COAL MINE SAFETY THURSDAY, FEBRUARY, 21, 1952 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m. in the caucus room, House Office Building, the Honorable Augustine B. Kelley, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Representatives Kelley, Lucas, Bailey, Perkins, Tackett, McConnell, Morton, and Vail. Also present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk; John S. Forsythe, general counsel: David N. Henderson, assistant general counsel; and John O. Graham, minority clerk. Mr. KELLEY. The committee will please be in order. The gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Ramsay, has a statement to make. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. RAMSAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. RAMSAY. Gentlemen of the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity of appearing before you to present my views in regard to additional legislation pertaining to mines, coal mines principally. I have had some experience in the mines. In fact, I earned every penny I spent going to college working in mines. After that, I practiced law. After I was admitted to the practice of law of course I had a great deal of legislation pertaining to mines and miners. I fully know the inadequacy of our laws to protect against the explosions and dangers that confront the miner every day. I have looked over these bills, and it seems to me that unless there is a provision in legislation that will make it possible for the enforcement of the legislation, when danger is imminent, we will be no better off than we are with the present laws as they are at this time. The State laws are wholly inadequate. West Virginia, of course, is the greatest coal-mining State in the Union. Yet, it is very seldom that there has been a governor of the State who was favorable toward the workingmen or the men who work in the mines. I can remember-it is not so today so much-that only a man could be appointed a mine inspector who had been recommended by the mine companies. Of course, you know what kind of inspection they had. I remember a mine I worked in where a man asked for 2 weeks for props, and he had them promised, promised by the mine foreman that props would be brought into the mine. He worked constantly under that promise, but the props never came until the roof fell down and the man was killed. I want to call your attention to just what the laws are in West Virginia when a man is injured or killed by reason of the fault and neglect of the company, regardless of how negligent it may be. In most States notwithstanding your compensation laws, where a company is guilty of gross negligence, damages may be recovered, but that is not so in West Virginia. Early in West Virginia they passed a law that it was necessary for the company to employ mine foremen who had had 2 years' experience. Immediately after that the court held that whenever the company had employed a man with 2 years of mine experience, it had fulfilled every duty it owed to the employees of that company. Regardless of the fact of whether he was a competent miner or not, if he had had 2 years' experience, our court held that he then became a common employee with the miner and he was a fellow servant, and therefore if the miner desired to sue he had to sue the mine foreman and couldn't sue the company. That is the law today. I remember one time I had a case in which a check weighman had been killed, a check weighman employed by the miners. We have the check weighman system, of course, as they have everywhere. The company has a check weighman and the miners have a check weighman. This check weighman represented the mines. A car broke loose from an incline and went down into the place where he was weighing, and killed him. I brought suit in that case, as attorney for his family, and recovered, and the Supreme Court held that under the law at the present time he did not come under the compensation. Immediately a bill was passed by the legislature putting all check weighmen, regardless of whether they represented the company or the men, under the law so that the company could not be sued in the event that any injury might befall him. That is the situation there. You have your inspectors, of course. Our inspectors, I am glad to say, in West Virginia are much better now than they were years ago. But as I have intimated, years ago a man could not be employed as an inspector by the Government, by the State, unless he first had the endorsement of the men who owned You can imagine what kind of inspection there was. I worked in mines where the lamp could hardly burn because of the inadequacy of air. The great dangers in the mine are, first, of course, gas explosions. A gas explosion itself doesn't kill so many men. It is the afterdamp, which spreads out all over the mine. To attempt to confine that in an area where there is gas in an area is useless, because as soon as the explosion goes, it goes all through the mine into every section of it. That is why so many men are killed under gas explosions, A falling roof may be the cause. In the east side of the mine the roof is good and in the west side it is bad. There the closing of an area is all right. There is no question about that. You will never protect against gas and the explosions that kill thousands of men unless you make it possible to close the entire mine when the gas in that mine has become dangerous. In the two explosions that have occurred I understand that your mine inspectors importuned the company to close that mine, that it was dangerous, that there was liable to be an explosion, and there was an explosion. These men who lost their lives there lost them uselessly. It could have been prevented. Since the courts have held that mining comes under interstate commerce you clearly have the right to pass an efficient law to govern and control the operation of these mines so far as the life and health of the people are concerned. It is high time, gentlemen, that we had some law that can be enforced, that will protect the lives of these men, because they constantly encounter every danger that you can think of in a mine. It is really a dangerous occupation, a hazardous one, regardless of what anyone may say. You don't know what minute the roof is going to fall down if not adequately taken care of. You don't know what minute there will be a gas explosion if that is not taken care of. You don't know what will happen by reason of bad air and fine coal dust that gathers in there and then explodes by ignition or otherwise. It is a dangerous, hazardous occupation and should be given every protection by this body. I earnestly hope that you will include in any legislation you may enact, the right, under proper inspection, really to close down a miné entirely where the danger from gas is hazardous and where it is liable to explode at any time. Gentlemen, I thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. KELLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsay. There