The CHAIRMAN. Do your associates have statements that they would like to make?

Mr. LANIER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We respectfully request that prior to the closing of the record of your hearing, we be permitted to file a comprehensive statement which will express our views concerning several aspects of the OSHA program and which we hope will be helpful to this committee in its consideration of these issues.

For the sake of brevity, however, we shall confine our remarks at this time to only one aspect of this question-the cotton dust matter. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The statement will be made a part of the record.

Mr. LANIER. My name is Joseph L. Lanier and I am chairman of the Safety and Health Committee of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute. ATMI is the central trade association for the American textile industry. It represents some 85 percent of the spinning, weaving, and knitting industry. I am also chief executive officer of West Point Pepperell, a textile company with annual sales of more than $805 million and upward of 24.000 employees. About 50 percent of our people are engaged in cotton textile manufacturing. Because of these two responsibilities, I am deeply involved in the issue of cotton dust, as well as other safety and health matters. Our foremost concern has been-and continues to be the well-being of our employees who are our greatest asset.

Since 1970, my company has spent many millions of dollars trying to eliminate any threat cotton dust may have on the health of employees.

Since 1973, we have conducted comprehensive programs involving not only the reduction of dust levels through engineering means, but also monitoring the dust levels in each plant. We have also had a medical surveillance program which includes lung function testing and the compilation of medical histories.

I bring this to your attention, sir, not because West Point Pepperell is unique in its concern for the health of employees. It is not. But because it is but one example of what textile companies have done well in advance of OSHA's unreasonable mandate.

The concern of textile companies for employees is borne out by Labor Department statistics. The latest data available show the textile industry is one of the eight safest manufacturing industries.

Since the problem of byssinosis was first brought to the attention of the textile industry, certain myths have developed concerning its characteristics and prevalence. The first is the so-called brown lung myth. No pathological examination has ever shown a discoloration of lungs due to cotton dust exposure. There is no such thing as a brown lung disease. The terms is a misnomer invented purely for its emotional impact. Indeed, there is no pathological evidence at all to distinguish byssinosis from other chronic destructive lung diseases.

Furthermore, it is impossible to determine from an X-ray if a person has byssinosis. Extensive medical research has been conducted or sponsored by industry associations as well as individual textile companies, as well as various medical universities. But there is still a great deal of disagreement among the experts as to what constitutes a valid diagnosis of byssinosis. Such a diagnosis is made primarily through subjective medical questionnaires and by objective pulmonary function tests.

Next, we have the myth of prevalance. Secretary Marshall and OSHA in the previously mentioned memorandum by the National Cotton Council representative to President Carter presented estimates claiming that from 600,000 to 800,000 employees are at risk from cotton dust. This is simply not the case. In fact, there are only some 535,000 cotton-related jobs in the United States. Of these, over 160,000 are farmers who are not covered by the standard.

Based on a study conducted by the industry involving medical examination of 37,000 cotton textile workers, along with other medical evidence, less than 1 percent were found to have both subjective and objective symptoms of reactions to cotton dust.

If you take that 1-percent frequency rate and apply it to OSHA's contractor's own figure of 300,000 persons exposed to cotton dust in the cotton industry, then you come up with a figure of only 3,000 employees who have any respiratory problem that could possibly be attributable to cotton dust. For the textile industry these figures are 233,000 employees exposed and 2,330 who may have a problem. Clearly, we are not faced with a problem of the magnitude OSHA would have the uninformed public to believe.

I hasten to add, sir, that of the total number showing some degree of reaction to the dust only a few could be considered to be chronically affected. Which is not to say that the industry is indifferent about the health of even one single employee. As previously explained, the industry firmly believes that adequate steps have been taken or are in the process of being taken to protect our workers.

May I direct your attention now to the matter of cost, and what the industry means when it says the standard is neither economically nor technically feasible.

ATMI estimates the capital cost alone of compliance with the cotton dust standard-if it were technically feasible-at about $2 billion. The textile industry, with profits rarely more than 3 percent of sales, realizes all too well the value of $2 billion.

For the cotton textile industry, $2 billion represents the approximate equivalent of more than 7 years of profit. If these capital costs plus the increased operating costs were not passed on to the consumer, this means that for 7 years there would be no returns on investment for stockholders, no wage increases or employee profit sharing, and no investment for capital improvements, research and development, and the creation of new products and new jobs. Seven years when the industry would literally dry up and even greater chunks of its markets would be lost to overseas manufacturers who do not have to meet such a standard.

