Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents
• Record Type: Occupational Exposure to Cadmium
• Section: 8
• Title: Section 8 - VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis

VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis


Contents

A.  Executive Summary.........................................   VIII-A2
B.  Discussion of Technological and Economic
      Feasibility Determinations..............................   VIII-B1
C.  Exposures, Costs, and
      Feasibility Analyses by Industry........................   VIII-C1
    Nickel-Cadmium Battery Production.........................   VIII-C1
    Zinc Refining/Cadmium Production..........................  VIII-C51
    Pigment Production........................................  VIII-C92
    Stabilizer Production..................................... VIII-C123
    Lead Smelting and Refining................................ VIII-C156
    Plating................................................... VIII-C188
    Dry Color Formulators..................................... VIII-C209
    Electric Utilities........................................ VIII-C230
    Iron and Steel............................................ VIII-C239
    General Industry, Except Establishments Included Above.... VIII-C257
    Construction.............................................. VIII-C306
D.  Economic Feasibility and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis..   VIII-D1
E.  Environmental Impact Assessment...........................   VIII-E1
F.  Benefits..................................................   VIII-F1

A. Executive Summary

Introduction

Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12291, OSHA has conducted a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the final cadmium rule. The analysis is based on the evidence in the record compiled through the rulemaking process. A preliminary analysis accompanied the proposed cadmium rule [55 FR 4052], and OSHA solicited responses from the public regarding the proposed rulemaking, its estimated potential impacts, and other relevant information.

Many interested parties contributed comments and data to the record which provided substantial evidence for the development and analysis of the final rule. Public participation in the rulemaking process enabled possible effects to be identified and appropriate consideration to be given to the concerns and views of those potentially affected.

The RIA covers several issues involved in the promulgation of the final standard. The industries potentially affected are identified, and the nature of the affected firms, the market structure, the characteristics of supply and demand, and the financial aspects are evaluated. The numbers of employees potentially exposed, the level and duration of exposures, the nature of existing controls and work practices, and the extent of current compliance with the requirements of the standard are ascertained.

The analysis then establishes the changes that would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the standard, and the corresponding costs and benefits are presented. In addition, determinations of the technological and economic feasibility of the standard are made. Finally, the potential total costs and benefits of the rule are estimated by provision and by industry.

The following pages summarize the conclusions of the RIA. This summary includes sections on the industry profile, employee exposures and benefits, technological feasibility and costs of compliance, and economic impacts.

Industry Profile

Due to the ubiquitous nature of cadmium and its usefulness in a wide variety of applications, the revised cadmium standard potentially affects establishments in many different industries. In some industries cadmium is an integral part of the manufacturing process; in other industries cadmium-containing products may be used in the production of various goods; and additional industries may be potentially affected if trace amounts of cadmium naturally present in some materials become airborne.

Table VIII-A1 lists the industries potentially affected by this rulemaking and the estimated number of employees potentially exposed in each industry. In most industries the number of potentially exposed employees represents a small part of the total work force. For example, exposures may occur during chemical mixing or during welding, but these activities may comprise only one step in a complex manufacturing process.


TABLE VIII-A1. -- INDUSTRIES AND NUMBERS OF
                  EMPLOYEES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
                  BY THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD

_______________________________________________________
                                      | Potentially
       Industry                       |  exposed
                                      | employees
______________________________________|________________
                                      |
Specific sectors:                     |
  Nickel-cadmium batteries .......... |     1,500
  Zinc/cadmium refining ............. |     1,350
  Cadmium pigments .................. |       100
  Dry Color Formulators ............. |     7,000
  Cadmium stabilizers ............... |       200
  Lead smelting/refining ............ |       400
  Cadmium plating ................... |     1,200
  Electric utilities ................ |    37,500
  Iron and steel .................... |    40,000
General Industry, except sectors      |
  above:                              |
  2200  Textile mill products ....... |       411
  2300  Apparel ..................... |       201
  2500  Furniture ................... |     1,232
  2600  Paper products .............. |       195
  2700  Printing and publishing ..... |     1,600
  2810  Inorganic chemicals ......... |       195
  2820  Plastics and synthetics ..... |       870
  2830  Drugs ....................... |        50
  2851  Paints & allied products .... |     4,724
  2860  Organic Chemicals ........... |     2,533
  2870  Agricultural chemicals ...... |     2,507
  2890  Miscellaneous chemicals ..... |     1,024
  2900  Petroleum refining .......... |       807
  3000  Rubber & plastic prod ....... |    11,133
  3100  Leather products ............ |       902
  3211  Flat glass .................. |       666
  3220  Glassware ................... |     2,929
  3250  Structural clay products .... |     2,423
  3260  Pottery products ............ |       174
  3270  Concrete products ........... |       624
  3280  Stone products .............. |       200
  3290  Mineral products ............ |       899
  3313  Alloy products .............. |       488
  3315  Steel wiredrawing ........... |       500
  3316  Cold-rolled steel ........... |        37
  3317  Steel pipe and tubes ........ |       400
  3320  Iron and steel foundries .... |    10,808
  3330  Primary nonferrous metals ... |     1,800
  3340  Secondary nonferrous metals.. |       750
  3350  Nonferrous rolling, etc. .... |     3,135
  3360  Nonferrous foundries ........ |    10,022
  3390  Misc. primary metal ......... |       285
  3410  Metal shipping containers ... |       140
  3420  Hand tools & hardware ....... |     2,781
  3430  Heating & plumbing equip. ... |     1,186
  3440  Fabricated struct. metal .... |    17,065
  3450  Screws, etc. ................ |       868
  3460  Forgings & stampings ........ |       612
  3470  Coating and engraving ....... |       200
  3480  Ordinance ................... |       265
  3490  Misc. fabr. metal prod. ..... |     9,071
  3510  Engines and turbines ........ |     3,036
  3520  Farm and garden machinery ... |       199
  3530  Construction machinery ...... |    10,453
  3540  Metalworking machinery ...... |    16,127
  3550  Special machinery ........... |     6,533
  3560  General machinery ........... |    11,633
  3570  Computer & office equip ..... |     1,600
  3580  Refrig. & service mach. ..... |    14,180
  3590  Miscellaneous machinery ..... |    19,615
  3610  Elec. transmission equip. ... |     6,388
  3620  Electrical apparatus ........ |    12,460
  3630  Household appliances ........ |     7,586
  3640  Lighting and wiring ......... |    13,266
  3650  Audio & video equip. ........ |     3,021
  3660  Communications equip. ....... |    17,886
  3670  Electronic components ....... |    15,412
  3690  Misc. elect. equip. ......... |       350
  3710  Motor vehicles .............. |    18,032
  3720  Aircraft .................... |     2,776
  3730  Ship building ............... |     7,907
  3743  Railroad equipment .......... |     1,458
  3760  Missiles & Space vehicles ... |       359
  3790  Misc. trans. equip. ......... |       119
  3812  Detection equipment, etc. ... |        67
  3820  Meas. & contr. instr. ....... |       216
  3840  Medical instruments ......... |       337
  3860  Photographic equipment ...... |       669
  3870  Watches & clockwork ......... |       173
  3910  Jewelry & plated ware ....... |        79
  3930  Musical instruments ......... |        16
  3940  Toys and sporting goods ..... |     1,004
  3950  Artists' materials .......... |        50
  3960  Costume jewelry & notions ... |        29
  3990  Misc. manufacturing ......... |     2,749
  4011  Railroads ................... |        23
  4200  Motor freight & warehsing ... |       586
  4500  Air transportation .......... |    52,147
  4810  Telephone communications .... |     2,474
  4830  Radio & TV broadcasting ..... |       149
  4920  Gas prod. & dist. ........... |     1,213
  4950  Sanitary services ........... |     5,204
  5000  Wholesale trade, durables ... |       690
  5100  Wholesale nondurables ....... |     3,080
  5500  Service stations ............ |       538
  7530  Automotive repair shops ..... |     3,194
  7600  Misc. repair services ....... |     3,494
  8060  Hospitals ................... |       277
Construction ........................ |    70,000
   Total ............................ |   524,816
______________________________________|______________
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor.

