to show that this is economically and technically infeasible.” Those efforts could be key parts of a saga that could define met- alcasting’s future. In March, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published the long-anticipated revision to its crystalline silica rule. Proposed in 2013, the new rule reduced the permis- sible exposure limit (PEL) to silica in half, from 100 µg (micrograms)/cu.m to 50 µg/cu.m. Te rule, which had been one of the agency’s top priorities, also brings an action level of 25 units over an eight-hour period. Te new rule became effective


on June 23, 2016, but compliance with all the requirements of the rule must be met by June 23, 2018. It has drawn rebukes from the business and construction industry leaders and government figures, as well. Multiple industries and groups are


challenging the new rule. In April, the case was consolidated


in the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. AFS and the National Association of Manufactur- ers (NAM) are challenging the rule together, and opening briefs from industry and intervenor-petitioners were submitted in November. Response briefs from the OSHA/ Department of Labor need to be in by Feb. 3, 2017, and amici briefs in sup- port of OSHA are due Feb. 10, 2017. Reply briefs from industry petition-


ers, union petitioners and Chamber of Commerce intervenor/petitioners have a deadline of March 3., 2017 Final form briefs need to be filed by March 23, 2017, and oral arguments could begin in the summer, with a decision coming down maybe as early as the fall of 2017. Te Court has not yet announced the date for the oral argu- ments. By the time the case is argued, there likely will be a new Department of Labor solicitor and new OSHA administrator in place who are more “business friendly.” For AFS and NAM, the challenge


centers on the technical and economic feasibility of complying with the new exposure limit, along with the cost projections and the stance that OSHA ignored data submitted in evaluat-


The recent Presidential election could change the direction of the silica standard.


ing the metalcasting industry, are the key issues. As a whole, OSHA only estimated the cost per year to meet the new standard for iron facilities at $57,403, $10,149 per aluminum facility, and $8,565 for non-ferrous metalcasters. Based on estimates performed


by expert economists and engineers utilized by AFS, the cost of OSHA’s rule to the metalcasting industry will be more than $2.2 billion annually or at least $1 million per facility. For instance, OSHA did not


account for new dust collectors, which can easily run more than $1 million to install. Furthermore, foundries will have to exhaust all feasible engineer- ing and work practice controls to meet the new PEL. OSHA completely dismisses the use of personal protec- tive equipment (PPE), as a primary approach to protecting employees. Te agency assumes a 15-gal-


lon HEPA vacuum will cost $3,495 initially and then over $1,000 annually. Te metalcasting industry maintains that’s a grossly low estimate, with a typical facility spending $45,000 ini- tially plus $15,000 more for hoses and attachments on a 2-cubic yard 40 HP system with a HEPA filter. Another example of a discrepancy is


OSHA’s estimate on the cost of abrasive blasting. It estimates $2,000 annually, covering maintenance only, and is based on a $8,000 glove box unit not typical of metalcasting production. Meanwhile, a case study to show feasibility said a used unit costs $107,000 along with $16,814 for parts to rebuild another unit, installation notwithstanding.


As a whole, OSHA has estimated the cost per year to meet the new standard for iron facilities at $57,403, $10,149 per aluminum facility, and $8,565 for non-ferrous metalcasters. By the time the litigation and


challenges are completed and politi- cal moves are considered, there could be numerous different outcomes. Te standard could stand, which could lead to further industry appeals. Or, the rule could be vacated, which might bring appeals from OSHA or labor unions. Via litigation, the standard could even be sent back to OSHA, which could try to fix errors or negoti- ate changes and compromises that both sides see as workable. Regardless of where the litigation


winds up, there are actions metalcast- ers need to take. It’s important to start preparing for compliance dates. Metalcasters also need to know their numbers and identify the sources of the crystalline silica that’s going into the air. Recordkeeping of engineering controls–both successes and failures–is also key. Metalcasters also can assist by contributing to the industry legal fund to offset the costs associated with the litigation battle. Trump’s presidential victory could alter the course of the silica rule, but it doesn’t guarantee it’s going away.


Tis article was adapted from a pre- sentation given in November at a silica compliance conference in Schaumburg, Illinois. For questions regarding the liti- gation and new administration, contact Stephanie Salmon in the Washington, D.C. office of AFS—ssalmon@afsinc.org.


December 2016 MODERN CASTING | 31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60