Many plants will simply have to close their doors because there will not be enough money to meet their share of the cost. Others will have to change their production to other fibers, drastically decreasing the demand for cotton. The result in either case could be that thousands of persons will be jobless, including many who are members of minority groups or whose industrial skills will not allow them to qualify for employment in more sophisticated industries.

I have talked about $2 billion as though it were a figure that could actually be determined. The fact is this figure is the result of estimates based on existing technology. Much of what OSHA has imposed on the industry, however, cannot be done because the technology simply does not exist. For example, there is no way to meet the standard im

posed in spinning operations without enclosing the spinning frames or completely rebuilding the plants.

You cannot enclose a spinning frame, because there would be no way to operate it. And to rebuild entire plants would be so enormously expensive as to make the $2 billion estimate appear to be only a drop in the bucket.

If you will, trying to determine a cost figure for compliance with the dust standard is a little like Ben Franklin trying to determine the cost of light bulbs before the discovery of electricity.

OSHA has simply provided lipservice on how to reach the required dust levels. It has offered no solution because none exists. Instead, OSHA has told us that where engineering controls are not sufficient to meet the required dust levels, the industry must provide personal protection in the form of respirators. The standard requires that all personnel in work areas above the permissible level must wear respirators regardless of whether they react to cotton dust or not. Our employees, reactors or not, will be faced with the choice of wearing these masks or seeking employment elsewhere.

The impact on the industry of this unreasonable standard will be severe. But there is even more trouble ahead. In a recent speech quoted by a New York textile trade paper, the chairman of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, Mr. T. K. An, said that the strict cotton dust regulations in the United States could be a blessing for Hong Kong fabric exporters. The implications for the American textile industry are obvious. And if Hong Kong is thinking this way, other exporters are probably looking at the situation in a similar fashion. How can we survive this threat and still maintain a viable textile industry and the jobs which it provides?

Interestingly, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA's sister agency, is just now conducting a study to determine what controls are in use, and the feasibility of additional controls. This study, of course, should have been conducted before the issuance of any standard. In classic fashion, we are faced with a Federal agency putting the cart before the horse.

The textile industry presented extensive evidence to readily substantiate all contentions we have made concerning the dust standard. To review briefly, the industry has a deep concern for the health and safety of its employees and the record bears this out.

Second, even without OSHA's new cotton dust standard the industry is well on the way to eliminating byssinosis in textile manufacturing.

Third, OSHA has issued a standard which is technologically and economically infeasible and which will not accomplish its intended purpose. They have validated this standard by a calloused disregard of the essential facts presented to them for the record. A rational and practical approach in standard promulgation is the only answer to properly fulfilling the OSHA mandate.

Finally, the only certain result of this new standard may be "protecting" workers right out of their jobs.

I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman, on the Assistant Secretary's comment that another civilized country, the United Kingdom, has had a cotton dust standard since the last century. It is true, but that standard is 0.5 milligram per cubic meter and is a guideline and it is not mandatory.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanier, Jr., follows:]

TESTIMONY

OF

JOSEPH L. LANIER, JR.

ON BEHALF OF

THE AMERICAN TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC.

BEFORE

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OSHA OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

OCTOBER 3, 1978

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Joseph L. Lanier and I am chairman of the Safety & Health Committee of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute. ATMI is the central trade association for the American textile industry. It represents some 80 percent of the spinning, weaving, and knitting industry. I am also chief executive officer of WestPoint Pepperell, a textile company with annual sales of more than $800 million and upwards of 24,000 employees. About 50 percent of our people are engaged in cotton textile manufacturing. Because of these two responsibilities, I am deeply involved in the issue of cotton dust, as well as other safety and health matters. Our foremost concern has been--and continues to be-- the wellbeing of our employees who are our greatest asset.

Since 1970 my company has spent many millions of dollars trying to eliminate any threat cotton dust may have on the health of employees.

Since 1973, we have conducted comprehensive programs involving not only the reduction of dust levels through engineering means, but also monitoring the dust levels in each plant. We have also had a medical surveillance program which includes lung function testing and the compilation of medical histories.

I bring this to your attention not because WestPoint Pepperell is unique in its concern for the health of employees. It is not. But because it is but one example of what textile companies have done in advance of OSHA's unreasonable mandate.

The concern of textile companies for employees is borne out by Labor Department statistics. The latest data available show the textile industry is one of the eight safest manufacturing industries.