Potentially affected industries include the production of various kinds of chemicals; paints and coatings; rubber and plastic products; iron and steel; nonferrous metals; machinery and other metal products; electrical equipment; and miscellaneous manufacturing, repair, and service operations.

Reflecting the emphasis of the public comments submitted to the record and other considerations, particular attention was given to several specific industry sectors. These include nickel-cadmium batteries, zinc and cadmium refining, cadmium pigments, cadmium stabilizers, lead smelting and refining, mechanical and electroplating, color compounders and formulators, electric utilities, and iron and steel production. In addition, approximately 70,000 employees in the construction industry may be exposed to cadmium primarily during welding operations.

Employee Exposures and Benefits

Mean exposures among most employees potentially exposed are generally less than 5 ug/m(3). Over half of the potentially exposed employees are engaged in welding, metal machining, or repair and utility work. In these operations cadmium is usually only present in trace quantities and the work may be intermittent. As a result, exposures are typically less than 2.5 ug/m(3).

However, exposures for some employees may be significantly higher, depending on the nature and duration of the activity and the type of material involved. Elevated exposures can be expected when dusts or fumes are generated from alloys and other products containing significant concentrations of cadmium, from metals coated with cadmium, or from cadmium-bearing dusts on work surfaces. Such situations may occur when mixing or using cadmium-containing chemicals; operating furnaces or kilns with cadmium-containing materials; machining, welding, brazing, or soldering metals containing cadmium; using paints containing cadmium pigments; and maintaining or repairing equipment involving cadmium-bearing dusts, such as pollution control devices or boilers with fly ash.

In industry sectors where cadmium is a primary component of the production process, exposures may be consistently above 5 ug/m(3) for much of the work force. Job categories with mean exposures above 20 ug/m(3) can be found in the production of nickel-cadmium batteries, in zinc and cadmium refining, and in the production of cadmium pigments and stabilizers.

The number of cases of lung cancer and kidney dysfunction attributable to cadmium exposure among the exposed employees was calculated based on the quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) discussed in a separate section of the preamble. The QRAs produce dose-response relationships which provide estimates of the excess risk of each type of health effect corresponding to different levels of exposure.

The QRAs for lung cancer and kidney dysfunction were applied to the number of employees and the exposure level in each job category to determine the number of excess cases attributable to current exposures. The calculation was repeated using the projected exposure levels estimated to be achieved under compliance with the final cadmium standard; the difference determined the number of cases potentially preventable by the standard.

Based on four risk models developed by OSHA Health Standards, compliance with the reduced exposure limit is expected to prevent from 9 to 27 cancer fatalities each year out of 13 to 40 excess cancer fatalities currently taking place. Within this range, OSHA's Multistage Model predicts 17 to 18 cancers avoided annually out of 25 excess cancer fatalities. Based upon the risk models for kidney dysfunction, the rule should prevent from 68 to 112 kidney dysfunction cases out of 97 to 160 excess kidney dysfunction cases, annually. For a single estimate within this range, the Jarup 1 model estimates 78 kidney dysfunction cases avoided each year out of a total 111 excess cases. The reductions would apply to risks associated with cumulative exposures over a working lifetime, and thus the annual benefits would be phased in over 45 years.

Technological Feasibility and Costs of Compliance

Compliance with the revised cadmium standard is considered technologically feasible for each of the affected industries. The standard requires engineering controls to be implemented to the extent feasible and allows the supplemental use of respirators for achieving the PEL. Respirators are capable of providing the protection required by the revised standard for the exposures encountered in each of the affected industries.

