Metalcasters storm Capitol Hill.

Standing on a united front, foundrymen informed lawmakers how legislation affects their businesses--and the economy--back home.

"Special interest is very much a part of the democratic process," said Pennsylvania Congressman Tom Ridge. "Democracy is a collision of special interests...the only people who don't have special interests are deceased."

Realizing that if the industry doesn't look out for itself in regard to legislation, no one else will, metalcasters gathered in Washington for the Metalcasting Industry Government Affairs Conference March 13-15 to try to be on the winning end of the when those interests collide.

Conducted by AFS and cohosted by seven other metalcasting associations, the 1994 Metalcasting Industry Government Affairs Conference attracted 140 foundrymen and suppliers. After a day and a half of briefings on various legislative issues, attendees met face to face with officials at 110 congressional and Senate offices.

The Hill meetings served as one day of the year when individual company interests are put aside to serve the industry's most pressing needs. They educated elected officials and their staffers about the industry and the issues important to it, and made their opinions known.

"We can't sit on the porch and watch action in the White House and on Capitol Hill," said AFS President Dan Goodyear, Pennsylvania Steel Foundry & Machine Co. "We're moving forward with strength and unity. Proud, hardworking foundrymen who make molds and castings must now mold governmental policy with the same expertise."

Subject Briefings

Late last fall, the AFS Government Affairs Division Executive Committee surveyed the industry's problems and concerns and targeted the five most critical legislative issues affecting the industry that would be addressed during Hill meetings.

With the AFS Washington office of Waterman & Assoc., the committee drafted position statements representing small and large foundries and suppliers. Following are briefings on the five most critical issues that the industry, as a whole, is facing.

DOE Metalcasting Research Funding 

Since its enactment in 1990, the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) Metalcasting Research Program has pooled $15 million ($7.5 million by Congress; matching funds by nonfederal sources) to promote industry research priorities. It benefits thousands of small and medium-sized foundries through much needed research and technology transfer.

Research projects are selected on a competitive basis and require industry input. Current projects include clean steel, metal penetration, inclusion removal, EPC, dimensional study, laser ultrasonics, lead-free copper alloys and alternate core removal.

The program is authorized to receive up to $5 million in DOE funds annually. The 1995 fiscal year DOE budget requests $2.5 million for metalcasting research.

Action--The foundry industry is urging the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee to allocate full ($5 million) funding for the program in fiscal 1995. With administrative costs, the DOE needs the full amount for any new research to begin.

Health-Care Reform

Health care consumes nearly 14% of the gross national product in the U.S. Foreign competition has lower health, labor and environmental costs, and they continue to push products in the American marketplace, driving down U.S. profits, sales growth and employment.

Under today's system, foundries often pay the highest health premiums because insurers are free to set rates on a variety of factors. A small firm with one seriously ill employee is unable to spread that risk over the large insurance pool of a big company, and would be forced to curb expansion and hiring to pay for mandated health care.

Despite the obstacles foundries face in obtaining health insurance, more than 90% provide health-care benefits and for many the cost is more than 13% of their payroll.

Action--With several bills emerging in response to Clinton's plan, the foundry industry supports comprehensive health-care reform, but opposes employer mandates of any kind, feeling employer mandate is another name for a new tax on business. It supports provisions of cost containment, voluntary insurance purchasing cooperatives, 100% tax deduction for health insurance premiums and reducing obstacles for small business insurability.

Comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act

Proposed to deter irresponsible behavior and eliminate workplace hazards, the Kennedy/Ford OSHA reform legislation would actually penalize business with new mandates because of the "sins" of a few.

Because the nation's worker injury and illness rates have improved over the last 20 years, not worsened, workplace safety and health would be better served by an incentive and reward-based system rather than an inflexible, punitive one. The legislation would also impose intrusive and unnecessary paperwork, recordkeeping and training requirements.

Any OSHA reform measure should balance the responsibilities of employers and employees and incorporate provisions that strengthen employee accountability in the workplace.

Action--The industry opposes this bill because it would:

* impose a "one size fits all" approach and impair current employer programs;

* coerce "cooperation" of management and labor through mandated joint labor-management safety committees, instead of allowing industry to tailor programs to individual needs;

* weaken due process protection for employers facing OSHA citations;

* criminalize OSHA and increase personal liability for supervisors and managers;

* eliminate a balance of costs and benefits in new OSHA standards;

* result in a net cost to the U.S. private sector of more than $60 billion annually.

