Osha s proposed chrome pel sfic washington forum washington dc may 11 2005
Download
1 / 18

OSHA s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on

OSHA’s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005. Jeff Hannapel Stu Sessions The Policy Group Environomics, Inc. One Thomas Circle, NW, 10 th Floor 4405 East-West Highway, Ste 307 Washington, DC 20005 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 202-457-0630 301-657-7762

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'OSHA s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005' - gale


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Osha s proposed chrome pel sfic washington forum washington dc may 11 2005

OSHA’s Proposed Chrome PELSFIC Washington ForumWashington, DCMay 11, 2005

Jeff Hannapel Stu Sessions

The Policy Group Environomics, Inc.

One Thomas Circle, NW, 10th Floor 4405 East-West Highway, Ste 307

Washington, DC 20005 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

202-457-0630 301-657-7762

[email protected] [email protected]


Osha proposed pel background summary
OSHA Proposed PEL: Background Summary

  • Litigation by Public Citizen and Unions

  • Current PEL 52 ug/m3

  • Proposed PEL 1ug/m3

  • Proposed Action Level 0.5 ug/m3


Osha regulatory schedule for revised hexavalent chromium standard
OSHA Regulatory Schedule for Revised Hexavalent Chromium Standard


Industry impacts selected industry sectors
Industry Impacts:Selected Industry Sectors

Electroplating Welding

Aerospace Shipbuilding

Chromate Production Pigments & Catalysts

Portland Cement Chemical Distributors

Refractory Brick Stainless Steel

Industrial Laundries Steel Production

Fiberglass Mfg. Defense Supply Chain

Electric Utilities Construction


Industry impacts key metal finishing operations
Industry Impacts:Key Metal Finishing Operations

  • Hard Chrome Plating

  • Decorative Chrome Plating

  • Chromic Acid Anodizing

  • Chromate Conversion Coatings (e.g., Zn, Cd & Al)

  • Plating on Plastics

  • Passivation

  • Welding and Fabricating

  • Polishing and Grinding

  • Chemical Mixing & Blending


Occupational exposure limits comparison of selected countries 2002
Occupational Exposure Limits:Comparison of Selected Countries (2002)


Health studies industry concerns
Health Studies: Industry Concerns

  • 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

  • Expert review of Cr studies show different results

    • Crump Study – 23ug/m3 is protective

    • SBREFA process recommended 23 ug/m3 - Spring 2004

  • Uncertainty in OSHA’s Risk Assessment


OSHA’s Estimate of the Number of Workers Exposed in Industry

Sectors and Health Risk Studies for Each Industry Sector

250,000

242,119

200,000

# of Workers Exposed to CrVI (per OSHA)

150,000

111,439

100,000

25,479

50,000

1,297

52

63

150

Chromate Pigment Production

Ferrochromium (Chromium Metal ) Producers

Chromate Production

Aerospace

Other Industries

Chrome (VI) Plating

Welding

Langard & Vigander 1983

Langard & Vigander 1975

Davies 1984

Davies 1979

Hayes et al. 1989

#Sheffet et al. 1982

#Equitable Env. Health 1983,1976

Deschamps et al. 1995

Haguenoer et al. 1981

Langard & Norseth 1975

#Frentzel-Bayme 1983

#Kano et al. 1993

#Axelsson et al. 1980

#Langard et al. 1990

#Moulin et al. 1990

Pokrovskaya & Shabynina

*#Alexander et al. 1996

#Boice et al. 1999

Dalager et al. 1980

#Royle 1975

Sorahan et al. 1998

Sorahan et al. 1987

Silverstein et al. 1981

Franchini et al. 1983

#Okubo & Tsuchiya 1977

#Takahashi & Okubo 1990

Sorahan & Harrington 2000

*#Gerin et al. 1993 Moulin 1997

Sjogren et al. 1994

#Simonato et al. 1991

#Moulin et al. 1993

#Hansen et al. 1996

#Lauitsen et al. 1996

#Sjogren et al. 1987

#Kjuus et al. 1986

#Hull et al. 1989

#Polednak et al. 1981

#Becker 1995

#Morgan et al. 1981

#Pippard et al. 1985

#Blot et al. 2000

Rafnsson & Johannesdottier 1986

#Svensson et al. 1989

#Cornell & Landis 1984

#Brinton et al.

**Gibb et al. 2000

**Luipold et al. 2003

*Mancuso et al. 1997

*Hayes et al. 1979

Braver et al. 1985

Mancuso et al. 1975

Mancuso & Heuper 1951

Borne & Yee 1950

Davies et al. 1991

#Alderson et al. 1981

Bistrup & Case 1956

Korallus et al. 1993

#Korallus et al. 1982

#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


Technical feasibility
Technical Feasibility Industry

  • OSHA recommendations not appropriate

    • Systems cannot be “tweaked”

    • Fume suppressants not the answer

    • Engineering controls identified by OSHA not sufficient

  • Engineering Controls

    • OSHA’s data do not demonstrate technical feasibility

    • Difficult to achieve PEL lower than 10 ug/m3

    • Consistent compliance with action level needed

    • Process and sampling variability concerns

  • Substitutes and customer specifications limit process options


Compliance cost of proposed pel metal finishing industry year in millions
Compliance Cost of Proposed PEL: Industry Metal Finishing Industry($/year, in millions)



Economic impact analysis
Economic Impact Analysis Industry

  • 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

    • 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




Benefit cost assessment industry review
Benefit-Cost Assessment: IndustryIndustry Review

  • OSHA Asserts Total Benefits from the PEL Exceed Costs by $140 million annually (includes health benefits across all affected sectors)

  • 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

    • 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


Re calculated benefits
Re-Calculated Benefits Industry

  • 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

  • Apply more accurate Value of Statistical Life estimate

  • For purposes of this calculation, accept most of OSHA’s other estimates


Costs benefits summary comparison proposed pel and alternatives millions 2003
Costs & Benefits – Summary Comparison: IndustryProposed PEL and Alternatives($ millions, 2003)


Strategic approach
Strategic Approach Industry

  • Industry Coalition

  • Dept. of Labor/OSHA

  • Interagency

    • Dept of Defense

    • EPA

    • Dept of Commerce

    • Small Business Administration

  • White House/OMB

  • Congress


ad