In almost all industries the application of appropriate engineering controls and work practices can keep cadmium exposures below the PEL for most employees most of the time. In some industries respirators may be necessary in some operations, but the number of employees affected would typically represent a small part of the total work force. Overall, an estimated 40,000 of the 524,000 employees exposed may require respiratory protection after the implementation of feasible engineering controls.

In a few specific industry sectors a majority of the employees may be required to wear respirators to comply with the cadmium standard. About 25 establishments in the U.S. are involved in nickel-cadmium battery production, zinc, cadmium, or lead refining, or the production of cadmium pigments and stabilizers. About 4,000 employees are exposed to cadmium in these establishments, and many are currently provided with respiratory protection. Compliance with the cadmium standard may require up to 80 percent of the workers in these plants to wear respirators full time.

For six industry sectors (nickel-cadmium batteries, zinc/cadmium refining, pigments, stabilizers, lead smelting/refining, and cadmium plating) in which the evidence on current exposures and the effectiveness of additional controls indicated that the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is not feasible with engineering controls, separate engineering control air limits (SECALs) were specified. In order to identify the appropriate SECAL levels for employees in these industries, a process by industry methodology was adopted. High and low exposure processes were analyzed separately to avoid producing an overall SECAL which may not be relevant to either group. Table VIII-A2 shows the SECAL levels identified for these industries, and Table VIII-A3 provides a distribution of employees by SECAL or PEL level in each sector.

Compliance costs for each of the provisions of the standard were estimated for each industry. These costs are summarized in Table VIII-A4. The cost of engineering controls was determined by evaluating the additional engineering controls which establishments would introduce in each affected industry. The unit costs of feasible controls, the number of additional controls necessary, and the expected effectiveness of the controls were estimated based on the evidence in the record. Costs for engineering controls comprise the largest part of the total compliance costs and represent an estimated $82.5 million on an annualized basis.

In addition, the estimated annual costs of compliance include costs for respiratory protection ($13.5 million), exposure monitoring ($8.6 million), medical surveillance ($19.8 million), hygiene facilities and practices ($56.5 million), and information, training, and record keeping ($6.8 million). The total estimated annualized cost of the standard is approximately $187.7 million.

Economic Impacts

Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA has determined that compliance with the final cadmium standard is economically feasible in each of the affected industries.

Table VIII-A5 summarizes the economic impacts for the industries affected by this rulemaking. For most industries, the standard affects a limited number of activities and the costs of compliance represent less than 0.1 percent of revenues.


     TABLE VIII-A2. -- SECALs FOR PROCESSES IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES
______________________________________________________________________
                |        | Number  |                         | SECAL or
Industry sector | Plants |   of    |    Processes            | PEL (ug/
                |        | workers |                         |   m(3))
________________|________|_________|_________________________|_________
                |        |         |                         |
Nickel cadmium  |     6  |    375  | Plate making, plate     |     50
 battery....... |        |         |  preparation .......... |
                |        |  1,125  | All other processes ... |     15
Zinc/cadmium    |     5  |    202  | Cadmium refining,       |     50
 refining ..... |        |         |  casting, melting,      |
                |        |         |  oxide production,      |
                |        |         |  sinter plant           |
                |        |  1,148  | All other processes ... |      5
Pigment         |     4  |     60  | Calcining, crushing,    |     50
 manufacture .. |        |         |  milling, blending      |
                |        |         |  operations ........... |
                |        |     40  | All other processes ... |     15
Stabilizers ... |     5  |     50  | Cadmium oxide charging, |     50
                |        |         |  crushing, drying,      |
                |        |         |  blending operations.   |
                |        |    150  | All other processes ... |      5
Lead smelting ..|     4  |     60  | Sinter plant, blast     |     50
                |        |         |  furnace, baghouse,     |
                |        |         |  yard area ............ |
                |        |    340  | All other processes ... |      5
Plating ....... |   400  |    120  | Mechanical plating .... |     15
                |        |  1,080  | All other processes ... |      5
________________|________|_________|_________________________|___________