Clean Water Act Reauthorization

Water pollution from hard to regulate, nonpoint sources remains a problem. Adding new layers of pollution prevention paperwork and reporting on top current requirements--such as those under the Community Right to Know Act and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990--is counterproductive.

Water program funding compromises manufacturing competitiveness by increasing fees solely on industrial water uses and discharges. Preventing pollution at the source is not always the least expensive, and voluntary approaches tailored to plant needs and economically feasible may achieve the greatest success.

Foundries already operate under costly pollution control requirements, and the original CWA successfully addressed industrial point source pollution. Tougher industry regulations will yield marginal environmental benefit at great costs.

Action--The industry supports efforts to rewrite sections of the act that target nonpoint sources of pollution that now contribute most heavily to water quality impairment. It also supports efforts to assist and reward industry progress in pollution prevention.

The industry opposes changes that:

* expand EPA authority to dictate changes in industrial processes without recognizing the successes of current effluent limitations;

* impose new permitting fees and fees applied to chemical discharges and water uses to fund water programs;

* overturn appropriate limitations on the use of citizen suits recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gwaltney decision (prohibiting lawsuits for past violations);

* create new regulatory and paperwork burdens for pollution prevention planning.

Risk Analysis in Environmental Policy

The industry is calling on legislators to address the problem of federal mandates and overregulation of low-level human health and environmental risks.

In many cases, environmental programs are burdening the economy with excessive costs while generating only marginal improvements. Metalcasters expect environmental compliance efforts and pollution control to rank first in all capital expenditures for the industry in 1994. To get the most "bang for the environmental buck," resources should be directed at the most serious risks and the most cost-effective opportunities for risk reduction.

The industry urges Congress to bring environmental priorities in line with recommendations based on good science and actual dangers, not those perceived by the fearful public.

Action--The industry supports legislation that promotes environmental and health regulation based on sound science, targets real health and environmental threats, fully discloses the limitations and uncertainties in the risk assessment process, and balances the costs and benefits of new regulations. Two initiatives, "The Risk Communication Act" (Brown/Moorhead) and the "Johnston Amendment" (Johnston/Tauzin), move the industry toward this goal.

Heated Discussions

During the conference presentations, attendees also were briefed on several government topics. These included presentations on the Clinton administration, OSHA reform, EPA agenda, S Corporation tax burdens, risk assessment and policy changes affecting small manufacturers. Several topics, including OSHA reform and health care, sparked "heated discussions."

One such instance where attendees had a government speaker on the hot seat was the talk on OSHA reform by Michael Silverstein, OSHA. He opened his presentation by commenting, "The cherry blossoms aren't out here in Washington, but you have a beautiful day. Not like the foundries you work in."

On a subject foundrymen feel very strongly about, his comment was not well received.

He admitted that OSHA has reduced deaths and illnesses. "But I don't think it has worked enough," he said. "There are still 6000 work-related deaths per year. The task isn't to make OSHA bigger, but to make it more effective."

Foundrymen were concerned with the bill's cost to business, criminal provisions, the disbanding of current safety teams and issues of employee accountability.

In terms of criminal provisions, Silverstein said: "If a serious injury or death is due to a willful violation of management to safety, the employer should be prosecuted. Ideally, it will deter violations."

He said of 100,000 citations, only about 600 involved willful violations. And of those, very few involved deaths or serious injuries. So, he claims, the potential is small for criminal provisions.

Product Liability

Affecting everyone in manufacturing, this issue involves the lawsuits of injured parties with a "sue the world" mentality, according to William Fay, Product Liability Coordinating Committee. Because of the danger that every supplier, whether responsible or not, is subject to lawsuits, manufacturers must account for costs. Fay said the U.S. is spending $131 billion annually on product liability costs in awards and legal fees.

Following his presentation, he cited a case to illustrate the subject. In Oregon, a horse (spooked by coyotes) burst through a barbed wire fence and was hit by an oncoming car. The horse flipped in the air and smashed down on top of the car, killing the driver. The jury awarded $1.5 million to the driver's family, saying the automaker was guilty of weak roof design.

"In effect," Fay said, "they said the company should have anticipated a horse smashing the top of the car."

