A Historical Perspective on Cotton Dust in the ... - ACS Publications

1

A H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e o n C o t t o n D u s t i n the U n i t e d States T e x t i l e I n d u s t r y

Downloaded by 46.243.173.44 on November 12, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: July 1, 1982 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1982-0189.ch001

JOHN G. TRITSCH American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20036 The American Textile Industry involvement with cotton dust as a workplace hazard began over ten years ago with industry studies to determine whether the i n dustry had such an illness problem. Then followed major dust removal and ventillation efforts. The industry developed a work practices and medical surveillance program which was presented to OSHA. The Labor Department conducted lengthy hearings on numerous standard proposals for controlling cotton dust exposures resulting in the 1978 promulgation of the present OSHA standard. Industry doubts about need for that standard, i t s feasibility and its capability of solving the dust illness problem coupled with disagreement with claimed cotton dust illness dimensions led to challenge in the courts. Industry belief in ability of medical surveillance and administrative practices in support to reduce greatly or just about eliminate future byssinosis cases. Problems exist with diagnosis of cotton dust illness which complicate compensation awards. Causative agent arrives at the m i l l in the bale of cotton and industry supports aggressive research efforts to identify cause and seek i t s removal. P r i o r t o enactment o f the Occupations Safety and H e a l t h Act i n 1970, the U.S. t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y had b a r e l y become aware of worker problems w i t h c o t t o n dust. There had been a l i m i t e d awareness abroad i n a few c o u n t r i e s whose t e x t i l e operations were o l d e r , w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d and w i t h v i s i b l e and obvious h i g h l e v e l s of dust f e a t u r i n g t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s . U.S. m i l l working environments improved c o n s i d e r a b l y w i t h the general advent o f i n d u s t r i a l a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g i n the 1950 s and the c l o s i n g of the m i l l s to the o u t s i d e accompanied by improved a i r c l e a n i n g techniques. Both of these general a c t i v i t i e s a c c e l e r a t e d i n the 1960 s and 1970 s. Few people i n the U.S. government or i n i n d u s t r y had even heard o f the word, " b y s s i n o s i s " , a term used to d e s c r i b e the ailment of s u f f e r e r s of c o t t o n dust problems. ,

!

,

0097-6156/82/0189-000 3$06.00/0 © 1982 American Chemical Society

Montalvo; Cotton Dust ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1982.

