So if you can help us with this type of case, it will be very helpful. Dr. BINGHAM. We can do that and show you the targeting process which determines what industries we are emphasizing, thus showing you that these really are high-hazard industries.

Secretary MARSHALL. Senator Javits, I had some charts attached to my testimony that I did not go over. The main points I made in my testimony were supported by these charts.

Senator JAVITS. They are included, so they will be in the record. [Charts referred to follow:]

Occupational Illnesses and Injury Incidence Rates

Estimated Number of Occupational Exposures for Selected Substances that OSHA has Regulated

Compliance with OSHA's Health

Standard for Vinyl Chloride, 1974 and 1977

Secretary MARSHALL. We can go beyond that. Senator JAVITS. I think you should help make the case. That is the important thing that I want. The case is very hard to make in the case of somebody picking out some guy in their district and their State, and he had an unfortunate experience, well, he might have had an unfortunate experience with General Motors, General Electric, IBM, and so on. They do not tell us about that. We have to meet it. So far, all our members need is something to hang their hats on, and the way they go on OSHA.

Therefore, I think it is important that we have the hard facts.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Javits.

I wonder if we could go through one area that is under a great deal of scrutiny at this time, and from many quarters really: The cotton dust situation.

Now is it a fact, Dr. Bingham, that we see demonstrated with cotton dust a relationship between the exposure to dust and the respiratory disease that is very much comparable to the clear relationship between coal dust and pneumoconiosis that we understood prior to the enactment of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act? We responded there two ways: With strong law, legislating standards of permissible dust, and a specific law for compensation for those who were the victims of the disease.

First of all, there is a comparability here in the factual situation between exposure to cotton dust and a disease and exposure to coal dust and the disease?

Dr. BINGHAM. It is fair to say that if we examine the public record of the hearing on the cotton dust standard and all relevant scientific literature, it shows that in every segment of the cotton industry where there have been epidemiological studies conducted and where those

studies have been directed toward an adequate number of workers to be statistically significant, we see evidence of acute and/or chronic disease, such as emphysema, byssinosis, and chronic bronchitis. So the answer is yes.

I can supply a summary of the specific studies that demonstrate this scientifically to you for the record if you would like.

The CHAIRMAN. That is unequivocal and clear, and I would like to go from that statement to the next. It would impress me that logic would lead us to two conclusions.

First of all, the law should reflect the opportunity for those who have contracted the disease to have an orderly procedure that would bring them to remedy. We have no Federal standards on occupational disease. This is the legislation Senator Javits was talking to. Absent that legislation, and given a vacuum of law in the States, we have before our committee specific legislation designed for compensating the victims of cotton dust disease that is comparable to the program for compensating the victims of black lung disease due to coal dust.

It is our feeling that Federal standards legislation that would include worker's compensation coverage of all occupational diseases in the most efficient and most fair approach. We expect that those who proposed a specific bill for brown lung compensation will support us here, and I think they will ultimately. We also expect that they would support us when attempts are made to suspend your standards on cotton dust. That was not as evident last week.

But at any rate you have moved, as we did with coal, you have moved with a cotton dust standard. We heard a lot about that last week, and we are going to hear more about this today.

But I just want to be prepared for what will be coming. I would like to know if you think that the current standard-making procedure gives all interested parties the opportunity to effectively participate and to make their case if they have one? With respect to the cotton dust standard, what were the procedures in terms of providing interested parties an opportunity to be heard and to have their views considered?

Dr. BINGHAM. First of all, there was an enormously lengthy proceeding that went on for several years. In fact, the Department was ordered to expedite these proceedings. There was a proposal issued during the Ford administration that set a level for cotton dust that was uniform throughout the industry. That particular standard was estimated to be very costly-about $2.7 billion for compliance costs. During the public hearings held in Washington and in Texas and Mississippi, a large number of people presented testimony, including various segments of the industry, the workers themselves, public interest groups, and scientists from all segments of the academic community. And as a result of our thorough review of the record, we promulgated a cotton dust regulation that treated the various segments of the industry separately, based upon the evidence in the record.

The final standard considered a number of factors. The most important factor concerns the diseases that result from workers exposure to cotton dust. It is also based, as required by the act, upon the feasibility considerations. The latter has to do with what is technically possible regarding correction of the problem. A recent court decision concerning asbestos states that we are not required to base a standard's feasi

bility on the segment of the industry that is least able to comply, the "laggards"; rather we must look at the ability of the industry as a whole to implement this standard.