are no questions. I have a statement from Mr. Maize, the head of the Department of Mines of the State of Pennsylvania, largely in reference to the Carpentertown explosion, and some inspection reports which we wish to have entered into the record. Without objection they will be put in the record. Mr. BAILEY. May I ask if the gentleman is present to testify? Mr. BAILEY. Under the circumstances does the chairman think we should have his testimony? Mr. KELLEY. Certainly, yes. Mr. BAILEY. Is this letter in the nature of testimony, Mr. Chairman? Mr. KELLEY. Yes. (The statement, inspection reports, and letters referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF RICHARD MAIZE, SECRETARY OF MINES, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, HARRISBUrg, Pa. FEBRUARY 20, 1952. I am submitting for the committee's information a statement in reference to the Carpentertown mine explosion in which six men were killed by a gas ignition on February 2, 1952, at 1:45 a. m.: The Carpentertown mine No. 2 was operated by Baton Coal Co. for the Sharon Steel Co. and explosive gas had not been found in that mine from the time it was taken over by the Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. about 10 years ago. The bituminous mining laws provide that a mine can be operated as a nongaseous mine until gas has been found with an approved safety lamp. The average mine official can find 1 percent of methane with an approved safety lamp. There are others who, due to long experience and training, can find one-half of 1 percent of methane. The United States Bureau of Mines took 63 samples of mine air from June 1943 to September 1951 and in only 1 sample of air analyzed, did they find 0.25 percent of methane. The Federal inspectors report of this mine from June 1943 to September 1951 had never been brought specially to my attention because at no time was it considered a hazardous condition. On reviewing the Federal inspectors report since the catastrophe occurred, I find there is no place in the report which states that the mine was in a dangerous condition. The State mine inspector in charge of the district inspected the mine on December 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1951, and found nothing to indicate that the mine was in a dangerous condition. In fact, it was being operated in accordance with the bituminous mining laws. There was no electrical equipment at the working faces and the only electricity was that used to operate electric locomotives and several pumps. Regular fire boss examinations were made at the mine before each shift entered the mine and gas was never found during the fire boss examinations. There is no question but what this was a gas explosion. Dust played no part in the ignition or the propagation of the explosion. It is the consensus of opinion of those who investigated the catastrophe that the explosive gas was not present 1 hour prior to the explosion. It is also the consensus of opinion of the State inspectors who made the investigation of the catastrophe that this was a sudden outburst of gas and could not have been anticipated. There are mines in Pennsylvania which produce as much as 5 million cubic feet of gas in 24 hours and in these mines explosive gas is found frequently. By explosive gas I mean that we find a mixture of 10 percent of methane which will explode in a safety lamp; still, mines of this character are not reported by the Federal inspectors as being dangerous, so why should they report a mine being dangerous because they found one-fourth of 1 percent of methane at one place in the mine, that analysis having been taken 3,500 feet out by the place where the gas was ignited. The mine was worked with closed lights and blasting was done by permissible explosives. As proof that I investigate complaints of any nature which are brought to my attention I am attaching herewith a copy of an anonymous letter which was written by an employee of the Chartiers mine of the Emerald Coal Co., on December 30, 1951; I immediately sent a special commission of inspectors to inspect this mine. They found that the charges were unwarranted. A copy of their report is enclosed as well as a copy of the mine-inspection report which is posted at the mine. This report is signed by the three members of the commission and the inspector of the district in which the mine is located. A copy of the commission's letter to me is also attached. Again as proof that hazards which are called to my attention receive immediate attention let me cite another case. Very recently I received a complaint from Mr. John Busarello, president of UMWA, district 5, that an unsafe condition existed at the Mathies mine of the Mathies Coal Co. I also received a copy of the safety committee's complaint, a copy of which is attached. I immediately sent a commission of mine inspectors to the Mathies mine and they agreed that the conditions of the safety committee was well founded and they made the following recommendations: "CONCLUSION "After careful consideration of the complaints presented by the representatives of the mine workers and our personal observations of the drilling machines in the mine while in operation, we are of the opinion that the drilling machines in question can be operated safely by one man under the following requirements: "REQUIREMENTS "1. The drill operator shall remain at the controlling switch while the drill is in operation. "2. The drill operator shall not handle rotating parts of the drill while it is in operation, nor permit any other person to handle same. "3. The drill operator shall not climb over or underneath the auger or thread bar while it is set up in a drilling position, nor permit any other person to do so. "4. The type 574 drill shall not be operated until the post is securely anchored at both top and bottom. The post shall be frequently examined to determine whether or not it is securely anchored. "5. The length of the drill post on the post-mounted drill shall be suitable to the height of the place to be drilled. "Respectfully submitted. "WILLIAM J. IVILL, "Chairman, "S. CORTIS, "Mine Inspectors." I sent a copy of that report to Mr. Busarello and to the superintendent of the coal company who advised me that they would comply with the requirements as set forth by the commission. A copy of the letter from the superintendent is enclosed. I am including in my statement the Chartiers mine and the Mathies mine incidents as proof that I ignore no complaint which is filed with me by the mine workers or their district presidents. I again reiterate that the Federal inspectors' report of the Carpentertown mine No. 2 was not brought specially to my attention because the mine was not considered in a dangerous condition. Respectfully submitted. RICHARD MAIZE, NOTE.-I am enclosing herewith copies of the State mine inspector's reports of investigation in October and December 1951, which do not report any hazards. 96177-52-24 |