Mr. MANN. We opened the door when we developed the durable-press concept. The CHAIRMAN. Am I right about a 20-year process? Mr. MANN. Yes, the rayon was the forerunner. Then you got the polyesters. The CHAIRMAN. It was probably a war time development and then a postwar application essentially, is that not right? Mr. MANN. Yes. Mr. LANIER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Becky, are you not a cotton person? I am saying it is high fashion. Mr. MANN. Durable press changed everything. The CHAIRMAN. You put in a synthetic to make it durable press? Mr. MANN. Yes. The reason we stay in business is that it is comfortable and it has absorption properties. Now we are being told: "Don't handle it in the gin with your hands. Pick it up with a scoop or seed fork.” I told my men and they though I had lost my mind. Mr. MANN. This is one of the regulations that has come to a cotton ginner. If you have a chokeup in a machine and cotton spills out, pick it up with a scoop or seed fork. This is no inconvenience. We would be glad to pick it up with a scoop if that would be the end of it, but it just shows you how ridiculous the regulation is. STATEMENT OF GAYLON B. BOOKER, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL Mr. BOOKER. I am Gaylon B. Booker. I am on the staff of the National Cotton Council. With regard to cotton and the competitive situation, we certainly acknowledge that in the fashion area, cotton has gained momentum in recent years. One of the stronger gainers has been imported cotton. It accounts for one-fifth of domestic consumption. If we put another 14 to 17 cents per pound on domestically produced cotton, we will increase the rate of imports. Cotton fabric will be coming in from abroad and in big chunks if we assess the market properly. The CHAIRMAN. Where did Sea Isles cotton start? Mr. MANN. Sea Island, Ga. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that there are Sea Isles cotton from abroad. But it did start in Georgia? Mr. MANN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Is not that known to be high-quality cotton? At least the shirts are most expensive. Mr. MANN. Well, the cost of the cotton and the cost of the shirts are two different things to the producer. The CHAIRMAN. I sense, perhaps, the advisability of this committee and the staff thinking about visiting some of these operations. We have been to the mills, but that is the last step in manufacturing, and that was some years back as a matter of fact. But when we did visit the mills, I was impressed at that time with how intent they were on finding ways to deal with their dust problem. Mr. LANIER. We would certainly welcome you or any members of your committee. The CHAIRMAN. But the one thing that impressed me, that they did not seem to have the answer to, was the noise in the mills. I do not know, if they have found any way to take care of it. Mr. LANIER. We have not been able to quiet the flash shuttle. The CHAIRMAN. Those shuttles when they are pounding away, hundreds of them, it is almost unbearable for newcomers. Mr. LANIER. My company has had a hearing conservation program going back to the late sixties and it is mandatory that they wear ear plugs. The CHAIRMAN. They are more practical than the masks. Just as the hardhat is one personal protective device that seems to be used, the ear protection that you see at the airports and other places, they are worn. With the masks, it is another thing. We would probably have to go to get a court order. We would be back to the warrant situation. The OSHA people got a surprise from the Supreme Court on warrants for inspections. Yet, almost 90 percent of the businesses recognize the desirability of having this safety law and are cooperating, so OSHA does not have to go to court and secure a warrant in most cases. Anything further? Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like for Mr. Booker to make a comment or two on how costs have been arrived at. There is such a difference between what OSHA people say as to cost and what we are saying. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. BOOKER. The only assessment of what this standard would cost at 0.2 mg/m per cubic meter in all areas of yarn manufacturing was determined by OSHA's own contractor. They put it at $1.1 billion to achieve that in all areas. When OSHA quoted a cost of $657 million-and of that, about $467 million was in yarn manufacturing-they took estimates which were put into the record by industry witnesses. You will find these data in tables 1 through 3 on page 23380 in the Federal Register. They include a footnote on table 1 saying what they have costed out is a standard. that calls for a 0.5 mg/m per cubic meter dust level in spinning through warping processes. That is the most important part of the yarn manufacturing process. Mr. Lanier indicated that ATMI has not tried to put a cost figure on compliance in the spinning area because it cannot be accomplished. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the error, it amounts to $660 million. That is equal to what OSHA said industrywide costs were. That was in 1974 dollars. There has been 37 percent inflation in equipment costs since 1974. There is a significant difference between OSHA's estimate of compliance cost and the real cost. The administration was concerned about the $650 million for capital costs. We take the position, as Mr. Mann has said, that had the administration economists known what the standard's, real cost was, we do not believe the standard would have been issued in its final form. We believe OSHA has not properly assessed the standard's economic feasibility as the act requires; therefore, the standard ought to be stayed until the matter is cleared up. The CHAIRMAN. Are you parties to any of the current law suits? Mr. LANIER. Yes. Mr. MANN. Yes. I The CHAIRMAN. A lot of this will be dealt with in those imagine? A lot of the things you have said here this morning? Mr. BOOKER. Yes. These points are made in the petition. Mr. MANN. Unfortunately, we feel like we are ignored. That is our problem. That is the reason we are here today, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. In the standard-setting process, you felt that you were ignored? Mr. MANN. We thought that the statistics were; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Were you part of the proceedings in developing the information that was the forerunner of the standards? Mr. MANN. Yes, sir. They held hearings all over the country. I testified in a hearing down at Greenville and the council has testified at every opportunity on this situation. Mr. LANIER. ATMI were parties. There are 104,000 pages in that hearing, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. It boils down in part to what you describe as an error. Mr. BOOKER. We assume that it was an error. At any rate, it is an erroneous figure insofar as the true costs are concerned, as the record shows. The CHAIRMAN. The dollar figure was fixed on a different percentage? Mr. BOOKER. Yes. The dollar figure which OSHA used was based on a different exposure level. It was based on reducing the dust level much less than what the final standard required. The CHAIRMAN. You are claiming that the cost estimates were based upon a level of exposure, a higher level of exposure than was finally permitted by the standard? Mr. BOOKER. The figures for part of the yarn manufacturing were based on a permissible exposure level of 0.5 rather than the required 0.2. Mr. MANN. Senator Williams, you have got two jokers in the deal. In one part, they use 1974 dollars. You cannot do that in 1978. When you are talking about 0.5 and 0.2 and jump back and forth and you put those two together, you can really come out with the mixed bag of tricks. We keep claiming it. We hope somebody will check the record because it is there. The CHAIRMAN. All right. This has been very valuable and I appreciate your accepting our invitation to come here. Mr. MANN. We certainly appreciate being being here and we appreciate the questions you have asked. I have been tremendously impressed with your desire to find out what it is all about. We hope we have answered all of your questions. If we have not, we will be happy to answer at another date. Mr. DUNKLIN. The latch strings are out. Mr. LANIER. For you to visit us. We will be happy to answer any further questions. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA We appreciated very much the opportunity to appear before your Committee to review our industry's concern with the cotton dust regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Our industry is deeply committed to protecting the health and safety of its employees. But we feel that OSHA's standards for cotton dust go far beyond what is necessary to provide adequate protection. There also are serious questions regarding OSHA's procedure and the evidence used to support its decision. These, of course, were addressed in our testimony. However, several issues were raised during the course of your questioning that we felt needed additional elaboration. Your question about washed cotton was particularly relevant, but there appeared to be some confusion in the NIOSH response. Additionally, we want to set the record straight regarding Dr. Bingham's misleading reference to the "centry-old" British standard. We feel that the discussion on these issues needs clarification and therefore request that this letter and its attachments be included as a part of the official hearing record. At your request, we will gladly provide any additional information that the Committee might desire. The NIOSH witness discussed steamed cotton in response to your question on washed cotton. This is an entirely different process and produces different results from washed cotton. Steaming cotton apparently does not remove dust, as the witness said. But the attached paper documents studies showing that washing the cotton removes the dust and the byssinosis agent. Dr. Bingham suggested that the U.S. is "backward" in establishing a cotton standard, saying a standard had been effective in Great Britain for a century. We are attaching a description of the British standard -- which was issued in the early 1970's -- and those of a number of other developed nations. These document the fact that no nation has a rule as strict as the standard OSHA has mandated in the U.S. Because of your strong interest in this issue, I want to extend again my personal invitation to you and your staff to visit the various work areas within each segment of the cotton industry to see first-hand the conditions that do exist and the difficulty in complying with OSHA's regulations. Again, we appreciate your interest and the devotion of your Committee's time to this important issue. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Jon Ma Lon Mann |