band-aid. We want to keep it that way and we appreciate any suggestions from any source which might be helpful in promoting safety. However, the methods of enforcing this law appear to be completely unamerican and many of the requirements are simply "picky" and obviously should have never been included in the law. Again my personal thanks to you for the action which you are taking. J. M. BAILEY. CASPER COMMISSARY, INC., Hon. TENO RONCALIO, House of Representatives Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Recently, I attended a seminar in connection with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Its administration seems to have fallen into hands of ones who are quite harsh. It is being administered without any degree of reason. The result is going to be that many small businesses, including ours, may be forced to close their doors. This will add substantially to our unemployment roll. I sincerely hope you will lend a hand in correcting this very bad situation. ROBERT R. DALY, Wheatland, Wyo., March 13, 1972. Hon. TENO RONCALIO, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE RONCALIO: I am writing in regard to the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. As a small business man it sounds impossible to comply with, even though no one seems able to define it exactly. I have a Plumbing, Heating, Sheetmetal and Airconditioning business here in Wheatland, Wyoming. I hire one full time employee and an occasional part-time man. There is one other plumbing shop in our town and we have to attempt to serve the whole Platte County area. Each year more laws and regulations are forced upon us; one for this year was the Federal Unemployment Tax which we must pay if we have one or more employees. We realize that it is our Governments object, apparently, to squeeze out all small business men eventually. We have had our shop for over 20 years. We have a very faithful employee who has a family of six to support and we surely would regret being forced to drop him and do just what I can do alone. (Not to mention the customers who have to wait weeks for small jobs to be taken care of now)! Will you please do everything possible to get this Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 amended, so that the small businesses might survive at least a few years longer. Very truly yours, ROBERT R. DALY. DUTTON'S GMC, Cody, Wyo., March 14, 1972. Representative TENO RONCALIO, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We urge your immediate cooperation in repealing the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. We feel that the responsibilities of this Act are unreasonable and will cause unjust financial strain in our business. To implement all of the requirements of this law would be impossible, placing in jeopardy the jobs of our three full time employees. We as business men are burdened now with too many laws and record keeping along with our bookkeeping. If this law is left in force you can expect the biggest percent of the Small Business' (which are the back bone of the country) to be out of business in a very short time. Please do your part in restoring our faith in the American free enterprise system. Very truly yours, GEORGE C. DUTTON. GILLETTE, Wyo., April 13, 1972. I am just a small business man, and as a small business man I must say; as it now stands the Occupational Safety and Health Act would probably put me out of business and into bankruptcy! A law like this is certainly putting an end to free enterprise ! GARNET E. BRAY. Mr. HUNGATE. Would you think in addition to the shortcomings that may exist in the law that there are many shortcomings in the regulations that were not in the law? Mr. RONCALIO. Yes, I do. Mr. HUNGATE. You have done some legal practice. You are familiar with the case, I suspect, where the law says you shall not give bad checks and the prosecutor gets a case for a bad check but gives the man an opporunity to make it good and doesn't prosecute and nothing ever happens. Mr. RONCALIO. I am an old DA, also. I have seen businessmen abuse prosecutors over the years and use them as a collection agency and everything with this bum check business. You have a kid the first time and then a hardened criminal. Mr. HUNGATE. Isn't there a certain discretion that is exercised whether set forth in the law or not? Mr. RONCALIO. Precisely. Mr. HUNGATE. Would you think that might be possible with this law? Mr. RONCALIO. I think we will have to allow an examiner some type of discretion. If he hasn't enough wisdom to use it, then he ought not to be on the job. Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful, most helpful. Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you. Mr. McKEVITT. May I add, Mr. Chairman, that Wyoming may have tiny towns, but it is a giant State and it has a giant for a Congressman. Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you. Mr. HUNGATE. Congressman Price, of Texas. TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT D. PRICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to present testimony this morning of the Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association, West Central Texas Oil & Gas Association, North Texas Oil & Gas Association, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association, California Independent Oil & Gas Producers of California, Independent Oil Producers & Landowners Association, Tri-State, Inc., Kentucky Oil & Gas Association, The Land and Royalty Owners of Louisiana, Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil Association, Liaison Committee of Cooperating Oil & Gas Associations, Illinois Oil & Gas Association, American Association of Petroleum Landmen, and Michigan Oil & Gas Association. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this testimony is being submitted on behalf of several thousand small businessmen. These men are independent oil and gas operators or small businessmen in the industry, and they are located in every oil and gas producing State in the United States. It is an established fact that these small businessmen are not opposed to good safety standards as evidenced by the low accident rate in the oil producing industry. The primary concern of these small businessmen with the OSHA regulations is that the standards adopted under the act-so-called consensus standards were primarily standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association and the American National Standards Institute, many of which standards are concerned with the protection of property rather than employee safety, whereas the act itself is concerned only with employee safety. Furthermore, many of these standards contained grandfather clause protection and scope limitations which were omitted from the regulations as adopted by the Department of Labor. Without these limitations and exemption of existing installations, the standards cannot be considered to be consensus standards and, therefore, do not meet the requirements of the law. Those standards which were designed to protect employees from injury were written for manufacturing concerns with concentrations of workers, and in many cases are not reasonably applicable to work situations in the oil-producing industry. Standards of long standing in the oil-producing industry which have resulted in a history of safe operations have been ignored. Some specific instances of regulations which will cause great expense to our industry without enhancing safety are as follows: 1. The regulations appear to prohibit the use of storage tanks made of wood which are currently in use for storage of crude oil where severe corrosion is a problem. We can think of no circumstance under which wooden tanks would present a safety problem. 2. The regulations prohibit use of any oil storage vessel designed to operate at more than 15-pound per square inch pressure unless that vessel is constructed in accordance with ASME Pressure Vessel Code. There are many thousands of such vessels in operation in the oil fields with a long history of safe operation which were constructed and installed prior to the time this code was adopted. To require replacement of all such vessels would be an intolerable economic burden. 3. The regulations concerning storage tanks for flammable and combustible liquids, which would include lease crude oil storage tanks, requires that such tanks be spaced not closer than 3 feet apart. Well over 100,000 producing leases on which tanks are located are in violation of this rule which has no bearing on employee safety. 4. These same regulations specify that such tanks must be equipped with steel valves. All existing crude oil storage tanks which operate at atmospheric pressure are presently equipped with cast iron valves which throughout the history of the oil industry have posed no threat to employee safety. There is not sufficient manufacturing capacity to replace all of these valves, and the cost of such replacement would be prohibitive. These valves can cost all the way from $10 to $10,000 each. 5. Welding standards contained in the OSHA regulations are at variance with oil industry standards even though the oil industry is the largest user of welding, and its safety record confirms the adequacy of industry standards. Enforcement of these specific regulations would result in the premature abandonment of many oil-producing leases. Our industry strongly recommends that the existing OSHA regulations be rewritten to remove those provisions not concerned with employee safety and our members ready to serve as advisers to accomplish this purpose. That concludes my statement, gentlemen. I have several comments of my own that I would like to make. These men have had years of experience in this field. I want to echo Mr. Roncalio's statements regarding many of these regulations. These men know more in 5 minutes about the requirements than some of these fieldmen that OSHA is sending out that are inexperienced, yet are threatening these people with regulations in a rude manner. I spoke just last week to a group of ski resort owners and operators. The Environmental Protection Agency told them what they had to comply with, and then a young gentleman sent out by OSHA in a very rude manner more or less told them that they were going to jam it down their throats. It left a very bad taste with over 800 of these people in attendance at this one meeting. Gentlemen, I think there are a lot of flaws in the OSHA regulations. They are actually going to cause a lot of unemployment. This has stirred the countryside and the small businessmen to an extraordinary degree. Busing has been a widespread issue, but the regulations here are also stirring up much rancor among the people, the small businessmen. They are really upset about it. Mr. HUNGATE. As I understand a good part of your testimony as you itemize it, it is an assertion from these men in the oil and gas industry that these particular safety regulations to which you allude bear no relationship that you can find to safety of the employees. Mr. PRICE. That is right. Mr. HUNGATE. Are there any questions? Mr. McKEVITT. Do you have any specific examples you would like to point out where they have had abuses from OSHA inspectors? Mr. PRICE. I have no letters regarding this. I have cited the one example, where this man from OSHA came to this meeting and more or less threatened these ski resort owners, that if they didn't comply with the regulations, and he didn't care if they did or not, he was going to fine them if they didn't. It upset all of these people, naturally, to be threatened in this manner. Mr. Roncalio pointed out that these OSHA people don't have the experience, but they come out there and tell men who have been in a business all their lives about something they don't know what they are talking about. It leaves a bad taste in their mouths. Mr. McKEVITT. Thank you. Mr. HUNGATE. Are there any further questions? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. It is helpful. Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUNGATE. The next witness is our colleague, Frank Denholm, of South Dakota. TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANK E. DENHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; ACCOMPANIED BY GARY ENRIGHT, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, HURON, S. DAK. Mr. DENHOLM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. I compliment you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for conducting hearings in this matter. Congress can enact legislation. Legislation is seldom perfect in final form. That is particularly true of this act-the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gary Enright, the administrative director of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, is with me today. Mr. Enright conducted hearings throughout the State of South Dakota and gave the people, the small businessmen and officials of the farm organizations, an opportunity to come before his meetings and testify how the OSHA adversely affects them. He has compiled a record of the public testimony taken on the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I respectfully request permission of the chairman of the committee that a copy of that be filed for reference. Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, we will make that an exhibit to be filed with the committee for its consideration in preparing its report. Mr. DENHOLM. It summarizes well the circumstances across our State. I request leave to file a complete statement for the record. Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, that may be done not later than July 17. Mr. DENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is some value in the law. I don't agree in total with statements of my distinguished colleague from the State of Wyoming. At least in the State of South Dakota-the employers that employ less than 25 employees are not truly employers in the sense of being something separate and apart from the employees. Many of our small businesses in South Dakota have something different than an employer-employee relationship with employees. They actually work with them. They go on the job and they do the same work that the employee does. I could refer to as many illustrations as there are emplovers. The employer actually works with the emplovce and often identifies with the employee as a member of his own family. What has been said here about toilet seats, what has been said about toilets, what has been said about the requirements, rules and regulations that have been imposed by the Department of Labor upon employers has divided the application of the law between the industrialized societies as opposed to the nonindustrialized societies. The nonindustrial culture characteristic of the upper Midwestern States. It is, more or less, an agrarian culture that must depend upon small businesses for goods and services. |