[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  FEDERAL MINE VENTILATION ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 19, 2007

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, one year ago today tragedy struck for the 
second time in less than three weeks in the coalfields of West 
Virginia. A fire broke out along the conveyor belt in the Aracoma Mine, 
at Alma, Logan County, taking the lives of two good men and turning the 
national spotlight on a sorely risky industry practice.
  The use of the belt air entry to ventilate a mine, as was the case at 
Aracoma, is egregiously dangerous. The belt entry--the tunnel through 
which the coal conveyor belt runs--has long been recognized as the 
dirtiest, most fire-prone entry in the mines. To use it to draw air to 
the working face exposes miners to higher levels of health-endangering, 
flammable coal dust and noxious gases. And, although saving operators 
the cost of adding more entries into the mine, it limits the escape 
routes for miners trying to evacuate in an emergency--an unacceptable 
tradeoff.
  For at least 35 years, from the time the Mine Act was signed into 
law, the use of the conveyor belt entries to draw fresh air into 
working areas of coal mines was effectively ``ruled out'' as an 
acceptable standard practice. The use of belt air, during all that 
time, was considered to be the exception.
  Under an initial Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) rule, 
issued decades ago, mines could use the method, but only after 
obtaining an exemption through a petition process--a process that, at 
least, required high-level scrutiny on a mine-by-mine basis. The idea 
was that, if a mine wanted to take a higher degree of risk, it had to 
provide a higher level of safety precautions and prove that it was 
doing so.
  Over time, however, MSHA allowed a growing number of mines to use 
this suspect practice, until in 2004, when the existing, more cautious 
rule was replaced. The new rule superceded the prohibition Congress had 
written into law, and opened the door wide to belt air ventilation and 
all of the dangers it brings with it.
  That 2004 rule was a symptom of a shifting set of priorities at MSHA 
that put promotion of coal production above the protection of miners. 
That rule should be jettisoned.
  Madam Speaker, the Aracoma fire of a year ago, demonstrates how the 
deteriorating mine safety policies at MSHA have combined with 
insufficient numbers of inspectors and lax enforcement to intensify the 
dangers associated with the use of belt entry air.
  In issuing that 2004 rule, MSHA decided that the use of modern air 
monitoring technologies had improved to a degree in recent years to 
sufficiently reduce the risk posed by belt air ventilation. But at 
Aracoma, the air-sensing technology failed. The agency put faith in 
presence of water systems to suppress the outbreak of fires. At 
Aracoma, the water system malfunctioned. Portions of a wall needed to 
separate the conveyor belt from the miners primary escapeway, although 
on the mine map, were missing.
  At every turn, some safety measure that should have been taken to 
protect lives at that mine failed. Even the inspections, on both the 
state and federal levels, failed.
  The problems in our Nation's coalfields are thickly layered and will 
take years to sufficiently unravel. It makes no sense for the MSHA to 
retain a rule that allows broad use of this dangerous ventilation 
method in the midst of an inspector shortage and an overhaul of the 
mine safety system.
  I am at a loss to understand why MSHA has failed to withdraw the 2004 
rule, even temporarily. The fact that it has failed to do so 
demonstrates to me that MSHA is still not putting its duty to protect 
our miners above the profits of the industry.
  So today, Madam Speaker, I, along with my colleague from West 
Virginia, Alan Mollohan, am introducing the Federal Mine Ventilation 
Act of 2007. The bill simply requires the Secretary of Labor, ``no 
later than 90 days after enactment of this Act,'' to revise: 
regulations to require, in any coal mine that belt entries ``not be 
used to ventilate active working places.'' I note that it is my 
intention with this bill to return to the pre-2004 rulemaking 
procedure, where the use of belt-entry ventilation was generally 
prohibited, while retaining the petition process and the associated 
heightened safety controls.
  If MSHA will not act to correct its mistakes then the Congress must.

                          ____________________