This would involve the design and construction of 2 model pilot waste treatment plants and their operation on site at about 24 textile plants. The engineering data from these studies would be used as the basis for a broad economic study to determine costs, and the probable impact on the industry. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a proposal of this kind has ever been offered. We are still waiting for an answer from EPA, but this is our suggestion as to a solution to these problems-a joint partnership between industry and the government agencies in solving these problems.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Newton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FLOYD C. NEWTON, JR., DUNDEE MILLS, GRIffin, Ga.

The textile industry is in agreement with the general objectives and programs to protect our environment. A concerted effort was begun almost four years ago with an industry-wide push to achieve the immediate goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. This was initiated by creation of the American Textile Institute Environmental Preservation Committee, whose first objective was to work with the Environmental Protection Agency in developing effective guidelines to control the discharge of pollutants in textile waste waters. This work was expanded to include cooperative work with the National Commission on Water Quality and a number of EPA contractors, and has been broadened over the years to include air and solid waste disposal.

ATMI and the textile industry are taking a positive approach, through these continuing efforts, to solving the problems of pollution abatement. With this, approach, however, has come the realization that many aspects of the laws and regulations in this field are unreasonable, unachievable from a practical standpoint, and unnecessary.

These comments will not attempt to address each of these, but will focus on the most immediate problems and those of greatest concern.

Regulations for controlling the discharge of pollutants in textile industry waste water were issued in February, 1974. They established initial levels of abatement to be achieved by 1977, with a second level to be met by 1983 which is considerably more stringent. The Clean Water Act sets as the ultimate National goal the total elimination of all pollutants to be achieved by 1985.

It is generally felt that a majority of the textile industry will meet the requirements for 1977, and much of the required technology is already in place. There is serious question, however, that the industry will be able to meet the 1983 levels

1. because of the high capital expenditures and the high operating and maintenance costs and

2. because many of the technologies proposed by EPA have not been evaluated within the textile industry.

Current administration of PL 92-500 (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments) presents very serious problems to the textile industry. It is marked by inequity, uncertainty and the absence of reasonable cost considerations. Major inequities are:

1. In implementing the 1977 requirements, industry is currently faced with standards which are more restrictive than those imposed on municipalities. In spite of the fact that municipalities finance costs from public sources, it is com-. monly agreed that the majority of them will not meet even the 1977 requirements, much less the 1983 levels. EPA appears willing to accept this double standard and is even considering a delay in the compliance dates for municipalities, but not for industry. Pollution is a problem which addresses itself to the total pollutant load in our water supply from all sources, and it is inequitable for excessively heavy demands to be placed upon the industry segment while municipalities continue pollution with lesser restrictions.

2. A large majority of the discharge permits now in effect for the textile industry were issued before the water pollution guidelines were promulgated and they are more restrictive than EPA's 1977 guidelines. The textile industry feels that discharge permits should be adjusted to the 1977 guideline levels upon request, but such requests have met with no success to date.

The administration of the problem of water pollution is characterized by major uncertainties, one of which is the confusion and inconsistency arising from the overlapping jurisdiction between the Federal and State agencies.

Even where an EPA Regional Office delegates permissipe authority to a State, it is our experience that an applicant must often negotiate with both State and Federal officials before a permit is finally issued. Frequent disagreements arise between the agencies, with resulting confusion and delay.

A second major uncertainty arises from standards and requirements which are considered but are not issued in time to permit proper planning in order to meet industry responsibilities. In this area, the impact of proposed pre-treatment standards is one of the most serious unresolved issues. These standards will have a major effect on the textile industry since approximately 76% of our plants, representing 35% of our total waste volume, discharge into municipallyowned facilities. Many mills will be especially hard hit since they do not have access to land for building their own treatment plants and have no practical alternatives to utilizing local sewerage systems.

The original pre-treatment guidelines proposed by EPA would require discharges into municipal systems to perform essentially the same treatment as that required for direct discharges, which would clearly result in a duplication of treatment. To this date EPA has not issued the standards for pre-treatment, and the industry does not know what to expect. Nevertheless, we are expected to make long-term commitments for pollution abatement which must take into consideration the pre-treatment aspects of water pollution control. It is rather difficult to make major commitments without knowledge of the game rules.

It is our view that costs of pollution abatement have been consistently underestimated and may well represent unreasonable amounts in relation to benefits to be obtained. Estimates of cost to meet the 1977 and 1983 levels for water pollution control range from $530 million to 2.9 billion dollars for the textile industry. Regardless of which of these widely varying estimates is accurate, it presents a serious problem of capital investment for the textile industry. According to Department of Commerce figures, total profits after taxes for the entire industry averaged $648 million per year for the five years through 1974. During the same period expenditures for new plants and equipment to maintain productive capacity averaged approximately $702 million per year. Obviously the level of profitability in the industry cannot support the tremendous capital requirements for non-productive water pollution abatement equipment and most of these costs will have to be passed on to the consumer if we are to stay in business. The National Commission of Water Quality has estimated a 4.7% increase in textile prices resulting from water pollution control costs. To this must be added the cost of regulatory programs for noise, cotton dust, toxic substances, flammability and others.

It is our broad estimate that a total increase of approximately 20% in textile costs to the consumer will result.

The 1977 levels for water pollution control require a pollutant removal of 90% for the textile industry. In special situations where this is not adequate, we are meeting more stringent and costly standards. It is generally believed that reductions of this magnitude along with the 85% removal of pollutants required for municipalities will enable the vast majority of our streams and rivers to adequately support fish, wildlife and recreational activities. To meet the 1983 requirements will entail an extremely high cost for a very modest amount of improvement, and it may well be that those requirements are not necessary and can be attained only at an economic cost which would clearly outweigh any benefits obtained.

I might comment that in the case of the textile industry the cost impact of these programs is extremely burdensome when we are facing a serious problem of imports from foreign companies who are not required to meet such standard in their production.

These observations lead to two major suggestions:

1. We feel that the consumer should be made aware of the high cost of the abatement programs being considered so that the public can form its own judg ment as to the value and cost justification of the benefits to be derived. To our knowledge, little or no information of this type has been released.

2. We recommend strongly that there be a general review of the goals of the Water Pollution Control program when the 1977 requirements have been met so that an adequate evaluation of the need for more stringent controls, the technology available to achieve better controls, and the cost elements involved can be put into better balance.

The situation with regard to air pollution has been somewhat different in that the regulatory program has been primarily a responsibility of the States; nevertheless, we are experiencing some serious problems.

The majority of our plants had switched from coal to natural gas and fuel oils to reduce boiler stack emissions prior to the time that much of the present legislation was enacted. We now find ourselves in a precarious position from this effort because of the shortage of natural gas.

When coal is burned, the use of electrostatic precipitants or wet scrubbers to clean up boiler stack emissions present us with another dilemma. The sludge or precipitants from these devices cannot be discharged into the waste water stream and the cost of energy to burn them is prohibitive.

New regulations on fabric flammability will have a direct effect on our ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act; for example, the chloride catalysts necessary to impart flame resistant coats to fabrics cannot be emitted to the air because of OSHA restrictions. The alternative is to use zinc catalysts, which, in turn, are incompatible with water restrictions on heavy metals.

There is another serious problem which is only now developing in the form of proposed legislation. One amendment to the Clean Air Act now being considered contains a requirement that States adopt and enforce plans preventing "the significant deterioration of air over all existing international parks, national parks, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks which exceed 5,000 acres in size." The provisions of this amendment spell out a program of Federal zoning, Federal land use planning and control, and Federal control of industrial plant locations through the imposition of stringent standards in a large number of areas. This is a disguised plan of Federal land use control which would preempt the rights of the individual States to encourage industrial expansion.

Finally, EPA has determined that its efforts to reduce hydrocarbons in the atmosphere through mandatory use of certain devices on automobiles have not been successful, and that the emission of hydrocarbons presents a significant problem for a number of industries, including textiles. They now indicate that certain stationery sources, such as fabric coating operations, must be controlled, and studies are now underway to develop more regulations which will impose additional restrictions on industry.

The disposal of solid waste has also come under Federal scrutiny. A contractor for EPA has just completed a study of the textile industry in an attempt to identify "potentially hazardous solid wastes" so as to assist EPA in developing more regulations. The disturbing part of this study is the contractor's conclusion that textile sludges are potentially hazardous since they may contain heavy metals and some toxic materials which may leach or migrate to underground water courses when disposed of in a land fill. The contractor did not find evidence to support this conclusion, but such arbitrary conclusions have serious implications for the textile industry because of the large amounts of sludges which are generated. These traditionally have been handled by incineration or land disposal, bt now the question arises as to how EPA would propose their handling. They cannot be incinerated because of air regulations and the exorbitant energy costs, and they cannot be placed in land fills.

In total, the masive Federal program of environmental control is a conglomeration of confusion and contradiction which is frustrating the good faith efforts. of many industries and adds a tremendous burden of cost to operations—which may not be at all justified by the results obtained.

Meanwhile, the textile industry is continuing its efforts to reach the goals established by Federal legislation. This attitude is best reflected in a proposed research project now before EPA. ATMI has offered to conduct a joint program with the Federal government which is intended to evaluate the technical and economic achievability of the technologies for meeting the 1983 water standards. This is to be a $630,000 study, jointly funded by the textile industry and EPA, which will require 30 months. It calls for design and construction of two mobile pilot waste treatment plants and their operation on-site at about 24 textile plants. The engineering data from these studies will then be used as the basis for. a broad economic study to determine costs and the probable impact on the industry. To our knowledge, this is the first proposal of its kind and it represents our idea of the best approach to the solution of these problems-a partnership approach involving both Government and industry.

Senator NUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Newton. The latter suggestion sounds very intriguing.

Our next witness is Mr. L. K. Fitzgerald, of the Deering-Milliken Services Corp.