4

COTTON

DUST

Industry Actions


T

Late i n the 1960 s, s p e c u l a t i o n about raw c o t t o n dust r e s p i r a t o r y problems i n the U.S. m i l l s was r a i s e d i n medical j o u r n a l s s t i m u l a t i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y . The i n d u s t r y employed the I n d u s t r i a l H e a l t h Foundation, an a f f i l i a t e of the Melon I n s t i t u t e i n P i t t s b u r g h , t o study the q u e s t i o n i n 1969. The study covered some twenty companies i n four s t a t e s and no other study e i t h e r before or s i n c e t h a t time covered so many companies(1). The r e s u l t s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d that there were some i n d i v i d u a l s who d i d s u f f e r some adverse a f f e c t s when exposed to c o t t o n dust and the government was informed of these f i n d i n g s . The i n d u s t r y then sought to f i n d out what there was about c o t t o n dust t h a t created the problem. The search i n v o l v e d researchers at the I n d u s t r i a l H e a l t h Foundation, the M e d i c a l U n i v e r s i t y of South C a r o l i n a , Tulane U n i v e r s i t y and other i n s t i t u t i o n s . Even s t a f f members of the American T e x t i l e Manufacturers I n s t i t u t e became i n v o l v e d . I t i s u n f o r t u n a t e , but t r u e , t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the cause or causes of b y s s i n o s i s so f a r continues to elude a l l r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s , i n c l u d i n g those of government, t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y and c o t t o n producers. Recognizing t h a t the c a u s a t i v e agent comes to t e x t i l e m i l l s i n the b a l e s of c o t t o n r e c e i v e d from growers, i n d u s t r y represent a t i v e s , i n cooperation w i t h growers and others concerned w i t h c o t t o n , cannot overemphasize how important i t i s f o r the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e to expand and a c c e l e r a t e i t s r e s e a r c h p r o grams designed to i d e n t i f y and seek removal of the c a u s a t i v e agents(2). I n f u r t h e r r e c o g n i t i o n of i n d u s t r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , e f f o r t s were made through the American T e x t i l e Manufacturers I n s t i t u t e to develop a set of work p r a c t i c e s f o r i n d u s t r y - w i d e a p p l i c a t i o n to d i m i n i s h the exposure of i n d i v i d u a l employees to c o t t o n dust hazards. The comprehensive and s t r i n g e n t s e r i e s of work p r a c t i c e s developed were c o n s o l i d a t e d i n t o a p r i n t e d booklet i n 1973(3). This p u b l i c a t i o n was d i s t r i b u t e d w i d e l y through the i n d u s t r y . I n a d d i t i o n , an i n d u s t r y d e l e g a t i o n c a l l e d on the Secretary of Labor, u r g i n g t h a t the recommended p r a c t i c e s be e s t a b l i s h e d immediately as a mandatory OSHA standard(4). T h i s was not done. Related i n p a r t to these work p r a c t i c e s developments, the m i l l s a l s o i n s t i t u t e d medical s u r v e i l l a n c e programs designed to i d e n t i f y those few i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a c o t t o n dust s e n s i t i v i t y so t h a t they might be considered f o r assignment o u t s i d e the yarn processing areas(3). On s t i l l another f r o n t , the i n d u s t r y stepped up i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n of dust c l e a n i n g equipment. Expenditures f o r such i n s t a l l a t i o n s amounted to hundreds of m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s ( 5 ) . A l l


1.

TRITSCH

Historical Perspective

5

these e f f o r t s were done by the i n d u s t r y i n t e r n a l l y and without government help. I t may be s a i d without h e s i t a t i o n that the U.S. t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y today i s the most modern, s a f e s t and c l e a n e s t of any t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y i n the world.


Proposed Standard While OSHA never accepted the work p r a c t i c e s program proposed by the i n d u s t r y as a standard, the Agency issued a proposed r u l e i n December 1976 t o r e p l a c e the o r i g i n a l 1 m i l l i g r a m per cubic meter t o t a l dust standard f o r r e g u l a t i n g c o t t o n dust exposure(6). The proposal would have set a standard maximum a l l o w a b l e c o t t o n dust l e v e l a t 0.2 m i l l i g r a m s per cubic meter. During the hearings held i n the months of A p r i l and May of 1977, numerous ATMI r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s p a r t i c i p a t e d . The i n d u s t r y and these witnesses proposed a standard maximum dust l e v e l s set a t 0.5 m i l l i g r a m s (1.0 f o r weaving and s l a s h i n g ) backed up w i t h the medical s u r v e i l l a n c e and work p r a c t i c e s programs developed by t h e i n d u s t r y ( 5 ) . OSHA again ignored i n d u s t r y recommendations. New Standard The F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r f o r June 23, 1978, p u b l i c i z e d the OSHA promulgation of the f i n a l r u l e t o go i n t o e f f e c t September of that y e a r ( 7 ) . The three l e v e l standard of 0.2 m i l l i g r a m s per cubic meter f o r opening through yarn manufacture, 0.75 m i l l i grams per c u t i c meter f o r weaving and s l a s h i n g and 0.5 m i l l i g r a m s per cubic meter f o r other operations represented only a minor v a r i a t i o n from the 1976 p r o p o s a l . The i n d u s t r y could not l i v e w i t h what appeared as an insurmountable and i n f e a s i b l e burden. When i t s request f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was r e j e c t e d by the Agency, the i n d u s t r y had no choice but t o appeal t o the c o u r t s . Court Appeals Court a c t i o n was i n s t i g a t e d by the i n d u s t r y i n the U.S. Court of Appeals f o r the Fourth C i r c u i t ( 8 ) . Meanwhile, AFL-CIO a l s o entered s u i t against the Department of Labor i n the Court of Appeals f o r the D i s t r i c t of Columbia C i r c u i t , c l a i m i n g that the f i n a l r u l e was too l a x ( 9 ) . A l l court a c t i o n s e v e n t u a l l y were c o n s o l i d a t e d i n one case i n the D.C. C i r c u i t Court of Appeals (10). A stay of the standard was granted e f f e c t i v e October 12, 1978, t e m p o r a r i l y r e i n s t i t u t i n g the 10. m i l l i g r a m s per cubic meter of t o t a l c o t t o n dust as the s o l e standard. The i n d u s t r y submitted o r a l arguments i n eloquent b r i e f s emphasizing the i n f e a s i b i l i t y of the standard, q u e s t i o n i n g i t s need and doubting i t s p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s , a l l t o no a v a i l . On September 24, 1979, the Court's d e c i s i o n upheld the OSHA standard(11). I n a s e r i e s of orders on January 11, 1980, the court r e j e c t e d requests f o r a



