Metalcasters Take the Issues to Capitol Hill.

With OSHA's proposed ergonomics rule and the development of a comprehensive silica standard on the horizon, regulations join production at the forefront of foundries' minds.

The heart of the foundry business metal and its lifeblood may be sand, but in today's business world, foundrymen must know more than the ins and outs of the metalcasting process. Foundries live and die as much by the quality and cost of their castings as by their ability to adhere to the rules and regulations of government, OSHA and EPA.

This year's AFS Metalcasting Government Affairs Conference held May 7-9 in Washington, D.C., focused on two regulations under development at OSHA--the proposed ergonomics rule and the possible reduction of the silica permissible exposure limit (PEL). Although both issues have been under development for several years, the ergonomics rule is expected to be finalized by the end of this year and the new silica PEL by the end of next year. Both rules will, present foundries with formidable obstacles to compliance.

Ergonomics

Proposed by OSHA in November 1999, the ergonomics rule has been placed on the fast track to be finalized by this December. This rule will affect workplaces of all sizes and from many industries (excluding construction, agriculture and maritime). In all, the rule will cover 27 million workers and 5.5 million work places in 1.9 million general industry sites. OSHA's cost proposal for all affected industries compliance with the rule is $4.2 billion/yr for 10 years.

This rule is both OSHA and union's number one priority this year. OSHA held hearings on the proposal from March-May at which more than 1000 representatives from various industries (including AFS and foundries) testified.

Rule Proposal Summary: Ergonomics is defined as the science that seeks to adapt work or working conditions to suit the worker. According to OSHA, the ergonomics proposal's goal is to eliminate the ergonomic hazards such as injuries and disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal disks. OSHA believes these injuries [referred to as musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)] often are caused by activities (repetitive and otherwise) in the workplace. OSHA states that 33% of all occupational injuries are MSDs, and employers have paid more than $15 billion in workers' compensation costs for repetitive stress injuries.

The ergonomics rule in terms of compliance is segmented into two parts. The first part is for facilities that haven't had an ergonomic injury or disorder. Under the rule, these facilities are required to set up a basic ergonomics program that includes: hazard identification and information for employees to recognize problems and report them; management leadership and commitment to an ergonomics program; management encouragement for employee participation; resources for ergonomics training; and a designated employee to receive ergonomics complaints from employees. The second part of the rule is for facilities that have had at least one MSD (such as a back injury, swelling or carpal tunnel syndrome). If this is the case, the facility Will be required to establish a comprehensive ergonomics program. The comprehensive plan would include: employee participation and management leadership, hazard identification and reporting; job hazard analysis; training; medical management; and program evaluation.

This draft rule also would require significant record-keeping by facilities. All employers with 10 or more workers would have to maintain a log of new records--compliants, training, employer responses and hazard analysis. If a facility already has an ergonomics proposal in place, then it may fall under the "grandfather clause" as long as the basic requirements of the proposal and several other conditions are met.

The ergonomics rule also contains a work protection program for employees who sustain a MSD. An injured employee would be eligible to receive 100% of their net pay and benefits for 6 months if on temporary light duty while recovering from an injury. An employee that is not working due to an injury would receive 90% net pay and benefits. Employees that do not return to work after 6 months may then file for workers' compensation benefits, assuming they hadn't already done so.

Metalcasting Industry Position: There are four key points to the metalcasting industry's position on this proposed rule:

* broad scope--This rule will attempt to regulate 5.5 million different work sites, each with their own unique situations.

* low trigger--A facility is required to institute a comprehensive ergonomics program after just one repetitive stress injury:

* unreasonable and vague terms--The proposed ergonomics standard is basically a set of guidelines. The vague and confusing terms found throughout the standard make it almost impossible for foundries to comply. In addition, the key provisions of the proposed standard--the identification and control of MSD hazards--are not defined. For instance, the standard requires that foundries identify the "ergonomic risk factors" and "work conditions or activities" that may cause MSD hazards. However, most foundries likely will have to seek advice from outside consultants since OSHA inadequately defines risk factors, conditions or activities. Workers who injure themselves off the job but aggravate that injury on the job are classified as an MSD and are covered to receive worker protection. A hazard or injury is defined as something that is "reasonably likely to cause or contribute" to disorders. Due to the language of the rule, it is open to interpretation by both foundries and OSHA inspectors as to what represents compli ance. For example, employers must implement ergonomic controls that "materially reduce" the MSD hazards and "periodically" evaluate additional controls. The rule does not give clear guidance as to the control measures that must be implemented;

* costs significantly understated--Although it is difficult to apply a cost to a rule with such a large scope, the general consensus among small and large businesses is that OSHA has underestimated the cost of this rule to industry. The Small Business Administration projects the cost of the rule to be from 2.5-15 times higher than the projection by OSHA. The National Assn. of Manufacturers estimates that OSHA's plan would cost $6.7 billion/yr or $800 for every worker in the U.S. OSHA's worst case scenario for foundries is that the rule will cost a facility $26,976/yr. In addition, foundries are going to have to hire consultants, endure further paperwork, and redesign equipment and processes.