There are no U.S. laws governing product liability, resulting in no standard. The European Community has one directive that enforces a uniform law. Total liability insurance costs in the U.S. are 15 times higher than Japan's and 20 times greater than Europe's. From 1974-1990, federal liability cases increased at a rate of 1183%.

"Lawsuits stifle innovation--it keeps U.S.-made products from coming to market," Fay said. "Product liability is the number-one reason that makes us uncompetitive."

He noted the auto industry is the primary recipient of these lawsuits. "Someone could sue the automaker and all of its suppliers--including foundries," Fay said. "Any plaintiff lawyer worth his salt won't stop at one defendant."

The bill, which he believes could pass in 1994, would limit the responsibility of the defendant for pain and suffering, eliminate frivolous lawsuits and assure the injured party receives more than the lawyer, promote U.S. competitiveness and standardize compensation for punitive damages.

Metalcasters Voice Concerns

Below is a sampling of opinions shared by conference attendees:

"Our focus was on the Great Lakes Initiative (stringent water quality regulations for industry in the Great Lakes). We tried to make them recognize that this threatens metalcasting. We don't think they're aware of what the proposals by regulators will do to foundries. Our members can't meet those requirements--even those spending millions on water treatment. We linked it to risk assessment. Then, the department would be forced to justify it through cost/benefit, which would make our argument easier."

Russ Murray, Ohio Cast Metals Assn.

"On OSHA, we don't believe it's good legislation. It's not needed, is terribly onerous to business and takes away the due process. There would be immediate remediation and you'd have to pay right away or get fined. With the Clean Water Reauthorization, we think we (Intermet) do a good job of making sure the water is fine as it leaves our pipes, but now they want to back it up inside the plant. That's totally unnecessary. With risk assessment, it's a logical, commonsense approach to legislation that we've needed for many years."

Bob Orr, Intermet Foundries

"We'd like to see OSHA as a constructive helpmate rather than a police force. You can land in jail for untimely filing of paperwork or not sending the right copy of a form to someone. This has nothing to do with health and safety."

James (Pete) Keating, Neenah Foundry

"I'm most concerned about health care. For a little company like ours, that could mean $20,000 a year. And besides that, there are all kinds of hidden dollars. We can't pass along costs to customers like bigger foundries--we'll tend to eat it. Also, the adversarial approach to environmental issues is wrong. It takes away our freedom to do what's right on our own."

Dwight Barnhard, Superior Aluminum Casting

"If there was a willingness to do cost/benefit risk assessment, that would make a lot of sense. We all want to do the right thing as manufacturers. But rather than shotgun us, there should be a risk assessment involved. With OSHA, we're upset. The administration talks about partnerships with the government, but then they want to hit us with more fines or throw us in jail. It's contrary to the philosophy they're trying to extend. We're already overburdened with regulations."

Jim Pearson, Aurora Industries

A Day on the 'Hill' for Metalcasting

modern casting followed the Wisconsin contingent on its visits to elected officials during the conference. Following is a schedule of events.

Sunday, 5 p.m., State Caucus--Spokesperson were assigned for each Hill visit. Information packets were passed out. They discussed the background of each legislator and noted which ones to thank for supporting bills such as the DOE Metalcasting Research Funding. As a group, they decided risk analysis and OSHA reform were the two primary concerns of the Wisconsin foundry industry.

Monday, 7:30-10 p.m.--conference briefings.

Tuesday, 9:15 a.m.-3:45 p.m.--Capitol Hill meetings. The schedule included:

9:15--Sen. Russ Feingold 10:15--U.S. Rep. Tom Barrett 11:00--U.S. Rep. Tom Petri 11:30--U.S. Rep. Toby Roth 1:30--U.S. Rep. Peter Barca 2:00--U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner 2:30--U.S. Rep. Scott Klug 3:45--Sen. Herb Kohl 

During each meeting, the Wisconsin delegates introduced themselves, educated the elected official or staffer on metalcasting and what products they make, the number of jobs they create and where they are located. Following each session, the information packet was handed to the senator, congressman or staffer.

Much of the discussion focused on the proposed OSHA reform. Said Robert Cushing, Baker Manufacturing Co., Evansville, Wisconsin: "The proposed OSHA reauthorization will stop being about workplace safety and more about politics. We realize that it may need to be reformed, but we don't want it to take us back to 1970 when we were at war with OSHA."