Sprol

Coal mining has long been considered one of the most dangerous professions. That’s because when methane, which is released during the coal mining process, comes into contact with coal dust, it becomes highly combustible. In the old days, coal miners used canaries to let them know when a blast was imminent. It was a simple but effective system. Canaries are extremely sensitive to gas, so if a canary died suddenly, it would signal miners that methane levels in the area had increased.

Ideally, the dead bird would tip the miners off in time to evacuate the area before an explosion. But today, electronic sensors are used instead of canaries. One would think this would be better–certainly for the canary population–if for no one else. But apparently, something went wrong at the International Coal Group’s West Virginia Sago Mine.

Perhaps that should not have been entirely unexpected. The International Coal Group was cited for over 200 violations last year at the mine. That sounds like a high number, particularly for an industry that is already so inherently dangerous. Yet almost half of those violations resulted in the minimum fine of just $60 and none of them resulted in a fine higher than $900, despite the fact that violations can result in fines of up to $60,000. The bigger question, however, is if over 200 violations occurred, wouldn’t the sheer number of problems be enough to warrant serious concerns and to justify more than minimum penalties?

Interestingly, the main stream media is focusing on the “positive.” NBC news has a headline on their web site that reads “Safety improvements have made once-common coal mining disasters a rare event.” An odd choice for a headline in the wake of the industry’s recent disaster.

Still, the number of coal mining disasters has gone down in recent years, and many say the reduced disaster rate is due to government regulation. A Progressive Movement to improve mine safety was launched after a series of disasters in 1907 that killed over 600 people. Despite public concerns, however, the mining industry, which tends to see government regulation as interference, protested the movement. Still, by 1909, it had become clear to industry executives that poor safety regulations might actually cause a lack of productivity; and hence, lower profit margins.

So, in 1910, Congress created the US Bureau of Mines, which became an agency under the auspices of the Department of the Interior. While the Progressive Movement of the times was pleased, the Bureau had little power to enforce their own recommendations. As a result, industry executives implemented a few of their own safety measures, mostly to show a token level of cooperation, but those were reportedly minor and had “little effect on the safety of the workers.”

By 1968, however, the writing was on the wall. Eighty-seven men died that year in coal mining accidents, prompting Congress to pass the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, which was updated in 1977.

One would think that the resulting legislation would have prevented the Sago Mine disaster by forcing the International Coal Group to shut down the mine until the noted infractions had been addressed–particularly since the infractions included 16 “related to failures to prevent or adequately monitor the buildup of explosive gases in the mine,” and nine citations were for failing to properly implement a “mine ventilation plan.” In addition, last year the company was cited seven times for failing to perform pre-shift mine examinations–something Tim Baker, deputy administrator for health and safety at the United Mine Workers of America, says is critical: “We look at that as an absolutely crucial first step of any mining operation.”

These don’t sound like “minor” infractions to me.

To be fair, the International Coal Group, which oversees 12 mining complexes in Kentucky, Maryland and West Virginia, only acquired the Sago Mine last November. So perhaps the regulatory powers that be decided it wouldn’t be fair to burden the company with the same restrictions they might have placed on them had they had more time to make the necessary improvements. But this begs the question: what is more important, protecting the safety of the workers or giving the company a grace period to correct deficiencies while allowing them to continue to make a profit ? The answer, clearly, is the latter.

To understand why, we need only look at the 1977 version of the Mine Health and Safety Act. While the act was ostensibly written for the protection of the miners, Congress always lists the reasons for their legislation (“findings and purpose” they call them) before the actual content of each measure. While the current Mine Health and Safety Act does cite the importance of protecting the health and safety of the miner, a key to the failure of the legislation is the fact that “miner” is defined not as a human being whose life has inherent value, but as the industry’s “most precious resource.”

The findings go on to say that mine safety legislation is justified because accidents have a negative effect on the growth of the industry and on future profitability. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with securing business interests and making money. However, when we’re talking about legislation that is being created to promote worker safety, isn’t saving lives a good enough argument for such legislation, all by itself? Apparently not.

While International Coal may feel that it’s only fair to give them time to clean up the mess of a prior company’s poor (and very dangerous) habits, it seems clear that the bottom line was allowed to take precedence over the safety of the miners. While the company continued to profit from the coal their workers mined, the health and safety of their “most precious resource” took a back seat.

Perhaps we can’t fault the company for the violations they inherited, but surely they have responsibility for their decision to continue to operate despite the danger their operation so clearly posed to their workers.