Page images
PDF
EPUB

1. The approval of new and used mining equipment before it is taken into the mine.

2. The approval of a.c. electrical installations from the surface to the working face.

3. The approval of timbering and roof bolting plans for each mine.

4. Certification of miners, shot firers, machine operators, mine electricians, mine foremen, mine examiners, first aid and mine rescue trained personnel.

5. Map requirements:
(a) Mine map;

and

(b) Map showing electrical installations.
6. The approval of work in safety zones.
7. Minimum fire protection requirements.

8. Requirements of strict compliance in the use of rock dust, water sprays and dust-delaying methods on continuous mining machines.

9. The control of mine ventilation :

(a) Install fan systems;

(b) Line brattice to the working face; and

(c) Ventilating fans in connection with continuous mining machines.

10. Investigation of accidents and recommendations therewith. 11. Prohibiting the sealing of abandoned workings; requirement of ventilating abandoned working instead of sealing. Our safety record speaks for itself. In the anthracite region during 1969 there were 13 fatal accidents with 781,985 tons of coal produced per fatality. During the first 6 months of 1970, there were three fatal accidents with an estimated 1,498,181 tons of coal produced per fatality.

During the year 1969 there were 25 fatal accidents in the Bituminous Coal Division with 3,127,401 tons of coal produced per fatality. During the first 6 months of 1970, there were 15 fatal accidents with an estimated 2,640,776 tons of coal produced per fatality.

We have been pleased with the interest that has been taken by the U.S. Congress in attempting to create a safer environment for our coal miners of this Nation to work in and are willing to cooperate or coordinate with Federal Government in any manner to promote and attain a better mine safety record nationally.

We regret, however, that in our opinion this has not yet been accomplished. To date there seems to be absolute agreement among Pennsylvania State mine inspectors, the miners themselves, as well as the operators that about the most significant achievement of the new Federal Mine Health and Safety Act is mass confusion, which has resulted in the following:

1. Instead of promoting better safety standards and accomplishments in the mines and among the miners, enforcement of the new law has gone 180 degrees away from this objective, so much so in fact that accidents and fatalities are on the increase, not decreasing, in Pennsylvania.

2. Harassment of mine operators by obsessive enforcement aimed at trivialities that have no real bearing on mine health and safety is causing the operators to rebel and become uncooperative.

3. Enforcement of this law-and I mean the Federal lawto the letter of the law is isolating and neutralizing the State mine inspectors. In fact, in Pennsylvania at least, it is destroying the image of the State inspector, something that has taken exactly 100 years to construct.

4. The law makes no distinction whatsoever between bituminous and anthracite mining and this fact is both inconceivable as well as totally illogical.

5. The law places the sole responsibility for mine health and safety upon the owner himself, not upon the shoulders of the men who actually work in the mines who have a definite responsibility. Supervision for the most part has been directed away from face operations resulting in neglect to areas of greatest exposure.

6. No one, even the Federal inspector, knows just how to comply with the law.

7. The new law does not lend itself at all to uniformity of inspections between Federal and State laws.

8. As an example, requirements for application of rock dust under this law contribute to white lung, creating an additional hazard for the miner himself instead of relieving a condition. Many other examples could be cited.

As you know, the manner in which an efficient, effective program of mine safety could be implemented has been a major public issue for many months. Our Secretary, Dr. H. B. Charmbury, and our staff have given a great deal of consideration to this and I would summarize in the following manner the conclusions which have been reached by our Department in creating an effective program:

1. The Federal Mine Safety Legislation is now law and a joint effort by State and Federal officials should be put forth to permit this legislation to achieve its goal-a better mine safety record. This could be done by :

(a) An advisory committee appointed by the Federal agency responsible for enforcing this law to work with them in establishing policies, procedures and regulations. I would recommend that the committee include, among others, the Safety Director of the United Mine Workers of America and the Safety Director of the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, two persons located here in Washington who are daily involved in mine safety problems and represent two groups who are keenly interested in operating safe mines in this Nation.

(b) Officials of the U.S. Bureau of Mines should meet periodically with heads of the mining departments of all States to review, coordinate and establish one set of rules with which employees of the coal mining industry must comply.

To date we know of no meeting ever called by the U.S. Bureau of Mines with the heads of the departments of coalproducing States in order to discuss or formulate such a plan.

2. Every State that has strong, effective mining laws and strong enforcement of those laws should have the responsibility of administration of mine safety. If it is determined by the officials of the

U.S. Bureau of Mines and their Advisory Committee that the State laws are not strong enough and enforced rigidly enough to promote mine safety, Federal inspectors should then be given that responsibility.

3. One of the most confusing issues for the coal miner attempting to do his job is the requirement of complying with regulations and laws of two different agencies-State and Federal. Dual enforcement is creating a problem.

4. I have read in the newspapers, and heard today, of the large number of inspectors which the U.S. Bureau of Mines feels must be hired to assume Federal responsibility required of them. This, too, is creating a problem for industry, because the only place these people can be secured would be from industry itself, and one of the most difficult problems with which we are presently involved is that of the scarcity of experienced, qualified persons to perform the required safety precautions in our coal mines.

I trust that my remarks will be considered as constructive comments. We recognize the magnitude of the problem and feel that mine safety can be best achieved by those closest to the working face of a mine, and, therefore, the responsibility of achieving mine safety should be first that of the State.

We really appreciate the opportunity of talking to you. We shall be glad to answer any questions that you may have.

Senator WILLIAMS. You have a magnificent statement, Mrs. Gutshall. I appreciate it.