6

COTTON

DUST

re-hearing and s e t i n motion the machinery f o r OSHA t o make the standard e f f e c t i v e March 27, 1980. On March 4, 1980, a t t o r n e y s f o r ATMI and r e l a t e d p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h the Supreme Court f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i r e q u e s t i n g a review of the a c t i o n of the D.C. C i r c u i t Court concerning the dust standard. This i s the l a s t avenue of r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e through the j u d i c i a l system. The i n d u s t r y p o s i t i o n r a i s e d four p o i n t s : 1) There's a c o n f l i c t among the c i r c u i t s as t o the showing OSHA must make t o e s t a b l i s h that i t s standards are economically f e a s i b l e . 2) There's a c o n f l i c t among the c i r c u i t s whether OSHA must demonstrate the e x i s t e n c e of a reasonable r e l a t i o n s h i p between the cost of the standard and the benef i t s expected from i t and as t o whether OSHA must demonstrate a reasonable n e c e s s i t y f o r the standard. 3) This case presents the important q u e s t i o n as t o the proper r o l e of the reviewing court under the s u b s t a n t i a l evidence standard of review. 4) The wage guarantee p r o v i s i o n concerning r e s p i r a t o r s exceeds OSHA's s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y . I n October the Supreme Court accepted the p e t i t i o n f o r review but d e c l i n e d t o i n c l u d e p o i n t 3 on evident i a r y standards(12). B r i e f s and r e p l i e s were submitted by both s i d e s and o r a l arguments were heard on January 21, 1981. S h o r t l y a f t e r the o r a l arguments were heard an i s s u e r a i s e d by one j u s t i c e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the Supreme Court benzene d e c i s i o n t o c o t t o n dust was given treatment i n supplementary b r i e f s by a l l concerned. We are now a w a i t i n g the c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . Compliance and Defects i n the Standard Meanwhile, the Agency has been a d m i n i s t e r i n g enforcement of the standard since March 27, 1980(13). T e x t i l e m i l l s have been attempting to meet the v a r i o u s t r a n s i t i o n a l steps r e q u i r e d by the standard under the w a t c h f u l eyes of the OSHA r e g i o n a l admini s t r a t o r s and s t a t e OSHA p l a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . T h i s enforcement experience has r e v e a l e d shortcomings i n the standard d i f f i c u l t , i f not i m p o s s i b l e , t o enforce. These d e f e c t s a r e i t e m i z e d b r i e f l y below i n two b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s . F i r s t of a l l , the standard i s o r i e n t e d e x c e s s i v e l y t o e x a c t ing s p e c i f i c a t i o n s r a t h e r than performance. Nowhere i s t h i s more evident than i n the requirements f o r the measurement of dust l e v e l s and exposures and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n t o accomplish these measurements. The methods of compliance w i t h the permissable exposure l e v e l s o f f e r employers l i t t l e i n the way of o p t i o n s . Even such mundane matters as the signs t o be posted, the keeping of records and the education and t r a i n i n g of employees a r e t i g h t l y s p e c i f i e d . E x a c t i n g r e s p i r a t o r requirements make r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h s e n s i t i v e employee r e l a t i o n s d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible. The other major category covers requirements d e f e c t i v e i n a t e c h n i c a l o r t e c h n o l o g i c a l sense. S e l e c t i o n of the p e r m i s s i b l e



1.

