Page images
PDF
EPUB

Of the active operations, we have 200 lime treatment plants on line. All active coal mining operations are charged to deliver water to a receiving stream that has the quality of a 6pH, with no more than seven parts per million of iron, and no more than two parts per million of soluble solids.

Of the remaining 2 million a day from the abandoned mining operations, we have two programs, the abandoned mine service program, where the State, itself, that is, the Department of Mines acting for the State, is charged to clean these up. Right now we have 200 projects on line cleaning up acid mine drainage and other acids from the past years of coal mining.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Manula, you recognize that to the miner this health and safety is a critical matter in Pennsylvania, as in all coal mining regions. To provide safety and health to that miner is of paramount importance.

But in the mine acid drainage program, there is a health hazard, also, to people who do not live in a mine or work in a mine. Hundreds of thousands of persons are involved by contaminated water from mine acid drainage.

That is all I am doing here today, is to ask if we are making progress in Pennsylvania, and in West Virginia, and if we are making it under the Appalachian regional development program that came from the Public Works Committee, and in which we put a considerable amount of money to help do this program, as in our water quality programs, as well.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. I am very familiar with the Appalachain Commission work. We have made a great deal of progress in Pennsylvania through the help of that program.

We had been conducting projects during Mr. Scranton's term of office. He was very instrumental in getting this passed.

Mainly, the work under Appalachian Regional Commission has not been on acid mine drainage. It has been strip mine restoration, extinguishment of mine fires, flushing of cited areas, and refuse bank fire work.

We are getting into acid mine drainage projects through that

program.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you.

We are hoping that the Department of the Interior, Mr. Chairman. will come forward and support funds for the stronger mine acid drainage programs through supplemental appropirations which are pending before the Senate.

I mention this as a matter of record.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Another point on this same subject: We are doing action programs in Pennsylvania under our bond issue in this field. In Federal work, it is mainly demonstration.

We feel at this stage of the game we are beyond demonstration. and I feel the Federal Government is. It should be grants for action programs.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much. I think it is corollary, what we are doing, of course, to help the health of the miner, also the health of the people that are involved by the drainage that comes from the mines, both active and abandoned.

Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS. Just one observation on the discussion of the explosion in the Helen mine.

Notwithstanding the inspection program of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and notwithstanding the method now being used by the Bureau of Mines at the Federal level, through their partial but representative inspections, this did happen. It suggests to me that presently there is something lacking in terms of adequate mine inspections.

Is that a conclusion that is proper?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. I think Mr. Manula may have something to say on this, too; but I think in Pennsylvania we recognize we are in an automation program in coal mining, and the use of the continuous miner needs a great deal of research and demonstration to keep the ventilation at the point where the gas is removed. This is a program that we are involved in, as much as inspection.

Mr. MANULA. Senator, were you referring back to spot inspections? Senator WILLIAMS. I mentioned the partial but representative inspection. That was the method of inspecting at that mine, which means that it is not a full inspection; it is not a spot inspection.

PBR is a full inspection of as much of the mine as the Bureau determines will be inspected.

Am I right on that? It is a full inspection of part of the mine, but it was not a full inspection of the entire mine, in this case. It was partial, but they thought it was representative of the whole mine.

It turned out it was inadequate to know what the ventilating system was that served the face, where the explosion occurred.

You see, they were ventilated, but it was a split between two faces. That is where it was found. I gather it was found there was inadequate ventilation.

Mr. MANULA. Yes, sir.

In Pennsylvania, we are allowed to call one visit to a mine an inspection.

In Pennsylvania, seven mines require 3 weeks for an inspection. That is one inspection. That is a 3-week period.

When an inspector enters a mine and comes back out, we do not call that inspection unless he files a completed report. It takes 3 weeks. He visits all operating sections. He visits all returns, and all logistics functions connected with the mining of coal, including the surface plant. He checks all records and the license of that coal operator. We have 24 deep mine inspectors in Pennsylvania. We work on a premise that the man closest to the mining operation, as mentioned by Mrs. Gutshall, is the one we hold responsible. His duties are defined by law. This includes the mine foreman, assistant mine foreman, the mine examiner, the machine operator, the miner, the shop foreman. All persons license-certified in Pennsylvania are held responsible.

This is why I think this is the only way we can go, if we are looking for accident prevention, because we can't have an inspector there every minute of the day. It is impossible.

We depend on these people. The mine foreman is a statutory officer of the Commonwealth, and has direct involvement with the State. We depend on him to file the information with us, with our mine inspector. We depend on the mine safety committee to file information with our mine inspector.

You know what happened recently? This established safety practice has deteriorated. The mine foremen in Pennsylvania are confused. The mine safety committee man does not report to our State mine inspector any more. He reports to a safety coordinator. We get the information secondhand. That is why our accident rate this year is on the increase. We had six fatals in April. We had one fatal last year in April.

Senator WILLIAMS. The reasons for this are not easily stated, and I think they have been in part stated all the way through.

Where do you put the finger of real responsibility for this breakdown in the reporting procedure?

Mr. MANULA. As Mrs. Gutshall mentioned in her original statement, we are 180 degrees out of phase. The image of our mine inspector is being destroyed, and we can't function unless we get this information.

Like I mentioned, we make an inspection every 3 months. I have 24 inspectors, but we depend on these people. Every person who works in that coal mine, we depend on him. He is his brother's keeper. If he sees a violation, he had better file information, and we will take testimony.

Senator WILLIAMS. Are you working on procedures to improve this? Mr. MANULA. These procedures have been long established. They are being destroyed right now.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Senator, we are hoping that eventually there will be better coordination so far as State and Federal assistance. There was a time we worked together, and I can remember the time because I have been around a number of years, but there is not that coordination today.

As Mr. Manula said, the inspectors are working separately. It is a case of one tearing down the other. We are not getting anywhere on safety. Instead of progressing, we are regressing.

Senator WILLIAMS. Senator Schweiker.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I would like to pick up a point on the mine. In Mr. Yablonski's statement this morning, I did not understand fully the explanation that the Interior Department gave on the explosion. Since you folks made the report, maybe you can straighten

me out.

In your findings or conclusions or investigation, was the fact that one split of air covered two working faces, was that a factor? Had they been doing that as of your February report, and what general observations do you have?

Let me ask you this question. Is this a matter of law or regulations, so far as splits are concerned, in the State, or not?

I was very confused after hearing the Department of the Interior's statement on this accident.

Mr. MANULA. The difficulty was two mining machines working on these two splits.

The company was using what we call a temporary stopping. They were using line curtains instead of permanent stoppings. Every time a shuttle car penetrates that line curtain, you have an interruption in the ventilating system, so the less line curtains we have, the better off

we are.

Senator SCHWEIKER. The break of the curtain interrupts the flow of air?

Mr. MANULA. Exactly.

You can operate four continuous miners operating with two shuttle cars. Every time the shuttle car breaks the line curtain, there is an interruption.

Senator SCHWEIKER. That is the result of the split operation?

Mr. MANULA. That is the result of a very sloppy ventilation system. Senator SCHWEIKER. Would that also be true if they had not had the split?

Mr. MANULA. No.

Senator SCHWEIKER. If one split had handled one face, would that condition have prevailed?

Mr. MANULA. I would say no, but I would say it is better to operate any single unit on a single split of air. This is something that is required in the Pennsylvania law, as it is in the Federal law.

I think any machine, Senator, for that matter, should be on a separate split of air. We have better control of ventilation.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Your inspectors would automatically look for this, I assume.

Mr. MANULA. Definitely.

Our inspectors also have discretionery power. Our law gives us the basic ingredient. However, we can add as many as we want, not any less. It is up to the mine inspector. There is a certain basic number here, a minimum number. However, if the inspector feels that we used more of something, we need more air, the line curtain should be extended within 4 feet of the face, you should not take any more than one shuttle car at a time before you make an examination, he will order the company to do this.

The company has one recourse. They can always follow the commission mine inspectors from the other districts, if they don't agree with that district inspector, until the time the commission makes their finding. This is the law of the Commonwealth.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I would like to ask Mrs. Gutshall, on page you made the statement that was of interest to me. You said.

As an example, requirements for application of rock dust under this law contributes to white lung.

I wonder if you would explain what we are getting into here, what white lung is, and why you feel this is a danger.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Yes; Senator.

There was a period of time right after the Federal law became law that the Federal inspectors were making inspections quite rapidly in Pennsylvania mines, and going in, determining in their opinion there was not sufficient rock dusting. In making this request, they insisted on what we felt was far more rock dusting than was required. It was a case of not having black dust, it was a case of having white dust. Senator SCHWEIKER. What does that white dust consist of? Mrs. GUTSHALL. Lime.

Senator SCHWEIKER. You feel this is detrimental?

Mrs. GUTSHALL. In our opinion, it was just going overboard. It was a case of not using good practical, realistic judgment in requiring what should have been required. It is a case of requiring too much of something that created more of a hazard.

In fact, we were called by a committee in one mine where they were using so much of rock dusting it was causing a slipping problem.

Senator SCHWEIKER. You also made a statement later on about the Federal-State coordination, which I think is an excellent point.

In that you said that, "To date we know of no meeting ever held," then you did say a few moments ago there was another meeting, but that was at your request as opposed to what you said here.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Yes. In fact, the reason for that meeting was what we just discussed.

Industry came to us regarding the fact that this rock dusting was out of hand completely. It was, as I say, right after the new Federal law passed. I personally called and asked Mr. O'Leary if we could come down with industry to discuss that particular point with them. That is why we had one meeting on that issue.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I think it is a very good point.

I suggest when we get the witnesses from Interior back again, we get into that, because unfortunately we didn't get into that this morning.

But I assure you we will.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. Incidentally, let me review the material presented by Secretary Dole. There were comments regarding cooperation and coordination with everyone but State representation.

Of course, I am from the State, and I am interested in the State being represented, but there was nothing in his testimony indicating that the State had at any time been contacted. It is in his own testimony as of today.

Senator SCHWEIKER. That is all I have.

Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS. I think that is a very worthy point. We will certainly mark that on our list for further inquiry when the Department comes back.

When we were visiting a mine, there was a bad feeling somehow between the Federal and State inspectors.

Mrs. GUTSHALL. It should be stopped from the top.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you ever so much.

Senator RANDOLPH (presiding). Mr. Riley, will you come forward, please?

Mr. Riley, will you identify yourself for the record?

I believe you are from Wheeling, originally. Am I correct?

STATEMENT OF PAUL C. RILEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES

Mr. RILEY. Yes; Wheeling-Morgantown area.

Senator RANDOLPH. Of course, you are now in Charleston, W. Va.! Mr. RILEY. Right.

Senator RANDOLPH. How many years have you been in this work, Mr. Riley, work with the State bureau of mines?

Mr. RILEY. Senator, I have a statement here.

Senator RANDOLPH. I am going to have you read it.

Mr. RILEY. It will cover all of this.

Senator RANDOLPH. If you have it all in your statement, I will withdraw what I have said.

« PreviousContinue »