What the Future Holds--In recent years, Congress has been successful in derailing a formal ergonomics standard. However, in the 106th Congress, opponents of an ergonomics regulation are faced with a different playing field as lawmakers are reluctant to vote on such a controversial issue during an election year. In addition, the two bills (one that has passed in the House and one still in the Senate) blocking an ergonomics rule--until the Congressfunded National Academy of Sciences study to determine scientific basis for an ergonomics standard is completed later this year--do not have the votes to override a promised President Clinton veto.

For different reasons, both business and labor unions plan lawsuits challenging this rule. If the proposed ergonomics rule becomes a regulation, the business community stands ready with a lawsuit to stop OSHA from implementing it. For labor, the key concern is the provision that triggers the new standard after a company reports one injury. Labor would like preventive measures put into place to eliminate repetitive stress injuries.

Silica Standard

Although OSHA's issuance of a rule proposal to lower the silica PEL has been pushed off until next year (due to the agency's concentration of efforts on the ergonomics rule), the potential effect that changes might have presents a major threat to foundries.

Issue Summary: Four years ago, OSHA announced that crystalline silica was designated for comprehensive rulemaking. This was due, the agency said, to the more than 2 million U.S. workers at risk to silica exposure and the more than 250 workers that die each year due to silica-related diseases. In studies performed in the mid-90s, OSHA found that 30% of all facilities tested for silica exposure were above the current PEL. According to OSHA, significant progress in prevention will not be achieved without a comprehensive standard because exposure at the current PEL poses a "significant risk" for silicosis and lung cancer.

A comprehensive standard, in all likelihood, would include a reduced exposure limit, dust monitoring, medical surveillance, worker training, engineering controls, respirators and record-keeping. This standard would apply to general industry, maritime and construction. Although the extent of the proposed exposure limit reduction still is unknown (OSHA is considering up to four different concentrations), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended a 50% reduction from 0.1 mg/cu m to 0.05. However, OSHA has said this figure could go as low as 0.025.

Metalcasting Industry Position:

There are two points of contention for foundries with any new regulation to control the silica PEL:

* a reduction in the current PEL will be technically and economically prohibitive for most foundries. Although much of the data for this statement is still being collected, small- and medium-size plants reportedly have spent up to $900,000 to get in compliance with the current standard without any guarantees of reaching a lower limit. In addition, depending on the level the PEL reaches, it may be impossible to measure silica exposure because current technology has difficulty recording levels below 0.05 mg/cu m;

* the current silica PEL and effective work practices prevent silicosis. NIOSH reports that deaths associated with silicosis dropped 82% from 1968-96 (from 1157 to 212) as industries have made a concerted effort to eliminate the problem. The National Center for Health Statistics reported only 96 silicosis deaths for 1997. In addition, the average age at death of a silicotic is slightly higher than that of the average U.S. male. Any current silicosis problems are related to those facilities over the current exposure limit. OSHA's efforts in regard to silica exposure to workers should be focused on enforcing the current rule with the 30% of facilities that are out of compliance instead of developing a new standard for everyone;

What the Future Holds: OSHA plans on holding stakeholder meetings this October in Washington, D.C. It is anticipated that OSHA will release draft regulatory language in advance of this meeting, including its plans to lower the PEL. Foundries are encouraged to provide input on the effect a lower PEL will have on them.

In addition, the AFS Silica Alliance and the Silica Coalition (made up of trade associations and companies in the metal casting, construction, maritime and mining industries) are developing data to support their belief that the current exposure limit prevents silicosis and that the cost to comply with a new standard could destroy the industry. The AFS Silica Alliance is soliciting silica exposure data for four studies.

