Osha s proposed chrome pel sfic washington forum washington dc may 11 2005
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 18

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


  • 49 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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 20814 202-457-0630301-657-7762

Download Presentation

OSHA’s Proposed Chrome PEL SFIC Washington Forum Washington, DC May 11, 2005

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 PELSFIC Washington ForumWashington, DCMay 11, 2005

Jeff HannapelStu Sessions

The Policy GroupEnvironomics, Inc.

One Thomas Circle, NW, 10th Floor4405 East-West Highway, Ste 307

Washington, DC 20005Bethesda, Maryland 20814

202-457-0630301-657-7762

jhannapel@thepolicygroup.comsessions@environomics.com


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


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


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)


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

  • 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)


Annual Compliance Costs


Economic Impact Analysis

  • 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


Summary Results from Electroplating Affordability Case Studies


Criteria for a Good Analysis of Economic Feasibility for an Industry


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)

  • 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

  • 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)


Strategic Approach

  • Industry Coalition

  • Dept. of Labor/OSHA

  • Interagency

    • Dept of Defense

    • EPA

    • Dept of Commerce

    • Small Business Administration

  • White House/OMB

  • Congress


  • Login