TRITSCH

Historical Perspective

7

exposure l i m i t s i n some cases goes beyond c u r r e n t t e c h n o l o g i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s . I n t h i s sense, the standard has been technology f o r c i n g . The standard i n c l u d e s w i t h i n i t s coverage some operat i o n s where c o t t o n dust exposure does not pose a s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k t o employees i n those areas. The medical s u r v e i l l a n c e s e c t i o n even c a l l s f o r the p h y s i c i a n ' s r e p o r t t o i n c l u d e i n f o r mation that assumes a knowledge of the i n d i v i d u a l p a t i e n t f o r beyond any need r e l a t e d t o c a r r y i n g out the c o t t o n dust standard p r o v i s i o n s . L a s t l y , and perhaps most s i g n i f i c a n t of a l l , there i s no p r o v i s i o n f o r a c t i o n l e v e l s or l i m i t s of a p p l i c a t i o n of the standard so that the standard has no c l e a r beginning or end. In c l o s i n g , permit me to observe that the i n d u s t r y doubts that the c o t t o n dust standard developed by OSHA w i t h i t s a l l encompassing p r o v i s i o n s i s the answer t o a problem that has been g r o s s l y exaggerated. The standard has many d e f e c t s and sooner or l a t e r the Agency must engage i n supplementary rulemaking t o r e c t i f y many of them. I n view of the f a c t that the component of c o t t o n dust causing the b y s s i n o s i s problems comes to the m i l l s already i n the c o t t o n b a l e , r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s t o i s o l a t e and remove the c a u s a t i v e agent o f f e r the best chance f o r u l t i m a t e s o l u t i o n . This u n d e r l i n e s the importance of meetings l i k e t h i s one f e a t u r i n g the exchange of r e s e a r c h i n f o r m a t i o n . Whatever the outcome, the U.S. t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y w i l l be c e r t a i n t o perform as a good c i t i z e n and to meet i t s o b l i g a t i o n s t o p r o v i d e a safe and h e a l t h f u l working place f o r i t s employees. (Since t h i s paper was prepared, two events have occured which are c e r t a i n t o have s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the c o t t o n dust standard. On March 27, 1981, the Department of Labor began rulemaking procedures t o g i v e the standard r e g u l a t o r y r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . On June 17, 1981, the Supreme Court rendered i t s d e c i s i o n upholding the standard as promulgated by OSHA).

Literature Cited 1.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Braun, D.C.; Jurgiel, J.A.; Tume, Jiri. "Report on Cotton Dust Research"; Industrial Health Foundation, Inc.: Pittsburgh, Penn., 1971, 1972 and 1973. G.S. Buck, Jr. to William E. Reid; Communication: Jan. 14, 1974. Safety and Health Committee "Work Practices Standard for Raw Cotton Dust"; American Textile Manufacturers Institute: Charlotte, N.C., 1973. Donald Comer to Peter J . Brennan; Communication: Nov. 27, 1973 Department of Labor; OSHA Cotton Dust Proceedings Docket No. H-052, 1977. Federal Register, 41, 56498-527. Federal Register, 43, 27350-463.


8

8. 9. 10. 11.


12. 13.

COTTON

U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Cir. No. 78-1979 ATMI vs Dr. Eula Bingham, Peitition filed June 19, 1978. U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Cir. No. 78-1562 AFL-CIO vs Ray Marshall, Petition filed June 19, 1978. U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Cir. No. 78-1562 AFL-CIO vs Ray Marshall Consolidation Ordered Oct. 3, 1978. U.S. Court of Appeals No. 78-1562 AFL-CIO vs Ray Marshall Decided Oct. 24, 1978. Supreme Court of U.S. No. 79-1429 ATMI vs Ray Marshall Petition granted Oct. 6, 1980. Federal Register, 45, 12416-7.

RECEIVED

January 20, 1982.


DUST

A Historical Perspective on Cotton Dust in the ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents