Educating Capitol Hill on the issues: with 145 Congressional meetings, foundrymen from 30 states stormed Capitol Hill at this annual meeting to discuss the positive and negative issues affecting the metalcasting industry.

Although the success of the metalcasting industry ultimately is decided in the corerooms, on the melt decks, and on molding and pouring lines where the cast components are produced, it can be said that an influence far away from the foundry - in our nation's capital - can impact the industry's success as much as anything else. Regardless of the quality of components your facility casts, if your emissions or safety and health program (to name a few) aren't compliant with ever-changing rules, sooner or later you will find your doors closed. This is the harsh reality facing today's metalcasting industry (and manufacturing in general) as government regulations continue to tighten.

So what can the metalcasting industry do? For the more than 200 metalcasters in attendance at the AFS Metalcasting Industry Government Affairs Conference held April 18-20 in Washington D.C., the answer was to discuss the positive and negative government programs and regulations affecting them and then taking that information to Capitol Hill to discuss both sides of the debate with their elected officials. Through 13 presentations, including ones by OSHA, EPA, Dept. of Energy (DOE), Congress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, foundrymen prepared themselves for the 145 Congressional meetings representing 30 different states. The metalcasting community was making its issues heard.

The Issues

Cohosted by five industry-related associations and 13 state groups, the conference outlined four priority issues (as determined by the AFS Government Affairs Committee) affecting foundry operations currently on the government's table - the Safety and Health Program Rule, the Ergonomics Standard, PM & Ozone and silica exposure - and two "feel good" issues - foundry recycling and the DOE (metalcasting research) and Dept. of Defense (DOD) (casting conversions) programs - to "Walk Up the Hill." Although the primary goal of these Hill meetings is to gain the lawmaker's support, they also help shed the industry's antiquated, dirty image and instill its fundamental importance to U.S. manufacturing.

Following is a discussion of the four key regulation issues the conference focused on.

Safety and Health Standard

Late last year, OSHA released a proposal that would require managers and workers to establish a one-size-fits-all safety and health program to find and fix hazards in the workplace for all manufacturing operations. This new proposal differs from existing programs in that employers would be required to identify and control hazards currently not addressed by OSHA rules, such as indoor air pollution, ergonomics, second-hand smoke and workplace violence.

OSHA believes safety and health programs reduce injuries and illnesses. The agency is proposing that the following five key components must be contained in your safety and health plan: management leadership and employee participation; hazard assessment; hazard prevention and control; information and training; and evaluation of program effectiveness. If a foundry failed to set up an acceptable safety and health program, it could face civil penalties.

This proposed program is the centerpiece of OSHA's regulatory plan and the agency plans to formally propose the program this summer.

Metalcasters' position - Most foundries have some type of workplace safety and health program in place. However, OSHA's proposal would mandate a comprehensive workplace safety and health program. In addition, as noted above, the agency's proposed rule differs from most existing workplace safety and health programs because employers would be required to identify hazards not yet included in OSHA rules. This draft rule allows OSHA inspectors to cite employers for not eliminating workplace conditions that have not been identified as "significant" hazards through the rulemaking process. Too much power has already been placed in the hands of the agency and its inspectors. This safety and health rule also provides a one-size-fits-all requirement for plant implementation. There is no distinction made for the size of the employer or previous safety and health record when adopting requirements. Therefore, 10-employee foundries are held to the same standards as 1000-employee plants.

Other major complaints with the draft rule include: its vagueness; the additional costs to implement and regulate; and the paperwork burden for the industry. The program states that training and program evaluation will be conducted "as necessary" to produce "effective" programs. In addition, many provisions of the draft proposal are open-ended, so a foundry doesn't know if it is in compliance. For example, if a foundry's injury and illness rates remain the same from one year to the next, does that demonstrate ineffectiveness?

OSHA has estimated that its safety and health program rule would cost around $2.4 billion, while the Small Business Administration estimates that cost at more than $7 billion. Small businesses would be hit the hardest by this rule because, in most cases, they would need to hire an outside consultant to obtain compliance.

Ergonomics Standard

In February, after being sidelined for years, OSHA unveiled a draft comprehensive rulemaking on ergonomics to address repetitive stress injuries. The draft rule, which would affect millions of workplaces of all sizes, including foundries and suppliers, would require employers in general industry to identify hazards, ensure employee participation, analyze job hazards, train employees to recognize and avoid hazards that cause musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), and implement job hazard controls. Under OSHA's proposal, an employer would be required to set up a comprehensive ergonomics program if one MSD, such as back injury, swelling or carpal tunnel, is reported in the workplace. If your facility doesn't have any MSDs, OSHA still would mandate that manufacturers establish a modified ergonomics program because the workplace contains manual handling.