         TABLE VIII-A3. -- DISTRIBUTION OF EXPOSED EMPLOYEES IN HIGH
                           EXPOSURE INDUSTRIES
____________________________________________________________________________
      |          |          |        |           |        |          |
PEL/  | Batteries|  Zinc/   |Pigments|Stabilizers|  Lead  |Plating   |Totals
SECAL |          | Cadmium  |        |           |        |          |
(ug/  |          |          |        |           |        |          |
m(3)) |          |          |        |           |        |          |
______|__________|__________|________|___________|________|__________|______
      |High| Low |High| Low |High|Low|High | Low |High|Low|High|Low  |
______|____|_____|____|_____|____|___|_____|_____|____|___|____|_____|______
PEL   |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
5 ug/ |....|.....|....|1,148|....|...|.....| 150 |....|340|....|1,080|2,718
m(3)) |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
SECAL |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
50 ug/| 375|.....| 202|.....| 60 |...|  50 |.....| 60 |...|....|.....|  747
m(3)) |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
15 ug/|....|1,125|....|.....|....| 40|.....|.....|....|...| 120|.....|1,285
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |______
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |2,032
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |______
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |------
Total |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     | 4,750
______|____|_____|____|_____|____|___|_____|_____|____|___|____|_____|______


TABLE VIII-A4. --  SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS BY PROVISION AND BY INDUSTRY
                       [Thousands of Dollars]
___________________________________________________________________________
         | Number |        |       |      |        |      |        |
         |  of    |        |       | Expo-|Medical | Hy-  |Informa-|
Industry |affected|  Engi- | Respi-| sure |surveil |giene/| tion   | Total
         | estab- | neering| rators| moni-| lance  |cloth-|training|
         | lish-  |controls|       |toring|        | ing  | rcdkpg |
         | ments  |        |       |      |        |      |        |
_________|________|________|_______|______|________|______|________|_______
         |        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
Batteries|      6 |    861 |   180 |   16 |    388 |   495|      8 |  1,947
Zinc/    |      5 |    728 |   150 |   17 |    363 |   459|      5 |  1,723
cadmium  |        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
Pigments |      4 |    312 |    12 |   10 |     35 |   104|      1 |    473
Formu-   |    700 |  4,620 |   525 |  914 |  1,277 |     0|     35 |  7,371
 lators  |        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
Stabili- |      5 |    825 |    12 |   11 |     36 |    50|      1 |    935
 zers    |        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
Lead     |      4 |    112 |    60 |    3 |    106 |     0|      2 |    283
Plating  |    400 |    189 |     6 |  166 |    102 |   294|     30 |    787
Utilities|  4,000 |      0 |     0 |1,600 |    600 |     0|    188 |  2,388
Iron/    |    120 |      0 |   300 |  288 |  1,000 |     0|     50 |  1,638
 steel   |        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
         |________|________|_______|______|________|______|________|________
 Subtotal|  5,244 |  7,647 | 1,245 |3,025 |  3,907 | 1,402|    319 | 17,545
Other    | 50,000 | 74,820 |11,855 |2,754 | 13,512 |50,937|  5,737 |159,615
 general |        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
 industry|        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
Const-   | 10,000 |      0 |   350 |2,870 |  2,380 | 4,203|    700 | 10,503
 ruction |        |        |       |      |        |      |        |
         |________|________|_______|______|________|______|________|_______
         |--------|--------|-------|------|--------|------|--------|-------
  Total  | 65,244 | 82,467 |13,450 |8,649 | 19,799 |56,542|  6,756 |187,663
_________|________|________|_______|______|________|______|________|_______
  Note: Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.


