They have been able to do this by making an angle box cut so that the machine does not interfere with the line curtain.

Mr. SIEGEL. Would this be a good rule to apply in other mines right now without waiting for another accident?

Mr. WESTFIELD. The conditions vary so much that you could not come to a definite procedure in each and every instance. We try to keep the line curtain as close to the working face as we can. If we can keep it within 10 feet in every instance, that would be very good. But there are circumstances where this becomes very difficult, primarily because of the type of machine that you have. Some of them are far longer than 10 feet and they fill up the entire working face.

In such instances auxiliary-type ventilation is used in most of the cases to provide ventilation right at the working face.

Mr. SIEGEL. Is it possible to improve the ventilation so that even if the machine goes into a deep box cut, it fills up nearly the whole box cut, ventilation will be adequate? How would you provide for that in a scheme of mine safety regulations?

Mr. WESTFIELD. Normally by installing ventilating fans on the machine itself, which we call diffusers, and by using auxiliary ventilation to ventilate the working face itself.

Mr. SIEGEL. How can you be sure, then, in these gassy mines that every time they go into a deep box cut like this without making it wide enough, they are not going to have a similar accident?

Mr. WESTFIELD. You can never tell this in any coal mine for the simple reason that it depends on the action of the men and the method of driving a place. Each and every cut is different. Unless the proper mining plan is followed there is no assurance that you are always going to keep the ventilation up at that working face.

You have to carry the air with you with each and every move. What you see in a working place today is not what you might see tomorrow or within maybe 2 or 3 hours.

Mr. SIEGEL. Is what you are saying that going around and inspecting, per se, is not going to help prevent something from happening?

Mr. WESTFIELD. I wouldn't go that far. Neither Congress nor the Bureau of Mines nor anyone else would put all this money in inspection if we did not believe that inspection had some advantage and that it did prevent accidents. We believe that very strongly.

Any plan of ventilation has to be complied with continuously to assure a safe mine. If you deviate from this at any time, you can have an ignition or an explosion or you can have an accident when you are not living up to the plan. Congress made a very good decision in stating that ventilation plans had to be adopted and approved by the Bureau of Mines.

This would give us better assurance that we are going to have consistent ventilation at the working faces.

Mr. SIEGEL. When this accident occurred, was some standard being violated that contributed to the accident? Were they in violation of some standard that had a direct cause or effect on this accident?

Mr. WESTFIELD. Yes, there was a standard that was being violated in that there was an accumulation of gas in this working place and it was over 1 percent. If it had not been there, there would have been no explosion or ignition.

Mr. MITTELMAN. I think the act requires a test every 20 minutes, is that correct?

Mr. WESTFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. MITTELMAN. Was this one of those tests, the normal test that was made?

Mr. WESTFIELD. That's right, this was made with the flame safety lamp. It was made apparently within just a few minutes before the ignition, but the test was made at the entrance of the box cut and not at the face of the box cut.

Mr. MITTELMAN. That was a violation of the act, was it not?
Mr. WESTFIELD. This could be, yes.

Mr. MITTELMAN. Was it or wasn't it? Hasn't the Bureau determined whether, in fact, it was a violation of the act?

Mr. WESTFIELD. I would say yes. Apparently the reason the man did not take the test, he was looking for his own safety in that there was bad roof in this box cut and he apparently decided that he wouldn't go to the face to make this inspection.

Mr. MITTELMAN. I think this is a matter of great concern. Are we to understand, then, that the Bureau is prepared to waive a requirement for proper testing for methane if there is a bad roof? What I am concerned about, frankly, is how the Bureau can act to prevent this kind of accident from happening in the future.

Mr. WESTFIELD. I think your answer is in the investigation report, which includes recommendations to keep the line curtain within 10 feet of the face so that the ventilation is always at the working face, and that they make ventilation and before advancing into any working face.

This has already been determined and made a part of the record in the investigation report of this accident.