According to OSHA Administrator Charles Jeffress, the ergonomic standard "is the most important standard we intend to propose this year." OSHA estimates that 33% of occupational injuries and illnesses are linked to repetitive motion and overexertion at work. Over the past 3 years, however, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that repeated trauma cases have declined by 17%.

Some members of Congress are calling for OSHA to wait for a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ergonomics study to be completed before finalizing a standard. Last year, Congress and President Clinton funded an $890,000 study by this independent research organization on the medical and scientific evidence concerning MSDs. The study is scheduled for completion by early next year.

Legislation recently introduced by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) would prevent the agency from promulgating a rule until the NAS study is completed. The measure, The Workplace Preservation Act (HR 987), has 127 cosponsors, including 10 Democrats. Following Democratic gains in the House of Representatives in the 1998 elections, it is unclear whether congressional opponents of OSHA's ergonomic proposal have the votes to force the agency to postpone or abandon its effort.

Aside from Congress, another group making its impression on the ergonomics rule is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) Panel, which is supposed to review all proposed rules and provide input before they are published. The SBREFA Panel concerning OSHA's draft ergonomics proposal just completed its report.

The panel raised concerns with the one-incident trigger mechanism and the medical removal provisions, as well as the costs associated with the proposal. OSHA is not required to incorporate the report's recommendations, however, the panel does put pressure on the agency to consider changes, especially since lawmakers are carefully monitoring this issue. The Ergonomics Standard is one of OSHA's top three priority issues for 1999 and can be reviewed at www.osha-slc.gov/html/Panltr1.html. The agency is expected to issue its long awaited repetitive stress injuries standard in September.

Metalcasters' position - The proposed ergonomics role is faced with growing opposition from the business community. Some are complaining about its vagueness, complexity and how the agency wants to regulate pain regardless of whether it can be linked in any way to the workplace. In regard to metalcasting, specific concerns are outlined as follows:

* Hazard identification - Employers would have to maintain an ergonomics program until they have not had a recordable MSD for the previous 3 years;

* Job hazard control - Once problem jobs are identified, employers would be required to implement feasible control measures and track progress in controlling the hazards. OSHA does not define what is "feasible." Furthermore, employers would have to make costly experimental changes to the workplace, including redesigning processes, tools and workstations with no assurance that any of these changes would result in fewer repetitive motion symptoms/injuries. Job rotation and personal protection equipment only are viewed as interim measures - not solutions;

* Medical management - The draft would require that the employer replace 100% of wages for up to 6 months if a worker is unable to work or only can perform restricted duty (state workers' compensation laws typically replace 67% of gross pay, up to a maximum that is set at the statewide average weekly wage). This obligation conflicts directly with most state workers' compensation laws. These compensation requirements are expected to raise job injury compensation costs for employers; Compliance costs - OSHA has not provided an estimate of the overall potential costs of the draft proposal, however, it is expected to carry a high price tag, particularly with the training and medical evaluation costs.

PM, Ozone and CAA 

In June 1997, EPA finalized more stringent standards for fine particulate matter (PM) and ground level ozone as part of the Clean Air Act (CAA). As part of the federal highway bill (TEA-21) signed into law last summer, a delayed implementation schedule was adopted to allow states more than 15 years to reach attainment before enforcement actions occur. In addition, TEA-21 requires EPA to fully fund and operate an air monitoring system; to gather 3 years of data before initial [PM.sub.2.5] non-attainment designations are made; and, if EPA issues a regional haze rule, compliance deadlines must be consistent with those for PM and ozone.

EPA currently is developing the regulations to implement the PM/ozone standards. EPA also is working on the regional haze rule to address visibility impairment in our National Parks and Class I wilderness areas. Congress now is laying the foundation for CAA reauthorization to begin next year. Efforts have started in identifying the key issues of concern and defining the parameters of the debate.

Metalcasters' position - During Congress' reauthorization of the CAA, the foundry industry wants three things to remain at the forefront of the debate so the regulations provide a realistic chance for foundries to comply:

* the implementation costs when setting CAA priorities and standards - The CAA doesn't consider the cost of these standards on small businesses trying to gain compliance. Also, the cost of the standard must be weighed against the benefit it provides;

* increased flexibility for facilities in how they achieve emissions reduction;

* elimination of the inconsistencies and conflicts between different air programs - Some of the established and proposed rules overlap each other, such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, and the result is the possibility that if a foundry is in compliance on one, it would put it out of compliance with another. These rules are developed "in vacuums" without reviewing other existing programs, and foundries are forced to duplicate their efforts to be in compliance and meet MACT, NSPS and PSD standards.