          TABLE VIII-A5. -- SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY INDUSTRY
                            (Thousands of Dollars)
____________________________________________________________________________
         |      |       |        |           |          |          |
         |Number|Total  |Average |   Total   | Ratio of |   Total  |Ratio of
Industry |  of  |annual | annual |   annual  |compliance|  annual  |compl-
         |affec-|cost of|cost per| revenues  | costs to |  profits | iance
         | ted  |compli-|affected|           | revenues |          |costs to
         |estab-| ance  | estab- |           |          |          | profits
         | lish-|       |  lish- |           |          |          |
         | ments|       |  ment  |           |          |          |
_________|______|_______|________|___________|__________|__________|________
         |      |       |        |           |          |          |
Batteries|    6 |  1,947|  324.5 |    185,000|   0.011  |     7,400| 0.263
Zinc/    |    5 |  1,723|  344.6 |    230,000|   0.007  |      NA  |    NA
cadmium  |      |       |        |           |          |          |
Pigments |    4 |    473|  118.4 |     30,000|   0.016  |     1,500| 0.316
Formu-   |  700 |  7,370|   10.5 |    900,000|   0.008  |    45,000| 0.164
 lators  |      |       |        |           |          |          |
Stabili- |    5 |    935|  187.1 |     92,000|   0.010  |     8,300| 0.113
 zers    |      |       |        |           |          |          |
Lead     |    4 |    283|    70.7|    176,000|   0.002  |       NA |    NA
Plating  |  400 |    787|     2.0|    200,000|   0.004  |     8,800| 0.089
Utilities 4,000 |  2,388|     0.6|140,000,000|   0.000  | 7,000,000| 0.000
Iron/    |  120 |  1,638|    13.7| 64,000,000|   0.000  |       NA |    NA
 steel   |      |       |        |           |          |          |
         |______|_______|________|___________|__________|__________|______
 Subtotal| 5,244| 17,545|     3.3|205,813,000|   0.000  | 7,071,000| 0.002
Other    |50,000|159,615|     3.2|290,820,000|   0.001  |14,731,000| 0.011
 general |      |       |        |           |          |          |
 industry|      |       |        |           |          |          |
Const-   |10,000| 10,503|     1.1|    490,000|   0.021  |     NA   |  NA
 ruction |      |       |        |           |          |          |
         |______|_______|________|___________|__________|__________|_______
         |------|-------|--------|-----------|----------|----------|-------
  Total  |65,244|187,663|     2.9|497,123,000|   0.000  |21,802,000| 0.009
_________|______|_______|________|___________|__________|__________|_______
  Note: (1) Costs do not include current expenditures.
        (2) Where sales or profit data provided to the record for specific
companies or industries were used, the information was verified through
publicly available sources such as Dun & Bradstreet, DIALOGUE, Dow Jones
News Retrieval, and Nexis.
  Source: Office of regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

The compliance costs are generally expected to result in slight increases in prices for goods and services associated with occupational cadmium exposures.

In some industries price increases needed to recoup compliance costs may decrease sales volume. For these establishments the standard may result in some reduction in profits. OSHA does not expect the standard to significantly affect the viability of continuing operations in any industry or to result in any plant closures. However, to the extent that compliance costs contribute marginally to increased production costs, prospects for economic expansion and employment growth in industries with cadmium exposure may be diminished.

Basically, the regulation tends to trade some of the societal benefits of producing and using products containing cadmium for greater protection among exposed employees. Compliance with the standard ultimately causes production resources to be shifted from the regulated industries and from other sectors of the economy to compliance-related activities. Although the overall effect on the economy will probably be undetectable, a very slight increase in prices may result from the improvement in the protection of the health of employees exposed to cadmium.

B. DISCUSSION OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

Introduction

The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 requires OSHA to promulgate standards protecting the health of employees and requires that in the development of standards, one of the "considerations shall be ... the feasibility of the standards" [Pub. L. 91-596 sec. 6.(b)(5)]. The courts have required that OSHA must bear "the initial burden of proving the general feasibility of the standard for the industry as a whole at the rulemaking stage" [1, p. 1270].