I believe in Congress here we thought we had indicated the need for Federal-State coordination and cooperation. Evidently this has not in fact come to pass.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. It has not come to pass. We have had one meeting with the U.S. Bureau and with Mr. O'Leary to attempt to come to some sort of agreement.

Senator WILLIAMS. Was that Pennsylvania-Federal, or the other States?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. It was just Pennsylvania, at our request.

Senator WILLIAMS. There is a provision for Federal aid to State programs in our laws. Has that been put into effect in any way?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. In the last couple of days we received a copy of material from our Office of Administration indicating there would be grants available under the Federal act. That is the only notification we have had.

Senator WILLIAMS. I will say after a long day here, and at the table, too, the Department people just left and didn't hear your statement. You had better be sure that they get advised of what you have said here, and the recommendations you are making. They are all very strong, very important.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, she is more critical of us than she is the Bureau of Mines.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Not really.

Senator RANDOLPH. She said it is a bad bill.

Senator WILLIAMS. No, the bill has set in motion bad results. It is not the law.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Legislation is now passed, and we are interested in coordination and cooperation between Federal and State.

Senator RANDOLPH. The Senator from West Virginia was listening. Senator WILLIAMS. I guess I was not listening intently enough. Senator RANDOLPH. First of all, I remember that you said that we considered the anthracite and bituminous field all in one, which we should not have done. That is a specific criticism. Is that right? Mrs. GUTSHALL. Very definitely.

Senator RANDOLPH. I am not saying it is not a good criticism.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. One of the criticisms that we have of the Federal Law is that it does include anthracite and bituminous as one.

Senator WILLIAMS. Your opening remarks did describe conditions now as worse than they were before the passage. You had a description of what the Federal law has created in terms of confusion.

Is that in your prepared statement?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. I have said in my statement that we feel that it has created confusion.

Senator WILLIAMS. "Enforcement of the law has gone 180° away from the objective."

I heard it right. That is what you said. It is as to enforcement. I know the difference in the nature of the coal. Bituminous and anthracite, you suggest, should have been separately considered. Mrs. GUTSHALL. We feel it would be more advantageous to have separate sections.

Senator WILLIAMS. On the question of the degree of gas, there is more likelihood of gas in the bituminous than in the anthracite. Mrs. GUTSHALL. I would prefer that Mr. Manula answer this ques tion.

Mr. MANULA. We have greater hazards in bituminous coal operations from the standpoint of gas emission. In the anthracite we have a somewhat different situation. We do get ignitions from time to time, but these are localized, and they are not propagated, because of the way the mine head is placed. We have rock tunnels which are driven for the development work, as opposed to the bituminous, where it is all coal.

We do have a gas problem in the anthracite, and I am referring to black damp, which is carbon dioxide, which is lack of oxygen. We have this type of gas.

That is why we don't agree that mine safety lamps should be barred from being taken underground. Otherwise, we will have to carry canaries.

Senator WILLIAMS. Carry what?

Mr. MANULA. Canaries. These are fail-safe, believe me.

There are differences. From the standpoint of ventilation, there are requirements in the Federal law which pertain both to anthracite and bituminous, requiring 3,000 cubic feet of air at the active working face.

In anthracite we have a man race two by two, which is 4 square feet, and you are approaching a thousand feet per minute air velocity. I would hate to be a man going up and down that race, believe me. İt would create a dust problem. Things like this have to be resolved.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mrs. Gutshall, I want to be careful when I say you criticized the law, but you did criticize the law in four particulars. I must return now to page 5. You said:

The law makes no distinction whatsoever between bituminous and anthracite mining, and this fact is both inconceivable as well as totally illogical.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Right.

Senator RANDOLPH. Did you mean you don't recognize that as criticism?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. This is criticism of the law.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is the day that you were called back to West Virginia that that happened. You weren't here that day.

Senator RANDOLPH. It could be.

Now I turn to page 6. You said:

The law places the sole responsibility for mine health and safety upon the owner, himself, not upon the shoulders of the men who actually work in the mines, who have a definite responsibility. Supervision for the most part has been directed away from face operations, resulting in neglect to areas of greatest exposure.

Is that a criticism of the law?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. This is criticism of the law.

Senator RANDOLPH. Then you say, on the same page: "The new law does not lend itself at all to uniformity of inspections between Federal and State law."

Is that a criticism of the act?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. This could be criticism of the act. It could also be handled by administrative policy.

Senator RANDOLPH. There are other criticisms. They are valid criticisms. I just want to say that here criticism is not of the Bureau of Mines, entirely.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. We really believe these are things that should not be as they are.

Senator WILLIAMS. You are even handed between criticism of the law and enforcement.

That might explain why this charming woman has served through the administrations of Leader and Lawrence, and Scranton and Schafer, the whole range.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. As I say in my last paragraph, I trust that my comments will be taken as constructive criticism.

Senator RANDOLPH. They will be by me, I assure you of that. There are 4 million more women of voting age in this country than there are men of voting age. I am not going to forget that.

Seriously, I think you make a contribution, as the chairman has well said, constructive in nature.

Earlier today I inadvertently, and I want to again say that the record was corrected, but I want it to be very clear that I had indicated that perhaps someone had made a complaint or criticism of the administration of the Bureau of Mines, or whatever your actual organization is called in the State government. That was clarified. The word "denied" was used by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I very gladly changed my comment in reference to that matter.

Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS. I just have one question before we turn to Senator Schweiker.

There was testimony this morning about an explosion in a mine in Pennsylvania, and it followed, I think, a day or two after the method of inspection that the Bureau describes as partial but representative. You were here. You heard the testimony.

« PreviousContinue »