Mr. MITTELMAN. Is there any citation for violation being issued for the operator of the mine in which this explosion took place?

Mr. WESTFIELD. I did not understand that question.

Mr. MITTELMAN. Has any citation or notice of violation been issued concerning the failure to test at the back end of a box cut?

Mr. WESTFIELD. I believe so. I would have to check the orders issued by the people who made this investigation, but I believe there was. Mr. WHEELER. Could I comment for a minute on how we are going to deal with these kinds of situations generally and not specifically on this particular mine?

The way the act provides a mechanism for us to avoid these kinds of things in the future is the section of the act which provides that the Bureau will approve ventilation and roof control plans. We are in the process of doing this now, but we have not yet approved all of these ventilation and roof support plans.

We are going to do this on a mine-by-mine basis. So that mine when we do it we have not done it yet-will have a particular ventilation plan and a particular roof control plan and then if he does not comply with that plan, continuously he will be in violation of the law. So I think this will take care of it in the future. It did not take care of it in this particular situation.

Of course, they can always violate the plan when we are not there. The question in general whether or not a violation was cited because a man did not make the required test, when we were not there, is a

question I am not sure we know the answer to, because I don't know whether we can legally cite him for being in violation of the law when we were not there to see it.

We could, of course, issue a withdrawal order; we could do other things.

Mr. MITTELMAN. You are not taking the position that if you have appropriate evidence of a violation that you can't cite him just because your inspector wasn't there?

Mr. WHEELER. That is a legal question that I can't answer, Mr. Mittelman. I will let one of our lawyers handle that one.

Mr. GERSHUNY. I think that we would cite them if there was adequate evidence, but under the circumstances I think you have to realize that the most important thing is to find out what had actually caused it so as to actually prevent it in the future.

Under those circumstances the Bureau is more concerned with its investigation of the accident rather than merely citing the operator for a violation. One is much more important than the other, but I think that under section 104 the Bureau would be authorized if it had adequate evidence.

Mr. FEDER. Mr. Westfield, does the report disclose-I doubt if you have had a chance to look at the report since you gave that to me the beginning of the week, and I still have it-does the report disclose whether this miner was operating the machine and cutting the way he was on his own decision or under the usual practice in the mine or on instructions of the foreman ?

Mr. WESTFIELD. In this instance there was a foreman on the section, but, according to the report, he had been notified by somebody they were short of rock dust in the area and he had gone back to the belt entry to secure some rock dust so that they could bring the rock dust up to standard.

He was not in the working place at that time. Normally, all the work in these working sections is under the supervision of the foreman. All the activities are watched very closely. They work as a unit.

Mr. MITTELMAN. I just have one more question. There was testimony before about the failure to have a separate split of air to ventilate this particular mine where the ignition or explosion occurred. In the Bureau's judgment, did that violation in any way contribute to the explosion?

Mr. WESTFIELD. No; the inspector did not cite this because he had no knowledge of it.

Mr. MITTELMAN. I am not asking whether the inspector cited it. Is the fact that there was not a separate split of air to ventilate this particular section a cause of this explosion?

Mr. WESTFIELD. I do not believe so. The accumulation of gas came from the cutting of this box cut and this is where the gas was being liberated. If the separate split had contributed to this, the explosion would have been far more extensive and would have extended into the other section. The explosion was confined purely to the box cut in that working face.

Maybe what little gas was coming from the other section might have contributed to this, but very, very slightly. The main point was that the box cut was not ventilated. There is evidence that there was

no explosive mixture at the entrance of the box cut while there was an explosive mixture in the box cut itself.

Mr. MITTELMAN. Just one final comment with reference to what I was raising before as to whether a violation can be cited in these kinds. of cases. I am not suggesting anything with reference to this specific case, but I think this is a very important point.