Through the rulemaking process OSHA has compiled a comprehensive record of the feasibility of controlling employee exposures to cadmium. OSHA published a proposed rule with a preliminary analysis in February, 1990 and solicited data and comments from the public. The record remained open for over eight months, and many comments were submitted by interested parties. At the public hearings each witness was available for cross-examination. Before the record closed, participants were given the opportunity to respond to all new information submitted. The resultant record provides the best available evidence for determining the feasibility of the new cadmium standard.

Legal Consideration in Determining Technological Feasibility

OSHA is obligated by the OSH Act to promulgate standards that "to the extent feasible" best protect workers. OSHA does not believe that it can satisfy this obligation by using a lowest-common-denominator approach, i.e. by protecting all workers only to the extent that the most severe feasibility constraint on protecting any worker would allow. On the contrary, OSHA believes that if a minority of workers cannot be as effectively protected as the majority, that fact is not an adequate reason to forego protecting the majority to the extent feasible.

Court decisions have supported this understanding of technological feasibility. In a decision describing the preliminary test of general feasibility that an OSHA standard must pass in a pre-enforcement review, one court summed up OSHA's burden of proof as follows: "...within the limits of the best available evidence, and subject to the court's search for substantial evidence, OSHA must prove a reasonable possibility that the typical firm will be able to develop and install engineering and work practice controls that can meet the PEL in most of its operations. ...Such a standard of review for feasibility, of course, in no way ensures that all companies at all times and in all jobs can meet OSHA's demands." [1, p. 1272].

In adopting this understanding of feasibility for purposes of analysis, a related question arises. Namely, how does random variability in exposure levels affect an assessment that a particular level is technologically feasible? OSHA recognizes that some random fluctuation of exposure levels around the average does exist. As a result, employers will generally need to control exposure levels to an average somewhat below the limit to ensure that most of the fluctuations will not exceed the limit. Further, some of the variation may be the result of identifiable and controllable causes, such as inadequate or poorly maintained engineering controls, improper work practices, or lack of oversight by qualified personnel. Correcting deficiencies in controls should reduce existing exposure levels and substantially reduce variability.

For operations where the PEL cannot be achieved with engineering controls and work practices, the employer must nevertheless implement all feasible engineering controls to reduce exposures in addition to using respiratory protection. The requirement to implement all feasible engineering controls generally applies to the existing building, equipment, and manufacturing process (although OSHA has the authority to set standards that are "technology forcing" [1, p. 1264]). For purposes of complying with this requirement, it is usually sufficient to demonstrate that every reasonable effort has been made to reduce exposures given the limitations of the plant configuration and the nature of the process.

Public Comments Regarding Feasibility Determinations

Several comments responding to the proposed standard [55 FR 4052] criticized the methodology and conclusions of the preliminary analysis concerning technological feasibility and costs of compliance. The final analysis addresses these concerns, where appropriate, by modifying analytical approaches, revising estimates, and using additional information and data submitted to develop an accurate characterization of impacts. The conclusions in this final analysis reflect these changes and are based on the best available evidence as provided by the record.

For example, OSHA reviewed the record to ensure that the full range of job categories exposed to cadmium was identified for each industry. All potentially affected industries were studied and the number of exposed employees was determined. The full spectrum of cadmium exposure sources and the corresponding prospects for additional engineering controls were assessed for each job category. The expected effectiveness of controls and the anticipated reductions in exposures were re-examined in the light of the comments and testimony submitted. Potential biases associated with the exposure data were evaluated, concerns raised in regard to statistical applications were resolved, and additional exposure data submitted to the record were incorporated into the analysis.

Many of the apparent differences among the estimates and conclusions presented in the record can be explained by differences in the perceptions of the requirement to install controls to the extent feasible.

Some commenters assumed that a feasible PEL is one that would virtually never be exceeded even by atypical monitoring results. For these commenters, the corresponding estimates of the lowest feasible PEL were often 2.5 times mean exposures, and estimates of compliance costs reflected a reduction in mean exposures to less than 40 percent of the PEL. Comments made on the basis of these assumptions tended to highlight the feasibility problems and cost of any lower exposure limit.

