor's degree include students, technicians, tradesmen, and clerical support. The balance of research support appears to be comparable to other research organizations. The committee did note that at SLRC and RERC many of the staff with advanced degrees are often more heavily involved in the administration of research projects than in doing the actual work. Detailed discussions of the committee's analysis of staff capabilities for the three centers visited are given in Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

RESEARCH CAPABILITIES

30

In general, the research staff appears to be motivated, perhaps more so in the higher grades. There were differences in how the providers of significant support services were recognized (through coauthorship and acknowledgments in publications) among the three centers. The bureaucratic structure of the centers (fixed employment levels, budget limits) is not designed to respond to an ebb and flow of business. Compared to the structure of a commercial research house, the time needed to respond to a new opportunity seems likely to be much longer (years rather than months). The staff is limited by their ability to interact professionally with outside researchers (primarily through travel restrictions for professional meetings). There are also surprisingly limited opportunities for the staff to interact professionally within or between the different centers for the exchange of views, results, and issues through formal or informal exchange between research groups. At some of the centers, many of the researchers have had little direct experience in the user industries, and this has also limited their backgrounds and views. There do not appear to be any barriers for staff to pursue continuing education activities, usually through the local universities. Some actions that could improve technical communication are (1) implementing informal lunch seminars whereby researchers (both internal and external) can inform colleagues of their research progress and receive constructive comments and (2) increasing the opportunities for the research staff to participate in professional activities and meetings. Judging from the committee's interactions, many of the research staff believe there is a need for a better plan or framework from bureau management for direction on major research areas. This was thought by the staff to be particularly important so that research ideas could be placed into a context related to the bureau's mission, goals, and strategies. The staff also thought that requirements for scientific advancement on the technical career track should be clarified and that explicit expectations for promotions and career grades should be explained. The committee recognizes that the bureau has a dual-ladder system for promotion (one for managerial and supervisory talents and one for research), but there do not appear to be many bureau researchers who have reached the highest rungs of the research ladder or who believe they really can under present procedures.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

31

4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Any successful high-quality research program requires, at a minimum, the following five ingredients: • concise, clearly articulated programmatic goals with supporting sets of objectives and specific research strategies; • consistency between research strategies and objectives and budgetary realities, over both the short and the long term; • high-quality professionals to conduct research activities; • adequate physical plant and supporting equipment and facilities; and • efficient and effective measures for transferring accomplishments to customers. The mission of an organization provides a carefully defined and agreed-upon framework for the goals of its research programs. To help achieve these goals, specific objectives are defined for each program, with a credible estimate of the time and resources necessary to complete the work. Strategies are made to reach those objectives and ultimately achieve the goals

It is within this general framework that the committee is making its assessment of the quality and type of research being conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. In this regard the committee offers a number of findings, along with additional discussion and recommended actions for the bureau to consider. RESEARCH GOALS Finding 1 The U.S. Bureau of Mines has a need to communicate its research goals more clearly and effectively to employees, customers, and those responsible for annual funding.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

32

Discussion Clearly there exists a need to improve communication between management, employees, and customers relative to bureau research initiatives. However, it is less than clear whether this results from ineffective approaches used to communicate important information to the bureau's stakeholders or from the fact that research goals and objectives may lack focus, consistency, and relevance. Communication of the bureau's research goals to other government agencies appears spotty; in many cases this can cause redundant or misdirected activities. A similar situation exists with mining companies and other industry associations. A concerted effort addressing this concern, from the top levels of the bureau to the bench worker, would be beneficial. Many researchers feel that their managers do not communicate research goals well enough. Recognizing that nonmanagement personnel often do not appreciate the needs and responsibilities of management and do not have the full reasoning or understanding for why certain goals are set, management is challenged to better articulate the bureau's research goals. Recommendation 1 The U.S. Bureau of Mines must identify, well in advance, the research goals necessary to achieve its mission and communicate those goals to its employees, its customers, and its funders. RESEARCH STRATEGIES Finding 2 The U.S. Bureau of Mines has a need to develop a well-defined set of research strategies focused on the accomplishment of carefully defined research objectives. Discussion Much of what is discussed above with regard to research goals equally applies as far as developing and communicating research strategies. These research strategies need to incorporate a greater degree of user input into their development by the bureau. This would help ensure greater relevance of bureau strategies and help build a constituency.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

33

Recommendation 2 The U.S. Bureau of Mines must define specific research objectives and strategies to achieve its goals. Both the objectives and individual research project strategies should be challenging, internally consistent, timely, relevant, achievable, measurable, and economically viable. PROJECT SELECTION Finding 3 Implementation of the research goals of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and achievement of its objectives and strategies depend critically on the process of selecting individual research projects and the availability of well qualified professionals to conduct the work. Discussion At the present time there appear to be four nonexclusive sources of research ideas: • The majority of research projects are self generated through the miniproposal-proposal selection process discussed in Chapter 2. • Some programs are initiated through external funding sources. These include cooperative agreements with industry and with other government agencies and mandated research, called for by congressional or departmental action. • Some projects are generated in response to technological targets of opportunity—these projects sometimes arise through the miniproposal process. They can be criticized or welcomed on a case-bycase basis depending on their application to the bureau's overall mission. • Few proposals appear to be made for “blue sky” research projects, which are typically long-range, highrisk projects with substantial promise if successful. Although a certain proportion of the bureau's research should be directed to such projects, they do not appear to have a well-recognized channel for consideration. These four input mechanisms are discussed in more detail in the following sections. All are valid and can be used in the appropriate circumstances, but none will auto

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

34

matically ensure that a project presented for selection will be chosen or rejected based on its relevance and scientific and technical merit. The present process depends primarily on internal input and review; however, the present internal process of evaluation is not well understood by the committee and needs clarification. In addition, the process could be improved by including more formalized external input and review to complement the internal process. The bureau expects that the Committee on Research Programs of the U.S. Bureau of Mines will facilitate the necessary external input and review. More clear and consistent communication of research goals, as recommended earlier in this chapter, is likely to improve project generation and selection. Miniproposal Process The miniproposal-proposal process described in Chapter 2 involves individual researchers as the major source of research ideas. The committee found, however, that the process is being utilized unevenly especially with respect to the initial reviews at the individual research centers before proposals are forwarded to Washington. Another shortcoming of the process stems from the lack of a clear and consistent research plan provided by headquarters, as noted earlier. Lack of such guidance can cause the proposals to be unresponsive to the mission needs of the bureau. Even such improvements do not completely solve the problem in that researchers continue to feel cut off from the review process and decision making by headquarters. Under the proposed reorganization plan, the selection and decision-making function should be moved closer to the researchers at the centers of excellence. External Funding External funding sources provide a means by which research topics can be inserted into the bureau's program. Congressional or departmental mandates may require bureau participation, but other interagency programs can be initiated by agreement. An example of a mandate from Congress is the bureau's successful research on the remediation of the Chicago River. There have been a number of programs initiated under interagency agreements. An example is a Memorandum of Agreement between the bureau and MSHA (Appendix A). Another type of interagency program is the application of mineral processing technologies for the removal of lead from small arms firing ranges operated by the Department of Defense. Companies willing to participate in funding research can also influence the selection of projects through cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) and other arrangements. These may utilize bureau research already in progress or lead to new ideas for research. A significant example of external funding from industry is the Santa Cruz joint venture involving the bureau and two mining

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

35

companies in a demonstration of in situ copper mining techniques. The bureau also carries out work with individual companies under similar arrangements. Targets of Opportunity From time to time attractive technologies emerge that may have application to the bureau's research mission. Such developments, whether or not they are discovered by the bureau, may inspire researchers to prepare miniproposals involving those technologies. This process can be an important means by which new research ideas enter the bureau system. A related means may be the creation of research needs that arise from the introduction of new technologies—for example, greater dust problems associated with the introduction of longwall mining methods. Technological targets of opportunity do not necessarily lead to quality research. Work done only because the technology is attractive or interesting may not relate to the bureau's mission. Long-Range, High-Risk Research The Competitiveness report cited earlier recommended that the bureau devote a portion of its resources to research aimed at revolutionary rather than evolutionary gains. The miniproposal process could introduce such concepts into the bureau's research program, but whether proposals for such research are made frequently was not apparent to the committee. The successful implementation of such research projects is usually highly dependent on the qualifications and creativity of the individual researchers. In some respects, the bureau's Washington headquarters might be a more logical point for the introduction of such concepts, but at present there appears to be no mechanism for that to happen. Project Review and Management Once a project is initiated, specific deliverables are negotiated for the following fiscal year; these include reports, technical papers, and cost evaluations. Milestones (e.g., completion of specific tasks) and decision points (e.g., redirection, expansion, contraction, termination) also are negotiated at this time. Once the research is under way, there are semiannual and annual progress reports from the research directors to the associate director for research. The Division staff evaluates the output of the research by reviewing the quantity, quality, and timeliness of manuscripts and other deliverables and by estimating the value of the research products. The incorporation of selected external subject area experts into these reviews could enhance the overall review process. Principal investigators and research teams that propose and conduct the research could

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

36

be more empowered if they are more routinely involved in the control of their own research budgets. Recommendation 3 To select projects that will meet its research objectives, the U.S. Bureau of Mines should reexamine its selection methodology, including both internal and external reviews. RESEARCH QUALITY Finding 4 The quality of research of the U.S. Bureau of Mines varies within and between research programs and centers; this is linked to the qualifications of the researchers. Discussion The quality and breadth of the staff are fundamental to the quality of the research programs. Establishing an excellent staff requires the following: • hiring the most promising researchers; • developing researchers as professionals, and • providing opportunities for interesting, challenging, and relevant work to retain the best researchers. Hiring the Most Promising Researchers Competitive Salaries The committee's understanding of the bureau's hiring policies is that the entry level is quite low on the GS scale and that, as a result the salary differential can be 25% or so lower than comparable positions in industry, academe, or some other parts of government. This means that the most qualified graduates are not likely to join the bureau unless they also have a wish to remain in the area of the university from which they graduated. This can be desirable for workforce stability but can in turn lead to inbreeding—particularly noticeable at SLRC and to a lesser extent at RERC. Adequate or Good Facilities The facilities available at the research centers visited by the committee are discussed in Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D. In general, both space and equipment were in good order, and reasonable updating was carried out as

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

37

a cooperative development between centers—a commendable achievement. The committee found no constraints on the research by inadequacies in this area. Staff Support/Technicians In general, the support was good in comparison to universities but not as good as in some industrial laboratories. It appeared to the committee that the senior career technicians were used intelligently and as an integral part of the research program. When appropriate, students at nearby universities are used. Several purposes were served; the students gained valuable experience and money to help their education, and in turn the center got an extended look at potential employees. Mix of Seniority An important contribution to developing and retaining talented researchers is to make sure they can be rewarded as researchers without taking on management responsibilities. The dual-ladder system is designed to do this, but the committee found a skepticism among the staff that it really works. The expectation levels for the research ladder would be clearer to everyone if a few credible role models could be developed at each center. As a minimum, there should be a cadre of people equivalent to tenured faculty at a good university. This is true of many government labs, but the committee has seen few bureau researchers who would qualify. Mix of Academic Backgrounds In some of the areas toward which the bureau is moving, it is important to consider hiring people with the necessary new skills rather than retraining those currently employed. For example, in the environmental research area there are clear gaps in the disciplinary expertise (e.g., geochemistry, hydrology, hydrogeology, environmental engineering) needed to conduct the research. Developing Researchers as Professionals Continuing Education In general, it appears that adequate opportunities exist for continuing education, and a reasonable number of people participate. On average, about one short course or college course is taken per person per year. Participation in Professional Meetings and Professional Society Activities From the information provided to the committee, it appears that the bureau could encourage greater participation at local, regional, and national levels. Seminars and Visitors Seminars should be expanded, with more external speakers invited to the centers in addition to more internal seminars. Special attention should be given to bringing external visitors for a week or two to give a series of seminars and interact more extensively with staff in new and important areas of research. Quality Peers The most important development takes place by interaction with a critical mass of peers with differing backgrounds and capabilities. Therefore, it is essential that individuals be hired from different universities and disciplines to ensure

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

38

that a diversity of thinking and competence exists. It would be useful for researchers to spend time at other centers. Imaginative use of postdoctoral and visiting researchers from universities and industry can serve to overcome temporary overloads and to enrich the technical competence of the centers. Broadened Views of Economic Implications Early in the development of a project the researchers should think about the economic bounds for success. Providing the Opportunity for Interesting, Challenging, and Relevant Work The selection of projects must provide research opportunities that are important in fulfilling the mission of the bureau and that are challenging to the researchers. A formal mechanism to include more external review in program definition would help to maintain relevance and standards. Interchange with potential users and/or customers at the front end of a project would help to minimize technically excellent but questionably relevant programs. Service work should be undertaken primarily to gain insight into other people's problems and interest, not simply “job shop” work. Project Selection The bureau should make sure that projects are carried out by the originators of the ideas, whenever possible. Recognition of the Importance of Contributions In addition to salaries, the bureau should investigate other means of instilling pride in the bureau, such as awards or internal news releases. Recommendation 4 To meet its research objectives, the U.S. Bureau of Mines should strive to hire, develop, and retain the best researchers. Specific areas that need attention include the following: • a credible dual-ladder reward system for professional research staff; • increased staff visibility through publication credit and participation in professional meetings; • increased communication of internal and external scientific and technical developments through regularly scheduled seminars; and • national-level searches for research positions and compensation of the best qualified scientists and engineers at levels commensurate with capabilities and competitive with other employers.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

39

FACILITIES Finding 5 The present research facilities of the U.S. Bureau of Mines are capable of supporting high quality research. Efforts to progressively upgrade equipment are laudable. Discussion The bureau has done an excellent job of providing research facilities for its staff. Research equipment is relatively modern and well maintained in all facilities visited by the committee. There appears to be little or no unnecessary duplication between centers. Expensive analytical equipment is located at the centers where it is likely to be most heavily used, and analytical services are shared among research centers. Centers work together in planning major equipment purchases for the future. Recommendation 5 To maintain the capability to conduct high-quality research, the U.S. Bureau of Mines should continue its existing efforts to upgrade equipment and facilities. DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS Finding 6 The internal and external efforts of the U.S. Bureau of Mines in technology transfer can be greatly improved; they currently tend to hamper the achievement and dissemination of high-quality research. Discussion Several mechanisms are used to transfer of technology developed by the bureau. These include internal publications, Reports of Investigations, Information

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

40

Circulars, publication of papers in journals and proceedings volumes, patents, presentations at technical meetings, and open industry briefings. The bureau also maintains an electronic bulletin board to disseminate its research information. This bulletin board can be accessed by Internet users and contains information on the following: • • • • • • •

bimonthly lists of publications CRADA opportunities information; environmental technology research; mining, health, and safety research; software products of the bureau; technology newsletters; and technology transfer updates.

There is an ongoing need to achieve the most effective methodology for providing fully integrated technology transfer and dissemination of research results to the customers of the bureau. In this regard the bureau should continue its efforts at technology transfer and communication with industry, government, and university cooperators. Furthermore, the bureau should develop closer relationships with user communities to identify problems of major need and to promote cooperative research that will attract significant outside support and interest from customers. Such a relationship then provides feedback to project selection processes. The bureau should aggressively pursue partnerships, particularly with mining equipment manufacturers, that would result in actual field tests and demonstrations of different technologies. Emphasis should be placed on serious, committed interactions with cooperators. These interactions should help the bureau select topics for highpriority research and accelerate technology transfer. The bureau should consider entering into more CRADAs or other joint mechanisms for research with industry groups in addition to arrangements with individual companies. Group arrangements would permit a broader cross-section of industry participation and increase the amount of funding per agreement without requiring a larger contribution from each industry partner. This approach could be facilitated through a series of workshops with strong participation from industry and should be focused on specific research needs in a given technology area. These workshops would have a goal of identifying a joint agenda for action with clearly defined roles for the bureau and the industry (and other agency) participants. This type of approach has proved successful in other areas of the federal research program that are working to achieve increasingly productive interactions with industry.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

41

Timely dissemination of research results is essential. This can be accomplished in multiple ways, including: (1) meetings with potential cooperators in industry, government, and academe; (2) technology transfer seminars held at relevant locations; (3) electronic distribution of results; (4) publication in the permanent scientific and engineering literature; and (5) presentations and participation at professional meetings. The committee was provided with data on the publication records of the bureau as a whole and for three individual research centers. A review of these data shows that the bureau should strive to increase the number of publications in the permanent engineering and scientific literature (bureau Reports of Investigations, bureau Information Circulars, and articles in peer-reviewed, nationally or internationally recognized scientific and engineering journals). For the centers reviewed, publication productivity varies from acceptable to, at best, minimal. Some center directors seek to increase opportunities for research staff to participate in professional meetings. However, the policies of bureau headquarters (and the Department of the Interior) regarding the number of employees who can attend individual meetings are perceived slightly differently from center to center; such policies can place constraints on participation by the bureau's professional staff in technical meetings. Recommendation 6 To ensure that research results are put to effective use, the U.S. Bureau of Mines must improve technology transfer. Specific areas that need attention include the following: • communication and publication of research results in widely read journals and increasingly through electronic, on-line means; • active participation in professional activities and meetings; and • development of close working relationships with industry leading to partnerships, collaborative programs, and CRADAs.

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

43

APPENDIX A REPORT OF THE PANEL1 ON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES

OVERVIEW The Committee on Research Programs of the U.S. Bureau of Mines established a panel to conduct an indepth review of the bureau's occupational health research program. The panel reviewed materials provided by the bureau, briefed and interacted with researchers during visits at the Pittsburgh Research Center and the Twin Cities Research Center, and received input from a broad range of users. BACKGROUND The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 established mandatory health and safety standards to protect the nation's coal miners. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 extended the standards to protect other miners. In Title II of the act (Interim Mandatory Health Standards), the purpose of the title is identified: ... to provide to the greatest extent possible, that the working conditions in each underground coal mine are sufficiently free of respirable dust concentration in the mine atmosphere to permit each miner the opportunity to work underground

1The

Panel on Occupational Health Research consisted of the following committee members: Maurice C. Fuerstenau, Panel Chair, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno; Rhea Lydia Graham, Science Applications International Corporation, Albuquerque (no longer a member of the committee); Michael E. Karmis, Department of Mining and Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University; and Thomas M. Usselman, NRC staff. In addition, the following guests participated as panelists: Raja V. Ramani, Department of Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University; Pramod Thakur, CONSOL, Inc. Morgantown, WV; and James L. Weeks, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, D.C. (also with United Mine Workers).

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

44

during the period of his entire adult working life without incurring any disability from pneumoconiosis or any other occupation related disease during or at the end of such period. The title prescribes the respirable dust standard in the coal mines as follows: ... each operator shall continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift to which each miner in the active workings of such mine is exposed at or below 2.0 milligrams of respirable dust per cubic meter of air.

The title also specifies medical examinations, dust from drilling rock, dust standards when quartz is present, and noise standards. It also specifies how to make measurements to be in compliance with the act. In Title IV, the Congress established a Black Lung benefits program. In Title V, the act directed the secretary of the Department of the Interior and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct studies, research, experiments and demonstrations to achieve the act's intended purposes. Also, Congress authorized funds for these activities. In summary, the control of health hazards in mines at the federal level incorporates several agencies, including the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA, Department of Labor), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, Department of Health and Human Services), and the U.S. Bureau of Mines, through inspections, enforcement, and research and development on scientific, engineering, and medical issues. In addition, several states have their own agencies for assessing and controlling the health and safety hazards. The committee's occupational health panel reviewed only the bureau's occupational health research program authorized under Title V of the 1977 act. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH PROGRAM The bureau's research program is organized into three divisions: Health, Safety, and Mining Technology (HSMT); Minerals and Materials Sciences; and Environmental Technology. The occupational health program element is one of the six elements of the HSMT division. According to HSMT's long-range plan2, health research addresses issues

2“Long-Range

D.C., 1994.

Plan”, Health, Safety, and Mining Technology Division, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington,

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

45

... where there is not sufficient economic incentive for individual mining companies to perform the research, but where the potential benefit to the Nation justifies federal involvement. Focus is on eliminating the hazards before they develop, on providing technology for inherently safer and more productive mining systems, and on providing adequate attention to the human element in order to assure safe and efficient interaction among mine workers, the environments they work in, and the equipment they operate.

Much of the current research within the occupational health element concentrates on reducing worker exposure to respirable mine dust, diesel engine exhaust emission, and noise. The remaining research within this element focuses on developing sampling and measurement technologies for respirable dust, diesel engine exhaust emission, and noise. Some of the research, particularly the sampling and measurement research, directly supports the mandated functions of MSHA and NIOSH. ISSUES Reducing Worker Exposure to Harmful Dusts, Particulates, and Gases Except in cases of in situ leaching, mining requires the breaking and transporting of rock, which invariably results in the generation and entrainment of dust. Airborne dust problems can be acute in the confines of underground mines. Dust, in particular quartz dust, is generated in many surface mining operations and, for the most part, exposure is below compliance levels. However, instances of overexposure are still a concern for some surface mining jobs (e.g., drill operators, bulldozer operators).3 Respirable coal mine dust, when deposited and retained in the nonciliated air spaces of the lungs, can cause coal workers' pneumoconioses4 (often referred to as black lung disease). Prolonged exposure to coal mine dust also contributes to the occurrence and severity of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and loss of ventilatory function.5 Compliance with the 2 mg/m3 standard has been reached in most coal mines by (1) adaptation of existing technology to control, suppress, and collect respirable coal mine dust and (2) use of administrative and personal protection

3NIOSH

Alert: Request for Assistance in Preventing Silicosis and Deaths in Rock Drillers, August 1992. and Occupational Medicine, 2nd Ed., William N. Rom, ed., Little, Brown, & Co., Boston, 1992. 5M. Attfield, and G. Wagner (1992). Respiratory disease in coal miners, in Environmental and Occupational Medicine, W. N. Rom, ed., Little, Brown, & Co., Boston, pp. 325-344. 4Environmental

Copyright © 1994. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

46

controls to reduce exposure of workers. A 1980 NRC report6 provides basic information on the technologies used. Some of the bureau's occupational health research over the past 10 years has refined some of these technologies.7 A significant change in the past decade has been the growing contribution of longwall mining techniques to underground coal mine production. Longwall mining methods yield higher productivity per shift but usually result in higher dust production. The major emphasis of the bureau's research in coal mine dust control is on longwall coal mining. Besides coal dust, other dusts in mine atmospheres are of concern to the health of miners. In all types of mines, respirable quartz dust is a major concern because it can cause silicosis and may also contribute to the risk of lung cancer.8 The quartz dust issue is also related to milling and handling, particularly in crushed stone operations. Miners working underground where diesel engines are used are exposed to a wide variety of exhaust, including noxious gases (CO, CO2, NO, NO2), numerous hydrocarbons, and diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM are elemental carbon particles (