Silica Exposure

Although not at the forefront of OSHA's agenda, the agency is currently developing a comprehensive occupational health standard for crystalline silica, as well as evaluating the impact of cutting the permissible exposure level (PEL) by 50% (from 0.1 mg/cu m to 0.05 mg/cu m). In light of the recent controversial reclassification of respirable silica as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, OSHA is likely to include a risk assessment for cancer during the rulemaking process. This silica standard also is likely to include provisions for product substitution, engineering controls, training and education, respiratory protection, and medical screening and surveillance. The expanded silica standard will be similar to the agency's lead or asbestos standards that require various controls and medical monitoring.

As the first official step toward becoming a standard, the formal rulemaking announcement could be published in the Federal Register in 2000. The agency anticipates holding several stakeholder meetings across the country this summer. They are open to all parties impacted by the proposed silica standard.

Metalcasters' position - Any change to the PEL for silica and/or the development of a comprehensive standard will have a significant impact on foundries. Most areas of the foundry that now are in compliance will be in violation of a lower PEL that is 50% of the current value. The additions that a foundry may need for its operation to comply (without any guarantees of success) include:

* a completely enclosed sand system, including exhaust;

* extended housekeeping practices to clean up dust accumulation on overhead structures, handrails, catwalks, etc.;

* additional personal protective equipment in grinding and cleaning rooms where engineering controls cannot reduce the exposures to a lower limit.

The Silica Coalition (of which AFS is a founding member) is funding a number of scientific projects and economic and technological feasibility assessments on the 50% reduction of PEL. The goal of this organization is to make sure silica rulemaking is based on sound science and that a reduced PEL will be economically and technologically feasible.

Metalcasting Research Funding 

Although the conference focused on the government regulations hitting the industry, it was vital for the foundrymen to take a positive message to Capitol Hill in their Congressional visits. At the top of this list was the metalcasting research funding through the DOE and the DOD and recycling in the foundry industry. The metalcasting research programs demonstrate partnerships between metalcasting and government in advancing the state of technology in the industry. Recycling demonstrates that the old, antiquated foundry image is for the past - not the present and future metalcasting industry.

The DOE program, which is known as the Cast Metals Coalition, has named metalcasting as one of seven industries of the future. Through the work of AFS, Steel Founders' Society of America, the North American Die Casting Assn. and 220 foundries in 29 states, with funding from the Federal government and matching industry support ($26 million since 1989 with an additional $5.8 million expected from the federal government alone in fiscal 2000), this research and development program is working toward the objectives as outlined in the industry roadmap Beyond 2000: A Vision for the American Metalcasting Industry. Current research projects include Clean Cast Steel, Sensing & Control of the Cupola Furnace and Single Crystal Investment Casting.

The DOD program, which is known as the American Metalcasting Consortium, is focused on the conversion of military parts that are forged, welded or other forms of metal fabrications to metal castings. The primary goal for this program is to save money for DOD, however, the research and development for the foundries performing these conversions can't be overlooked. Only 10% of all the conversions being performed are strictly military applications, while the rest can be transferred to commercial applications. The DOD estimates that this program, which began in 1995 with $12 million in federal funds, will save taxpayers $90 million in product cost and saved lead times.

Foundry Recycling

Through a panel presentation by Dana Arnold, EPA representative to the White House Task Force on Recycling, Floyd Kopp, Waterman Industries, Dave Walborn, Resource Recovery Corp., and Mike Lenahan, Kurtz Bros., conference attendees were provided with recycling examples to share in their congressional visits.

Kopp spoke about Waterman's program as a zero waste foundry. By reclaiming its sand or producing bricks and other products with its waste, this gray and ductile iron, automatic matchplate molding foundry hasn't used a landfill since 1989. Walborn spoke about his organization's regional landfill and active cell that takes spent foundry sand, processes it and prepares it for reuse as asphalt, construction materials, etc. or moves it to the site's long-term storage facility. This site provided foundries with a $350,000 rebate in 199798 for their spent sand. Lenahan discussed his firm's involvement with Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant and the use of spent foundry sand as flowable fill in new construction sites.

By carrying the message to Capitol Hill that metalcasting is one of the oldest recyclers (and is in partnership with the DOE and DOD), the image of a dirty, antiquated industry begins to be shed and the effort to curtail government regulations and work toward better legislation can ensue.