"There are three issues with the ergonomics rule that will be show-stoppers for the foundry industry. The first is the inability of foundries to define a violation due to the vagueness of the rule. The second is the way that the rule supplants the workers' compensation laws of the states. The third is the way the rule makes employees' injuries that occur at home a work issue because if the injury is aggravated at work, then the work facility is responsible for the MSD. How can we be expected to comply with this rule?"

Chuck Cushing, Baker Manufacturing

"On the silica issue, we have to work with OSHA. However, it is going to take a greater effort than we have seen. It will take the support of every individual that uses sand casting."

George Boyd, Goldens' Foundry & Machine Co.

"The silica standard will cripple the foundry as much, as the Clean Air Act did in the 70's. If you think putting your employees in respirators is the answer, then they will walk out the door, PRE and technology are not going to meet this standard. We cannot put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away We can determine what the problem is in our own industry and meet the current standards. Then we can fight OSHA for something reasonable."

Russ Murray, Ohio Cast Metals Assn.

The Diary of an Editor's Day on Capitol Hill

As the focal point of the 3-day Government Affairs Conference, the meetings on Capitol Hill with Congressmen and their aides provided attendees with an opportunity to share the metalcasting industry's side on the issues of ergonomics and silica. With more than 140 meetings with representatives form 28 sates it was difficult for "The Hill" to ignore the message.

To provide our readers with glimpse of the metalcasting industry's actions during those Congressional visits, following is a diary of my day as I trailed foundry representatives form Wisconsin.

9:26 a.m.--I met up with the group form Waupaca Foundary preparing to meet with Rep. Mark Green (R. Wis). As we enter the office a few minutes later, the discussion centers around the ergonomics issue and the Congressman's support for the House bill to block the ergonomics rule form becoming final.

"I am glad we were successful with passing the House bill," said Green: "Unfortunately, it looks as if the 1on-term battle won't go away despite everything we are doing. Frankly, I don't think OSHA has a handle on how it is going to affect industry."

After a brief mention of the issue to make the Congressman aware of what was coming down the road, the foundry men focused on some of the issues hitting their district and state and how they could help with the Congressman's election race this fall.

10:20 a.m.--Due to the heat in Washington (90F). I took the underground trains and passageways (some would say a maze) to arrive at my destination--the office of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis).

11:11 a.m.--After a few minutes of the foundrymen presenting their side of the ergonomics issue to Feingold's aide, Feingold was able to join the meeting.

"The problem for the foundry industry with ergonomics is that we don't know how to comply," said Brian Mitchell, Wisconsin Cat Metals Assn. "The vague language leaves it open to interpretation by the foundries and by OSHA inspectors. We need more definition and more guidance form the agency."

"I compare the ergonomics rule to traffic sings and the sped limit," said Chuck Cushing, Baker Manufacturing. "You don't tell drivers not to go too fast, you give them a speed limit to stay below. You provide an understandable rule and limit to follow. The ergonomics rule is like telling foundries not to drive too fast. What is too fast?"

"We are not against an ergonomics standard to care for our workers because ergonomics is a good issue," said Mitchell. "We just want something that is reasonable."

By detailing specific problems with the ergonomics rule, the metalcasters provided Feingold with the ammunition to go to war for them. He had heard arguments from other industries on ergonomics, but he commented that this was the first time he had heard specifics. He also stated that this was the best ergonomics presentation he had heard.

"I appreciate the fact that you recognize the importance of an ergonomics rule to worker safety," said Feingold. "This allows me to appreciate your position as a small business attempting to comply with these vague descriptions within the rule."

12:25 p.m.--After another dash underneath Capitol Hill back to the House side, we entered the office of Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) where we met with her aide for labor issues. Since Baldwin is in favor of the ergonomics rule and a strong environmentalist, the metalcasting position on both ergonomics and silica was a hard sell for the Wisconsin group. The foundrymen determined that in a situation like that, it was best to present the industry's positions to the aide without any commentary.

1:20 p.m.--After deciding to brave the Washington, D.C., heat and humidity on the way to my last Congressional meeting in Sen. Herbert Kohl's (D-Wis.) office, I strolled past the Capitol building one last time in search of some inspiration. As you experience the lobbying process, it becomes clear how critical a quick, concise message is to win favor with the Congressmen and their aides.

2:15 p.m.--My last meeting began with Kohl's aide for labor issues. As with the other meetings that day, the ergonomics and silica issues were at the forefront.

The consensus among the group, including Kohl's aide, was that OSHA's desire to produce a flexible rule with ergonomics had resulted in an unbelievable compliance nightmare. In regard to the possible reduction in the silica exposure limit, "we just want OSHA to enforce the current exposure limit to silica instead of adding a new rule," said Mitchell.