Our final regulation set permissible exposure levels of 200 micrograms per cubic meter of air in yarn preparation, 750 micrograms in weaving, and 500 micrograms in the nontextile segments of the industry. In the ginning industry no permissible exposure level was set pending a further evaluation of the chronic disease hazard. Instead, we asked that medical surveillance be instituted so we can identify workers exhibiting early symptoms of byssinosis.

The final regulations issued by OSHA cost considerably less and are significantly more cost effective than the proposal under the Ford administration. The price tag for the two standards (cotton industry and cotton gins) would be somewhere around $650 million as opposed to the estimated $2.7 billion for the earlier proposal. This represents a substantial reduction in compliance costs to the industry.

I believe that we listened to all the evidence that was presented to us, assessed it fairly and promulgated a standard that will afford adequate protection and is at the same time economically and technically feasible. Maybe a year from now or 5 years from now, we will have new evidence submitted and we are always willing to review data that expands our knowledge of workplace hazards-but we cannot delay any longer. It was imperative for health reasons that we issue a standard at this time. We have more than adequate evidence on which to issue a standard to protect workers against chronic respiratory disease resulting from cotton dust exposure. Testimony from Dr. Arend Bouhuys of Yale indicated that there would be substantial numbers of workers afflicted with byssinosis if there were a delay.

Our research will continue, for example, a better dose-response relationship in giving and when we have more evidence we will, where appropriate, reconsider a permissible exposure level. I believe the process as a whole has been a very fair one and permitted full participation by all interested parties.

The CHAIRMAN. Now the technology that is contemplated to assure compliance with the limits of cotton dust is a ventilation technology, is it not, basically?

Dr. BINGHAM. Yes, sir, we feel that some form of ventilation or enclosure seem to be the best methods for reducing exposure. There are several industries that have come up with innovative ideas in terms of enclosures of various segments of their operations. Both ventilation and enclosure with adjust suppression system are of course engineering approaches to the cotton dust problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other technology or advanced_engineering which could also be effective? We have heard suggestions that the washing of cotton might be effective?

Dr. BINGHAM. Washing cotton prior to processing is a technique that was suggested early in the hearings. Studies concerning this technique have produced results which are inconclusive, in that this technique has not been properly tested. There were some experimental studies, as I recall, by Dr. James Merchant of NIOSH on the washing of cotton. It may turn out that this particular process could be of some use. The standard allows for the future demonstration of the feasibility and effectiveness of this sort of technology.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Merchant is in Morgantown?

Dr. BINGHAM. Yes, sir. I think he did this week when he was at the University of North Carolina. That study was first done a number of years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. When it came to the question of limiting money for enforcement of that standard, we expected that those who were advancing the cause of the workers in compensation of their disease would see the benefit of not delaying enforcement of the standard, but quite frankly, I do not recall that we had that kind of support at all. So the Senate adopted a temporary suspension of enforcement.

I am told that there are numerous lawsuits on this standard and that there are appeals to the circuit court. What is the status of this litigation?

Dr. BINGHAM. Twenty-three suits have been filed concerning this standard. I would like to point out, Senator, that we in this country are behind the times. Another civilized country, Great Britain, early this century under the British Factory Act limited exposure to cotton dust. So it is not a new phenomenon. Regulating cotton dust has been around for a long time. For us to fail to address this hazard is taking a step backward and the time to act is now. It is not 5 years from now or 10 years from now. We are already a century behind.

The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly the way we looked at the coal dust problem. Now that was nearly 10 years ago that we acted in much the same way.

I think, Secretary Marshall, you have helped us greatly with your description of your inspectors, and your efforts to enhance their interpersonal relationships within their workplaces where the places where they are inspecting. I think this is responsive to a lot of those early criticisms.

Where do you stand on the total inspector force, the number of inspectors and the opportunities to provide the training that you feel they need? Are you in good shape there?

Secretary MARSHALL. We have about 1,600.

Dr. BINGHAM. Yes; we have about 1,600 compliance officers. We have approximately 500 in the health field, of which several hundred are still in training and not fully qualified or experienced. We have also been providing an opportunity for some of the compliance officers to take a year of professional training at a university. We are now beginning to see benefits of that additional education. We have 10 individuals who have finished the equivalent of a master's degree in industrial hygiene, and we will continue helping our personnel receive advanced degrees. I think this is a wise investment in upgrading the technical competence of our compliance officers because an industrial hygienist is called upon to perform highly technical investigations and make judgments based upon scientific evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. This has grown to be an important academic department in the university; am I right on that?

Dr. BINGHAM. Yes. Throughout the United States there are a number, I believe there are 11 educational resource centers for occupational safety and health. NIOSH set up the educational resource centers at various universities and as a result we have excellent training centers for training in occupational medicine, industrial hygiene, safety, and occupational health nursing. We are sending essentially