There are criminal and civil penalties in this act for violations of the statute. When accidents of this kind occur, I would assume that the Bureau would be extremely careful in considering whether the invocation of either civil or criminal penalties was warranted in a case of that type.

I am expressing no judgment, of course, with respect to this particular case.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Westfield, I certainly appreciate your candid and knowledgeable response to these technical questions that we had.

I want to say to you and Mr. Gershuny, you are the two action men in here, I appreciate your candid replies to our questions.

I will say, Mr. Westfield, I had one devil of a time getting these men into a coal mine here some months ago and I am not too sure that you have made my job any easier to get them back into the mine when we go on our next trip, which will be not too far in the future. Be prepared.

But I do want to say, though, more soberly that the past record of enforcement of the new Coal Mine Health and Safety Act has left much to be desired, but that is history. I am impressed with you gentlemen, your statements of desire and intention. They have impressed me as sound and good.

In our continuing responsibility when we have other hearings on legislative oversight, as we call it, I look forward to conditions that spell enforcement that do mean a greater measure of better health and greater safety for the coal miners. We appreciate very much your

statements.

At long last I have Dr. Marcus Key, Director of the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health of the Environmental Health Service of HEW; and Mr. Bernard Popick, Director of the Bureau of Disability Insurance, Social Security Administration. I know these are long hours, gentlemen, that you have been with us waiting to be heard by the committee. It seems to me that all of these hours have been beneficially educational periods for everybody.

STATEMENT OF MARCUS M. KEY, M.D., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Dr. KEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and report on the implementation of the health responsibilities of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. The Department's responsibilities for

periodic medical examinations, provisions for autopsies, mandatory health standards, and health research have been delegated to the Public Health Service. The Department's responsibilities for administering Title IV, Black Lung Benefits, have been delegated to the Social Security Administration and will be reported on separately by Mr. Bernard Popick, Director of the Bureau of Disability Insurance, Social Security Administration, who accompanies me.

Speaking for the Public Health Service, I would like to say that our health responsibilities are reasonable and welcomed. The act gives us an opportunity to practice preventive medicine in a large segment of the American work force.

We recognize that the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act is quite explicit and imposes a schedule that is very exacting, but we also recognize that this is just the prescription needed to treat the black lung problem. In some instances where we have fallen behind schedule, we have never been very far behind, and are still optimistic that we can meet the June 30, 1971, deadline for completing the first round of medical examinations of the Nation's 90,000 underground coal miners.

I would like to submit for the record a chronological listing of the Public Health Service's accomplishments under the act. In carrying out these responsibilities, we have been cooperating with the Bureau of Mines, the Bureau of Disability Insurance, the Interim Compliance Panel, and several State health departments. We have sought the advice and assistance of the UMWA, the operators' trade associations, and a number of professional associations such as the American College of Radiology, the American College of Chest Physicians, the Industrial Medical Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Osteopathic Association. For example, the specifications for the content and conduct of the medical examinations were developed during two open meetings attended by representatives of industry, labor, government, and professional groups in Washington on January 23 and February 15, 1970. The proposed medical examination specifications which were published in the Federal Register on June 3, 1970, were further reviewed during the "National Conference on Medicine and the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969," in Washington, June 15-18, 1970. The Conference was attended by individuals actively engaged in the control and prevention of occupational pulmonary diseases of coal miners and was supported in part by a Public Health Service grant. The final specifications for the medical examinations were approved by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on August 12 and will be published in the Federal Register on August 19. A copy is submitted for the record.

The question has frequently been asked, why are the specifications for the medical exams of underground coal miners limited to X-ray examinations, when the intent of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act was to provide for other examinations in addition to the X-ray? The first round of medical exams will be limited to X-ray examination of the chest, except for the 10 to 15 percent of the miners which the Public Health Service will examine in its own mobile units. These miners will receive pulmonary function testing. Other examinations may be indicated by the X-ray examination such as supplementary tests to rule out lung cancer, tuberculosis, and histoplasmosis.