man nature being what it is, the Federal inspector figures, "Well, there are a lot of violations I can find in that particular area," and he goes ahead and finds them. For instance, they may be infractions of a very minor sort. It is just like a sergeant with a private. A sergeant can make life miserable for a private, and the Federal inspector can do the same thing in the area where the particular State inspector is operating. I can visualize a considerable amount of friction and unpleasantness throughout this entire dual system we have been discussing and more here. What is your answer to that? Mr. GROVE. I can appreciate your concern in the matter. Mr. McCONNELL. I am concerned particularly because of what has happened this afternoon, with the State making statements concerning the Federal inspectors, and now you are retaliating and saying Mr. Maize does not know what he is talking about. That is just the type of situation I am visualizing. Mr. GROVE. If Mr. Maize had not raised these issues, we would not have been required to retaliate. I can appreciate your concern in the matter, but I do not think you can sustain the premise that the State inspector would feel, if a Federal inspector found a condition in his mine that was of a hazardous nature, that it was much, if any, reflection on him as a State inspector, because, as Mr. Maize stated this afternoon, and I agree with the statement, that conditions vary anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour or an hour from a safe to an unsafe condition. If the State inspector knew that condition and did not take action, then there might be some conflict, but I say again in most instances they would take that action, but they are not there. At least they would in Pennsylvania, I am quite certain. But they are not there and therefore it would simply mean that instead of a State inspector coming to this working place four times a year, in addition to that a Federal inspector would get to that working place two or three times a year, which would be a total of seven visits and therefore there would be more opportunity for the two men to discover hazardous conditions that might exist between the time they left the place than if just one, either Federal or State, were making the inspections. Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Grove. I anticipate the outcome of all of this will be eventually the elimination of State area inspection and having it all Federal. Mr. GROVE. That can come, but I cannot agree quite with that line of reasoning, Congressman, because the State of Illinois years ago started out with county mine inspectors who were elected and they found it did not work so good, and then the State came in and set up a department of mines and selected mine inspectors and appointed them. Have those counties ceased electing mine inspectors? No, they have not; they are still electing them. So, I do not think Federal inspection will supplant State inspection. Mr. McCONNELL. You would not even want that; would you? Mr. McCONNELL. We will write it down in the book and see what happens. Mr. GROVE. Neither one of us may be prophets, Congressman, but I say it is rather difficult to visualize any State abolishing its inspection department because of Federal inspections. That is only my opinion, but I do not believe that would come to pass. Mr. McCONNELL. Do you believe the Federal inspector should be able to call for the closing down of a mine with the law back of him and without any definite violations to which he can refer, but just at the whim or judgment of an inspector? That is what I believe it would do here. Mr. GROVE. I am not questioning the law or the proposed law or what it will cover or what it should cover. I do believe that certainly someone, somewhere, is going to be required to define what may be considered as "imminent danger." Whether that is part of the law itself or whether it can be done without the law, by a matter of the Department of the Interior, for instance, issuing regulations and publishing them in the Federal Register, with so much time for protesting, just like many things are done now, is something I don't want to answer, because I cannot. I don't believe I am qualified to answer it because it is something entirely outside of my line. Mr. McCONNELL. You would not want to close a mine down just on your own judgment? Mr. GROVE. That would not be done, I assure you. Mr. McCONNELL. There is nothing to stop it except your own good sense so far as this bill is concerned. Now, you may be a man of that type, but there are a lot of men who are not of that type. There are excitable, emotional men, and they would call for the closing of a mine on some type of judgment of theirs which may not stand up according to any law or standard that we have. Mr. GROVE. That might occur. If the law has the bare statement that a Federal inspector has authority to withdraw men from places of danger, where he considers imminent danger exists, if that Federal inspector was not responsible to anyone else, there might be grave errors of judgment, yes; but in no case, I am quite sure, would a Federal inspector withdraw men unless the case is obviously of a very serious nature and one that is likely to result in disaster in the next couple of minutes. Mr. McCONNELL. According to his judgment. Mr. GROVE. And unless he refers it to someone who is his superior. In other words, let us take Pennsylvania. I have a subdistrict engineer in Johnstown. I am at Pittsburgh. Any of the men reporting to Pittsburgh or working out of Pittsburgh are not going to shut down a mine until they call in and find out what it is all about and someone goes out there and checks the conditions with him. Mr. McCONNELL. But it does not say that here. Mr. GROVE. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill," but people keep on killing just the same. But I am quite sure as far as we are concerned in the administration of the law, we would be very certain. the situation warranted action of that kind. I mean by that we in the administrative capacity in the Bureau. Mr. McCONNELL. I think it certainly should be set forth in a document of some type. Mr. GROVE. I quite agree with you, and I say that "imminent danger," should be defined by someone qualified to do so. Mr. PERKINS. The courts have already defined it. Mr. McCONNELL. Let us write it in the law. Mr. PERKINS. We do not need to write it in the law; it is already defined. Mr. McCONNELL. How far is it defined for these men to go by? I certainly cannot tell from this. Mr. PERKINS. It is a danger that is likely to occur at any moment or any time; it is imminent. Mr. McCONNELL. It still depends on the judgment of some man. Let us enumerate what are imminent dangers by law. Mr. PERKINS. He said if it was likely the accident would occur within the next few hours, the only sensible thing for the inspector to do would be to close it down at that moment, but if it was something likely to occur at some future time, but not at the present time, then it would be taken up with a superior. Mr. McCONNELL. Have you any objection to spelling it out like it has been done in Pennsylvania? Mr. PERKINS. We have spelled it out in this bill as imminent danger. Mr. McCONNELL. Not here. Mr. PERKINS. It is spelled out sufficiently. Mr. MCCONNELL. No; that is the objection I have to it. Mr. MCCONNELL. But you have not spelled it out. Mr. PERKINS. You only have to use the words "imminent danger"; that is sufficient. Mr. McCONNELL. But that is a matter of judgment. I do not know what imminent danger means in connection with the safety of a mine. Mr. Grove, you have named a couple of cases where in your judgment danger exists in a mine and nothing has been done about it. I think it is important enough that you tell us those cases. Mr. GROVE. All right. Mr. McCONNELL. And we will then find out what the other side is. Mr. GROVE. The mine is dry and dusty; it has not been rock-blasted; black powder is used for blasting the coal, and I believe almost any mining man will agree that if you have a blown-out shot with black powder, you are likely to ignite coal dust and invite an explosion. Also, the ventilation is poor and does not carry out the dust and fumes from mining operations. The electrical installation, the wiring, is done in a haphazard manner which may result in explosions or fires. Under those conditions I believe any competent mining man will agree action should be taken to correct them. Mr. McCONNELL. Why has it not been taken? Mr. GROVE. You are asking me? I say we cannot get any action from anybody. Mr. McCONNELL. I think it is important to know and to have them here and find out what the other side says. Mr. GROVE. I can get the reports from the Bureau files. Mr. KELLEY. If you will supply us with the names, we will see they come in here. Mr. GROVE. All right. Mr. KELLEY. That would be a good argument for the bill. Mr. PERKINS. I would like, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the gentleman from Pennsylvania was laboring under the impression that the term "imminent danger" was not set out in the bill-I would like to say it is mentioned in the bill, and "imminent danger" has been defined by many courts-it was not by the Supreme Court, but by a Michigan court Mr. McCONNELL. My understanding is that certain men, active in the advocacy of this very bill, feel that "imminent danger" has not been spelled out yet by any court decision, and it should be. Mr. KELLEY. Imminent danger would be a dusty mine with no rock dusting; another case would be where ventilation was inadequate and the mine was producing gas. Those are just examples. They would close down a section where the imminent danger is occurring. Mr. PERKINS. Here is the legal definition of imminent danger, Mr. McConnell: This term has a generally understood legal meaning as embracing a situation reasonably certain to place life or limb in peril which must be instantly met and which cannot be guarded against by calling upon others for assistance. Mr. McCONNELL. That is probably all right for lawyers or for classroom discussion, but let us apply it to this particular industry. Mr. PERKINS. That is what we are doing now. Mr. McCONNELL. No; we have not done that. Mr. KELLEY. We are not getting anywhere. I asked Mr. Maize this question, and he said he did not know, and I am going to ask you, Mr. Grove: How many States are there that have very poor mining laws? Mr. GROVE. Well, Congressman Mr. KELLEY. Don't name the States, but how many are there? Mr. GROVE. I am not in a position at the present time to know too much about the mining laws of the various States because for the last 12 years I have done little or no work outside of Pennsylvania, Maryland, northern West Virginia, and Ohio. The mining law in Maryland, to show that it was inadequate, has just recently been revised and, I believe, now has been approved. There have been many revisions in the law of Ohio, but to what extent, I do not know. West Virginia, I believe, had revisions under consideration, but I don't know if they were passed. From those States I would say that at the present time there are fair mining laws in most of those States, especially since the one in Maryland has been improved. But, again, mining laws are not all of the story. It is probably more a question of how the law is enforced than the adequacy of the law itself, and I think it will be admitted by impartial persons that it is not too well enforced in some of what we might term the more backward States, even if it were adequate. Mr. KELLEY. I have no more questions, Mr. Grove, and I guess that closes your testimony. Mr. GROVE. Do you want those reports on the particular mines to which I referred? Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Grove. (The reports referred to are as follows:) Mr. STEPHEN WILLIAMS, ST. CLAIRSVILLE, OHIO, August 27, 1948. Chief Mine Inspector, Ohio Division of Mines, Columbus, Ohio. DEAR MR. WILLIAMS: One of our inspectors has made a recent inspection of Sterling mine, John M. Hirst Co., and he has advised us that the usual custom of operating this mine in a manner that invites disaster especially is being continued, and that many other conditions and practices are not in keeping with reasonably safe operation of the mine. Most of the following conditions or practices are considered extremely hazardous, and the combination supports a grave situation. 1. Coal and rock were blasted on shift with pellet black powder stemmed with coal dust and fired with sulfur squibs by the individual miners. 2. Adequate ventilation was not provided in 15 east, 16 east, 9 west, and 10 west entries. 3. Fire-boss examinations were not made before persons other than fire bosses entered the mine. 4. On-shift examinations for methane were not made. 5. Single unattended doors were used to conduct the air current, and many were found open. 6. The mine was dry and dusty, and rock dust had never been applied. 7. Coal dust was prevalent during cutting operations, and means were not provided to allay the dust at its source. 8. Some of the power wires were nailed on posts. 9. The electric face equipment was of nonpermissible type. 10. Fire-fighting equipment was not provided underground. 11. Most of the men underground used carbide lights for portable illumination. 12. Smoking was practiced underground. It is understood that this mine is classed "nongassy" by the Ohio Division of Mines. However, it is shown by the analyses of air samples collected by our inspectors during this and all previous inspections, that methane was being liberated in open mine workings. The samples collected did not show a high methane content, but with the interruption of the ventilation, an accumulation of methane could occur readily. It is not possible to state definitely when a catastrophe may result from certain conditions or practices, but we are assured that conditions and practices, such as thoes existing in Sterling mine, have been responsible for the major mine catastrophes throughout the world. Your attention is being called to the infractions of law and good practices in this mine in the hope that you will take the necessary action to avert a mine disaster in Ohio. Very truly yours, M. J. MECHLING, Engineer in Charge. COAL-MINE INSPECTION REPORT, STERLING MINE, JOHN M. HIRST CO., NEAR SALINEVILLE, CARROLL COUNTY, OHIO, AUGUST 5-11, 1948 (By K. N. Maize, coal-mine inspector) INTRODUCTION This report is based on an inspection made in accordance with the Coal-Mine Inspection and Investigation Act of 1941, Public Law 49, Seventy-seventh Congress, H. R. 2082. The purpose of this report is to call to the attention of all concerned violations of the Federal Mine Safety Code observed during this inspection and to recommended means of correcting hazards. Violations of the Federal Mine Safety Code and recommendations for their correction repeated from the previous reports are indicated by asterisks. GENERAL INFORMATION The Sterling mine is located on Route No. 39, 3 miles west of Salineville, Columbiana County, Ohio. The mine is opened by one drift and one shaft in the Mahoning or 7-A coal bed, which in this mine averages 36 inches in thickness. The shaft is 72 feet in depth and is used as an intake airway. The drift is the main portal and is also used as a return airway. A total of 145 men was employed, of which number 130 worked underground on 1 shift, 5 days a week, and the average daily production was 600 tons of coal which was loaded into mine cars by hand. The life of the mine as estimated by the management was 9 years. The mine was developed by a room-and-pillar method. Main entries were driven in sets of three, and room entries were driven in sets of three at intervals |