TESTIMONY OF L. K. FITZGERALD, DEERING-MILLIKEN SERVICES CORPORATION, SPARTANBURG, S.C.

Mr. FITZGERALD. My comments will be directed to OSHA and within that Agency, the comments will be restricted to two areas: one dealing with industrial noise, and the other with industrial cotton dust. I will be as brief as possible.

With respect to noise, existing OSHA regulations specify employees cannot be exposed to noise in excess of 90 dB for an 8-hour timeweighted average. The regulation further provides wherever noise levels exceed this standard feasible, I underscore the word feasible, feasible administrative or engineering controls will be required to reduce the levels to this standard.

Should those controls fail to bring the noise levels to 90 dB's, personnel protective equipment-earmuffs, et cetera, must be provided. Time will not allow more than a very brief comment on the existing noise levels in the textile industry. At least half of all textile employees are concerned with the operation of looms and spinning frames, and each of these broad machinery classifications is substantially above a 90 dB level.

Consider the loom. More than 95 percent of the 360,000 looms in place operate at sound levels in areas of 120 to 130 dB. There are no conversion parts to lower that level. There are no refit kits. There is nothing the industry can order or buy at any figure to reduce that level.

OSHA does not know how to bring that noise level down, nor does our textile industry, nor do the machinery manufacturers who build the equipment and who so testified under oath.

There are no mechanical means known nor is there today even a design concept of an outright new loom that would meet a 90 dB standard. Now what does this say? Of most significance, it says that nobody can estimate the costs for bringing existing looms into compliance or for building a new loom for which not even a concept exists.

Consider the 19 million spinning spindles now in place. They operate at a noise level, 90, 96 dB, with the vast majority in the 93 to 96 dB. The machinery manufacturers who built this equipment originally and who supply parts for it believe that 2 of the 190 million spindles can be brought into compliance to 90 dBA for about $24 a spindle. The remaining 170 million spindles: An expenditure of twice that amount per spindle still will not bring the noise level more than part way of the 90 dBA-or to say it differently, anywhere from one-half to three-quarters of $1 billion can be spent on a haywire and bailing twine remedy that would not meet the standard and would serve no useful purpose.

Employees would still be required to wear hearing protective devices, just as though no expenditure had been made. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is now in process of proposing a new noise standard which may retain the present standard or it may be the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended 85 dBA, either of which would require medical surveillance.

OSHA is required by law to provide an economic impact study regarding their proposed new standard and has done so. The textile

industry presented its views on that study last July and both OSHA and the contractor who made the study admitted quite freely that it was entirely inadequate. Therefore, OSHA ordered the contractor to remake that study and the contractor has done so and even though the contractor's work is not published, I have a draft copy of it. It is a poorer factual rendition than the earlier version.

Let me tell you what it says. "Not that costs are based on the assumption that industry at present is in total compliance with the 90 dBA regulation." We are not in compliance with the 90 dBA standard; we do not know how to get into compliance with the 90 dBA standard; we do not know what it would cost to get into compliance, even if it were possible; nor does the manufacturer supplier know. We are talking about an economic impact, but the contractor does not know, nor does OSHA know how we can get into compliance. But the study goes on to say that an 85 dBA standard in the textile industry-5 dBA lower than the 90 dBA-can be achieved for $1.4 million and that figure, in my opinion, is again just so much poppycock.

Let me ballpark a figure for you. Any loom which were to be designed, which had the capability of operating at a 90 or 85 dBA standard would have to be an extremely sophisticated piece of equipment. The most sophisticated, the most beautiful loom that has ever been built anywhere on Earth, will not even remotely reach a 90 dBA. Not even begin to come within the range of a 90 dBA; but if we were to take that loom which will not do the job, but which is the best there is, and replace all existing looms, the cost would be $20 billion. And so we go our way with OSHA thrusting these designs down our throats, without even the remotest idea of what they are doing to our industry.

However, this study made at OSHA's direction without factual findings as it is and as woefully inadequate as it makes one extremely interesting point to the people here in Georgia. It concludes that the economic impact on the textile industry of its being forced to meet an 85 dBA noise standard would be greater by a very substantial margin in the south Atlantic States than the adverse impact we are talking about on any other industry in any other area of the country. What does the textile industry recommend? It recommends that the term feasible, in a regulation, refer to economics, as well as technology. It does not want any part of the OSHA interpretation of feasibility-that interpretation, being possible of attainment, without regard to cost. The industry wants to spend no capital on partial remedies which will not attain the standards. It serves no constructive purpose to reduce the noise level of a machine, from a 99 to a 97 dBA. It does serve a useful purpose to reduce to a 92, to a 90 dBA. if that be the standard and if the expenditure be economically justifiable. The industry wishes to be deemed in compliance with the standard.

If it protects the hearing of its employees with protective devices, wherever feasible engineering controls are not available, the industry wants a realistic standard based on a demonstrated medical need. The industry does not want a standard that requires irresponsible capital expenditures.