is simply that ocular damage and blindness should not be taking place in our educational institutions in this country. Thirty States now have laws in effect of the type that is being considered here today. We feel, simply, that since these laws govern 70 percent of all of the students in the country who use laboratory and shop facilities, an eye damage and blindness potential, though actual injury is way down, this same protection should be afforded to the youngsters who use the schools, colleges, universities, and Government-work programs here in the District of Columbia. There is another factor that I think is quite important, and that is that Maryland and Virginia have these laws in effect and the District is sandwiched, so to speak, in between these two. There is a relationship, therefore, because they are people who live in one State and work in another and their children go to school in the State where they live. The Senate bill here is a vast improvement over the bill that was approved by the House District Committee. All of the features that were objected to in the House bill-and we so informed that group-have been corrected in the legislation that is being considered here today. There is just one section, on page 2, in lines 22 to 25, the reference to the code for safety eyewear, the standards to which this equipment is built, the title is incorrect. However, this can be simply changed and will not affect in any way the structure of the bill, which is excellent and precisely as it should be. Again, I repeat, this is a vast improvement over the House version of this bill. Two curious things happened in the House bill, after it was testified on, one of them being that the study of chemistry was deleted from the coverage of the bill. This is really the most hazardous of the three areas in education, and I refer to industrial arts, vocational education, and chemistry. The most serious, most profound blindness, potential and actual, cases are arising out of chemical laboratories. Senator SPONG. Was there any testimony before the House that would have substantiated the deletion of chemistry? Mr. O'NEIL. No; there was not. In fact, it was in the bill at the time we all talked about it there, sir. And it very definitely should be in there. I might add that the National Society is not only campaigning in this area. We would much have preferred that education take these steps voluntarily. We worked for 10 straight years to get all education to do what is being asked for by this bill on a voluntary basis. They did not do that, the damage cases and blindness cases kept rising sharply, and we reluctantly moved into the legislative arena. So, I think, simply put, we are hoping that the students in the District of Columbia, in all educational institutions, public or privateand I hope we do not overlook the private institutions will have the same degree of protection that the children have in the other 30 States. Senator SPONG. Would the bill affect colleges in the District? Mr. O'NEIL. Yes. Senator SPONG. Do you have any record, Mr. O'Neil, of the number of accidents in the District schools, of this type? Mr. O'NEIL. No. Senator, I do not. I do not think anyone does. This is one of the key problems in education, that accident information is not recorded in the structured manner as it is in industry. If I want to know the industrial scene-I am an industrial safety engineer. If I want to know there what is happening, I can go to Industrial Commissions, Workmen's Compensation Boards, and so on-I can put my finger on where the trouble points are. Education cannot do this, because, nationally, they have a habit of sweeping accidents under the rug, which is a very dangerous thing, because, if a legal action starts and the school system does not have precise and complete records of what happened to the student, how he was treated, who treated him, and so on, I think they are in a very dangerous, untenable position. Senator SPONG. Do you have any idea what the enactment of this legislation would cost? Mr. O'NEIL. The range of prices for the various devices to move in volume and I am checking this against what is happening in the 30 States now-would be, I would say, from $1.15 for a device for a particular type of light-impact area. In extreme cases, like for welding, it could probably move to $3.50 or $4. But that would be for a rather bulky device for a relative few people. You could probably draw a norm in here, in volume, of $2.25 to $2.50 per unit cost. With reasonable care, these should go through a complete school year. and with really good care could be sterilized, as they are in other school systems, and reissued and reused the following school term. So, the expenditure is nothing, compared to the cost of rehabilitating the youngster who is blind. Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Neil. We will now place in the record a letter dated December 9, 1969, addressed to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, signed by Donald Ryan, national director, Metropolitan Chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers, and a resolution resolved by the Apprentice Council of the Government of the District of Columbia. (The material follows:) COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT Co., Washington, D.C., December 9, 1969. GENTLEMEN: Over the years there has been an ever increasing number of eye injuries resulting from school workshop and lab mishaps. These injuries, many of them causing irreparable loss of vision, could have been prevented if students in the D.C. schools had been wearing industrial quality eye protection. For this reason the Metropolitan Chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers endorses Senator Spong's D.C. School Eye safety bill, S-2975. The Society along with the American Society of Safety Engineers has been concerned about eye hazards in D.C. Schools since 1956 when a survey was made. Safety engineers accompanied Society staff to visit 16 D.C. schools with shop and laboratory classes. Hazardous situations were observed and reported in all the schools visited. It was found that, even when available, safety goggles customarily were not worn. In September 1969, the Society again did a survey. Society staff, accompanied by safety engineers visited four District schools, Eastern and McKinley high schools, and Bell and Phelps vocational schools. As in the earlier survey thirteen years ago, many hazardous conditions and lack of safety equipment were observed. It will be of interest to the Committee that 30 states have already passed school eye safety laws. These include the following: 1963, Ohio; 1964, Maryland (amended 1965), Massachusetts; 1965, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah; 1966, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, Delaware, Louisiana; 1967, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Wyoming; 1968, Arizona; 1969, Colorado, North Carolina, Washington State. We believe that a sound school eye safety law is necessary to prevent needless eye injuries in the D.C. schools. Sincerely, DONALD RYAN, National Director, Metropolitan Chapter of the American Society of GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Be It Resolved, APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL Whereas, that to promote eye safety in vocational, industrial arts and chemicalphysical laboratory courses in schools; and Whereas, to train young people in eye protection habits during their school experience, so that they may be accustomed to the use of eye protection in future industrial jobs: therefore be it Resolved, That the D.C. Apprenticeship Council endorses the passage of a law for the District of Columbia requiring all students and teachers to wear approved eye protective devices when participating in vocational, industrial arts and chemical-physical laboratory courses of instruction that are determined to be hazardous. Senator SPONG. We will also place in the record a letter, dated December 8, 1969, from the Prevention of Blindness Society, signed by Helen Curtis Demary; and a letter from the Government of the District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, Industrial Safety Division, dated December 5, 1969, signed by Charles T. Greene, director. PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS SOCIETY OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GENTLEMEN: This is to present joint views of the National Society for the Prevention of Blindness, Inc. and the Prevention of Blindness Society of Metropolitan Washington on Senator Spong's progressive bill S. 2975, regarding improved eye safety for lab and shop students using educational facilities in the District of Columbia. The enactment of S. 2975 would represent a big step forward in sight conservation in the District. However, experience in 30 States which have had such laws in effect would suggest the following minor changes before passage. In view of the fact that taxpayers' funds are being utilized in work-training programs, utilizing existing educational facilities, it would undoubtedly help to add the phrase "work-training programs" to the introductory description on page 1, which precedes lines 1-9. Page 1, lines 6 through 9-we believe it would be advantageous to delete the phrase, “. . . during such time as shall be prescribed by regulations issued by the District of Columbia Council in accordance with section 3 of this Act." Experience has proved that such phraseology too often serves as an excuse to draft rules which undercut the degree of coverage intended by an otherwise good bill/law. Page 2, lines 21 through 25-We believe should be altered to read ". . . required to be worn by this Act shall meet or exceed the specifications of the USA Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection-USAS ZS7, 1–1968, and subsequent versions thereof, approved by the American National Standards Institute, Inc. "(Note: Although this represents the third change of name of the Standards organization-formerly, it was the American Standards Association, and then the USA Standards Institute the Z87 document name and specifications, we are told, remain completely in effect.) We believe that acceptance of the foregoing recommendations will help insure the protection for eyesight which is desired by Senator Spong. Sincerely, HELEN CURTIS DEMARY, Executive Director, Prevention of Blindness Society of Metropolitan Washington, JAMES E. O'NEIL, Director of Industrial Service, National Society for Prevention of Blind ness. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INDUSTRIAL SAFETY DIVISION, Washington, D.C., December 5, 1969. Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Chairman, Senate District Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: AS Director of the Industrial Safety Division of the Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, I would like to submit my opinion of bill S. 2975 for the record of the hearing scheduled for December 10, 1969. I am totally in support of the objectives of S. 2975. A student trained in eye protection is less likely to become an injured adult worker. The prevention of on-the-job accidents is the great purpose of the Industrial Safety Board. In Section 2, the name "United States of America Standard Safety Code" should read "American National Standards Institute, Inc." in order to reflect the new name of this organization. Section 4 should specifically include work training programs not ordinarily considered as schools or educational institutions. I have in mind the several apprentice training, manpower training, etc., programs that exist in our city. Most of these type programs are supported by federal funds. Sincerely yours, CHARLES T. GREENE, Director of Industrial Safety. Senator SPONG. Is there anyone else here who wishes to give testimony on S. 2975? Would you state your name for the record? STATEMENT OF DUDLEY ANDERSON, CHIEF, ACCIDENT PREVENTTION DIVISION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Mr. ANDERSON. Dudley Anderson, Chief, Accident Prevention Division, District of Columbia Department of Public Health. We have reviewed this bill and find that the provisions of it are highly desirable to prevent eye injuries in the schools of the District of Columbia. Senator SPONG. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here this morning. STATEMENT OF JOHN D. KOONTZ, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Mr. KOONTZ. We are in favor of the bill, even though it is going to cost us about $45,000. We think it is in order to provide the adequate safeguards. Senator SPONG. Does the school system intend to bear the cost of this, or would there be any rental or sales factor involved? Mr. KOONTZ. We think the school system should bear this cost. We bear it now, but it is not to the degree that we would have to if this bill were passed. Senator SPONG. What is the basis for your $45,000 figure, Mr. Koontz? Mr. KOONTZ. It is based on a survey of actual needs in the senior high schools, junior high schools, and vocational schools, and the types of eye-safety shields needed in the different types of shops. As the gentleman mentioned, in a welding shop, for example, we need a great deal more protection than we might need in a biology classroom. We have this broken down as to cost, as the result of some exploratory studies. Senator SPONG. Would you submit those figures for the record? (The information requested follows:) PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Washington, D.C., December 11, 1969. Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, DEAR SENATOR SPONG: At the hearings held yesterday on S. 2975, you requested information regarding costs involved in furnishing the D.C. Public Schools with eye protective devices necessary to comply with the provisions of this bill. I am pleased to furnish you with the following cost estimates for the various departments in our school system which would be affected: These cost figures include goggles and the necessary sterilization and storage cabinets required by the provisions of the bill. If we can be of further assistance on this matter, please let me know. We appreciated the opportunity to testify on this bill. Sincerely yours, JOHN D. KOONTZ, Associate Superintendent. (Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded to the consideration of other business.) |