2:40 p.m.--For the first time that day, the feel-good issue of foundry industry recycling was mentioned. It seemed that Kohl's aide knew the industry was a recycling leader as he applauded the Wisconsin foundrymen for their efforts. Maybe the feel-good piece about the industry will remind him to talk to the Senator about helping the metalcasting industry with ergonomics and silica.

Updating the MACT Standards, RCRA 

Three other issues important to the foundry industry were discussed at the conference--iron and steel maximum achievable control technology (MACT)., aluminum MACT and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Iron and Steel MACT

An update on the iron and steel MACT standards was provided. As part of the Clean Air Act, EPA has completed its data-gathering stage and is currently in the standards-writing stage to limit the amount of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that can be released into the air. EPA currently is developing a rule for the major sources of HAPs (facilities with more than 10 tons/yr of any individual HAP or more than 25 tons/yr of total HAPs). A rule will be developed for area sources of HAPs at a later date.

After surveying 750 iron and steel foundries, EPA determined that there are 33 major sources HAPs in the foundry industry with the potential for 76 more. EPA will be writing its rule based on the data from the 33 major sources, but this rule will apply industry-wide. The rule's various focus areas in the foundry include: cupolas and the use of afterburners, baghouses and wet scrubbers; induction and arc furnaces and the use of baghouses; core and moldmaking and the use of an acid scrubber for TEA; binder usage (the lowest methanol and phenol content as possible); mold and core washes (elimination of methanol); and pouring, cooling and shakeout and the use of a light-off for pit and floor molds.

A proposed rule is expected by the end of this year with a final rule by May 15, 2001. Foundries will have 3 years to comply with the final rule.

Aluminum MACT

In February 1999, EPA proposed a rule (as part of the Clean Air Act) that would have regulated aluminum metalcasting operations as secondary aluminum processors (smelters), forcing them to further control what they melted and the emissions that came off the melt. This action by EPA came despite the 3.5 years of education provided by the industry showing the differences in the melt quality between foundries and smelters, in addition to the guarantee from EPA that metal casters wouldn't be included in the proposed rule. As a result, AFS, the North American Die Casting Assn. And General Motors teamed together to fight EPA's efforts.

This coalition implemented a multifaceted strategy with discussions aimed at Capitol Hill, the Small Business Administration, the Dept. of Energy and White House officials. The result was that the metalcasting industry won the battle and aluminum metalcasters will be evaluated separate from aluminum smelters. This means that aluminum metalcasters do not have to: perform dioxin/furan emissions tests; set up operation, maintenance or management plans; perform in-house record-keeping; or automatically secure a Clean Air Act Title V permit. However, the metalcasting industry must partner with EPA over the next 2-3 years to perform an information exchange, along with data gathering, technical and legal analysis, and education. The goal is to demonstrate to EPA through accurate information and test results that aluminum metalcasters have minimal HAP emissions.

The recently formed Aluminum MACT alliance teams AFS, NADCA. General Motors, Ford, Toyota and the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society to combine efforts and resources to efficiently and effectively provide information to EPA.

RCRA

In 1995, EPA provided "initial conclusions" on two issues--foundry sand becomes a solid waste at shakeout (point of generation), and thermal reclamation of hazardous sand is subject to RCRA waste permitting. After opposition from the foundry industry to these classification, EPA told AFS to pursue resolution of the point of generation debate through the agency's definition of solid waste efforts. However, in September 1999, EPA abandoned the redefinition efforts and reverted to its previous position. In an April 1999 EPA Enforcement Guidance, the foundry industry was identified as RCRA permit evaders, and "regions should focus compliance monitoring and enforcement resources on those companies."

EPA has indicated that it is concerned by air emissions from the thermal sand reclamation (heavy metal and dioxins) and a perceived "pattern" of non-compliance by the industry such as its failure to notify of hazardous waste activity or characterize wastes and its operation of thermal units without a permit. The AFS RCRA Working Group is working to persuade EPA into thinking that foundry sand is not a solid waste at shakeout. In addition, it will work to demonstrate that air emissions from thermal reclaimers is not an emissions problem. A recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision provides a reason to be optimistic as the court stated that EPA improperly defined secondary materials as "solid waste." According to the decision, "by regulating in-process secondary materials, EPA has acted in contravention of Congress; intent" because it has based its regulation on an improper interpretation of "discarded."