Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OSHA’s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005 Jeff HannapelStu Sessions The Policy GroupEnvironomics, Inc. One Thomas Circle,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "OSHA’s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005 Jeff HannapelStu Sessions The Policy GroupEnvironomics, Inc. One Thomas Circle,"— Presentation transcript:

1 OSHA’s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005 Jeff HannapelStu Sessions The Policy GroupEnvironomics, Inc. One Thomas Circle, NW, 10 th Floor4405 East-West Highway, Ste 307 Washington, DC 20005Bethesda, Maryland

2 OSHA Proposed PEL: Background Summary Litigation by Public Citizen and Unions Litigation by Public Citizen and Unions Current PEL 52 ug/m 3 Current PEL 52 ug/m 3 Proposed PEL 1ug/m 3 Proposed PEL 1ug/m 3 Proposed Action Level 0.5 ug/m 3 Proposed Action Level 0.5 ug/m 3

3 OSHA Regulatory Schedule for Revised Hexavalent Chromium Standard Regulatory Action Date Proposed Rule (69 Fed. Reg ) October 4, 2004 Notice & Comment Period Deadline January 3, 2005 OSHA Administrative Hearings February 1 – 15, 2005 Post-Hearing Submission of New Data March 21, 2005 Post-Hearing Comments April 20, 2005 Final Rule Deadline January 18, 2006

4 Industry Impacts: Selected Industry Sectors ElectroplatingWelding Aerospace Shipbuilding Chromate Production Pigments & Catalysts Portland CementChemical Distributors Refractory BrickStainless Steel Industrial Laundries Steel Production Fiberglass Mfg. Defense Supply Chain Electric UtilitiesConstruction

5 Industry Impacts: Key Metal Finishing Operations Hard Chrome Plating Hard Chrome Plating Decorative Chrome Plating Decorative Chrome Plating Chromic Acid Anodizing Chromic Acid Anodizing Chromate Conversion Coatings (e.g., Zn, Cd & Al) Chromate Conversion Coatings (e.g., Zn, Cd & Al) Plating on Plastics Plating on Plastics Passivation Passivation Welding and Fabricating Welding and Fabricating Polishing and Grinding Polishing and Grinding Chemical Mixing & Blending Chemical Mixing & Blending

6 Occupational Exposure Limits: Comparison of Selected Countries (2002) Country Occupational Exposure Limit United States  OSHA Proposed  OSHA Current 1.0 ug/m 3 52 ug/m 3 Japan 50 ug/m 3 European Union 50 ug/m 3 France, Germany, UK, Finland 50 ug/m 3 China India Sweden 20 ug/m 3 Denmark 5 ug/m 3

7 Health Studies: Industry Concerns Chromate Production Facilities – 1930s thru 1970s Chromate Production Facilities – 1930s thru 1970s  Very high exposures, often of short duration OSHA Uses Linear Model to Extrapolate Past Risks at Very High Levels to Much Lower Current Exposures OSHA Uses Linear Model to Extrapolate Past Risks at Very High Levels to Much Lower Current Exposures Expert review of Cr studies show different results Expert review of Cr studies show different results  Crump Study – 23ug/m 3 is protective  SBREFA process recommended 23 ug/m 3 - Spring 2004 Uncertainty in OSHA’s Risk Assessment Uncertainty in OSHA’s Risk Assessment

8 **Gibb et al **Luipold et al *Mancuso et al *Hayes et al Braver et al Mancuso et al Mancuso & Heuper 1951 Borne & Yee 1950 Davies et al #Alderson et al Bistrup & Case 1956 Korallus et al #Korallus et al #Machle & Gregorius 1948 #Baetjer 1950 Key ** In Health Benefits Analysis * In Preliminary Quantitative Risk Analysis # No statistically significant relationship between chrome exposure and lung cancer Langard & Vigander 1983 Langard & Vigander 1975 Davies 1984 Davies 1979 Hayes et al #Sheffet et al #Equitable Env. Health 1983,1976 Deschamps et al Haguenoer et al Langard & Norseth 1975 #Frentzel-Bayme 1983 #Kano et al #Royle 1975 Sorahan et al Sorahan et al Silverstein et al Franchini et al #Okubo & Tsuchiya 1977 #Takahashi & Okubo 1990 Sorahan & Harrington 2000 *#Gerin et al Moulin 1997 Sjogren et al #Simonato et al #Moulin et al #Hansen et al #Lauitsen et al #Sjogren et al #Kjuus et al #Hull et al #Polednak et al #Becker 1995 *#Alexander et al #Boice et al Dalager et al #Morgan et al #Pippard et al #Blot et al Rafnsson & Johannesdottier 1986 #Svensson et al #Cornell & Landis 1984 #Brinton et al ,297 25, , , Chromate Pigment Production Ferrochromium (Chromium Metal ) Producers Chromate Production Aerospace Chrome (VI) Plating Other Industries Welding 50, , , , ,000 #Axelsson et al #Langard et al #Moulin et al Pokrovskaya & Shabynina # of Workers Exposed to CrVI (per OSHA) OSHA’s Estimate of the Number of Workers Exposed in Industry Sectors and Health Risk Studies for Each Industry Sector

9 Technical Feasibility OSHA recommendations not appropriate OSHA recommendations not appropriate  Systems cannot be “tweaked”  Fume suppressants not the answer  Engineering controls identified by OSHA not sufficient Engineering Controls Engineering Controls  OSHA’s data do not demonstrate technical feasibility  Difficult to achieve PEL lower than 10 ug/m 3  Consistent compliance with action level needed  Process and sampling variability concerns Substitutes and customer specifications limit process options Substitutes and customer specifications limit process options

10 Compliance Cost of Proposed PEL: Metal Finishing Industry ($/year, in millions) Selected Requirements OSHA Cost Industry Cost Engineering Controls 38,179204,218 Exposure Monitoring 3,76666,486 Personal Protective Equipment 12,16365,861 Hygiene Areas and Practices 1,68914,710 Housekeeping9,1899,392 Respirator Protection 2,19014,938 Training & Information.5002,579 Total Annualized Cost $ 68 million $ 380 million TOTAL COST (inc. 100 % more affected facilities vs. OSHA est.) $ 760 million

11 Annual Compliance Costs Facility Engineering Controls Plus Respirators Model Facility $226,777 Facility A $114,963$405,070 Facility B $75, 879 $212,469 Facility C $404,467$592,621 Facility D $85,965$177,525 Facility E $89,348$165,133 Facility F $96,833$188,338

12 Economic Impact Analysis OSHA – No Significant Impacts OSHA – No Significant Impacts  Based on Low Estimated Compliance Costs  Average Costs Compared to Average Ability to Pay  Did not Differentiate Large from Small Facilities Industry – Proposed PEL Would Close More than Half the Industry Industry – Proposed PEL Would Close More than Half the Industry  Critique OSHA’s Crude Economic Impact Analysis  Use EPA’s MP&M Economic Impact Analysis  50% Closure at $61,000/Facility/Year  Detailed Affordability Case Studies for 6 Facilities

13 Summary Results from Electroplating Affordability Case Studies $ in thousands/yr Lower Cost Higher Cost Facility Lower Cost Higher Cost % Profits % Revenues % Profits % Revenues Conclusions A Dec $115.0$ %1-2% > 100% 4-6% Will close for high costs, not low B Hard $75.9$212.5 > 100% 4-6% 10-15% Will close C Zinc $404.5$592.6 > 100% 4-6% 6-10% Will close D Dec $86.0$177.5 > 100% 6-10% 15-20% Will close E Ano $89.3$165.1 > 100% 3-4% 6-10% Will close Cr(VI) lines F Hard $96.8$188.3 > 100% 2-3% 4-6% Will close for high costs, maybe for low

14 Criteria for a Good Analysis of Economic Feasibility for an Industry CriteriaOSHAEPAUs Accurate compliance cost estimates OKEXC Accurate data on ability to pay EXCEXC Site-by-site affordability analysis EXCEXC Good closure test(s) OKEXCOK Consider market price response OKOK Representative sites EXCOK Scale up to entire industry OKEXCOK Analyze small entities well EXCOK

15 Benefit-Cost Assessment: Industry Review OSHA Asserts Total Benefits from the PEL Exceed Costs by $140 million annually (includes health benefits across all affected sectors) OSHA Asserts Total Benefits from the PEL Exceed Costs by $140 million annually (includes health benefits across all affected sectors) Industry Analysis Launched to: Industry Analysis Launched to:  Formulate new cost estimates vs. OSHA cost estimates  Review how OSHA arrived at benefits estimates  Evaluate analytical methods and additional health studies and recalculate benefits Goal: Credibly Compare Costs and Benefits for Alternative PELs Goal: Credibly Compare Costs and Benefits for Alternative PELs  Position – Net benefits should be positive for any final PEL  Conclusion – Even without changing OSHA compliance cost estimates, benefits are much less than costs  Conclusion – OSHA drastically underestimated costs

16 Re-Calculated Benefits Instead of using cancer slope range estimated from only 2 studies, use average of all 6 studies cited by OSHA Instead of using cancer slope range estimated from only 2 studies, use average of all 6 studies cited by OSHA Use best estimate for cancer latency, not OSHA’s range Use best estimate for cancer latency, not OSHA’s range Apply more accurate Value of Statistical Life estimate Apply more accurate Value of Statistical Life estimate For purposes of this calculation, accept most of OSHA’s other estimates For purposes of this calculation, accept most of OSHA’s other estimates

17 Costs & Benefits – Summary Comparison: Proposed PEL and Alternatives ($ millions, 2003) PEL (ug/m 3 ) OSHA’s COST $ 402 $ 223 $ 125 $ 95 $ 84 OSHA’s Benefit Range $ $ $ $ $ OSHA’s Midpoint Benefit Estimate $ 386 $ 363 $ 254 $ 178 $ 92 OSHA’s NET BENEFITS $ -17 $ 140 $ 128 $ 82 $ 7 Corrected Benefit Estimate $ 75 $ 71 $ 50 $ 35 $ 19 Corrected NET BENEFITS $ -327 $ -152 $ -75 $ -60 $ -65

18 Strategic Approach Industry Coalition Industry Coalition Dept. of Labor/OSHA Dept. of Labor/OSHA Interagency Interagency  Dept of Defense  EPA  Dept of Commerce  Small Business Administration White House/OMB White House/OMB Congress Congress


Download ppt "OSHA’s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005 Jeff HannapelStu Sessions The Policy GroupEnvironomics, Inc. One Thomas Circle,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google