Process by Industry Feasibility Determinations

In addressing the legal requirements for OSHA technological feasibility analysis and the concerns expressed by affected parties during public hearings on the proposed rule, OSHA has adopted an occupation/process by industry feasibility analysis in this RIA. The approach separately analyzes worker exposure levels by occupation/process within industry segments affected by the rule. The approach was designed to extract the maximum utility from the existing data and to minimize the influence of data source differences and inconsistencies. The occupation/process analysis became the analytical tool for identifying appropriate SECAL levels within affected industries.

As a general rule, OSHA determines whether a permissible exposure limit is technologically and economically feasible for an industry by determining whether it can be achieved in most operations most of the time with engineering and work practice controls. This approach is sensible and useful for several reasons: it permits industrial commonalties to dominate over exceptions in a constructive way; it reflects the fact that air contaminants tend to drift throughout the plant and that workers often move from one part of the plant to another during or between work assignments; and it produces a regulatory standard that is specific and accurate on the one hand, and workable from an enforcement perspective, on the other.

Although the "most operations most of the time" test is the best general rule for determining the feasibility of an engineering and work practice control limit for an industry, an exception to that rule is appropriate for six industrial sectors engaged in cadmium production operations. In nickel-cadmium battery production, zinc/cadmium refining, pigments, stabilizers, lead smelting/refining, and cadmium plating, exposure data tended to fall into distinct high and low exposure clusters, especially from process to process within industries. A unitary "most operations most of the time test" would ignore this division and either impose on the low cluster a control limit that would be needlessly high or impose upon the high cluster a control limit that would be unrealistically low.

OSHA used statistical analysis of exposure data to distinguish high and low exposure processes and represented the high and low exposure groups as high and low exposure distributions. Then OSHA used the record evidence to estimate the amount of exposure reduction that would occur from implementing controls for each distribution. OSHA applied that reduction to its respective distribution and determined the separate engineering (and work practice) control air limit (SECAL) for the processes from these distributions. This methodology allows developing different control standards where exposures in the process are substantially different and produces the lowest feasible SECAL for distinct occupation/process clusters.

Moreover, the process approach adopted here does not preclude consideration of individual plant characteristics when such characteristics can be identified. For example, in the cadmium stabilizer subsector, one plant is known to have successfully reduced exposure levels following a technology improvement program. This empirical data reinforced confidence that engineering controls could reduce exposure levels in other plants. Conversely, in lead smelting, data submitted to the record indicated that one plant has exposure levels considerably above three other plants in this subsector. Only this plant would appear to benefit from additional engineering controls to reduce exposure levels. This consideration was explicitly factored into the engineering control reduction level projected for this industry group. Finally, when inter-plant technology controls and exposure levels can not be distinguished, a cross-plant process analysis is the most neutral approach to characterizing industry exposures and technology control problems and solutions.

In technological and economic feasibility analysis attention generally concentrates on the more problematic process exposures. From an engineering design control perspective, the presumption is that high exposure processes will be more difficult and costly to control. Most engineering control remedies for high exposure processes will simultaneously lower within plant exposures for all occupations. Attention justifiably focuses on the feasibility of existing technology to control high exposure processes. In evaluating control strategies in this approach, exposure reduction factors were applied to the high and low exposure groups based on the evidence in the record addressing the ability to control exposures in each type of plant.

In designing the occupation/process approach to SECAL selection, the effort was made to take into account the many concerns expressed by industry representatives and others, that any engineering control level selected, should be capable of being met most of the time. To achieve this, all occupation/process data from all available sources were entered into a computer for analysis. Usually these data were a mixture of exposure ranges, by occupation/process, often with a median or geometric mean identified. Based on these data, a distribution of exposures was projected through the use of statistical modelling.

Occupation/process data were then depicted using a "box and whisker"

diagram. The two dimensional "box" reflects the range within which 50 percent of exposure readings are found. The vertical band within a box represents the median value for the entire distribution; the "whisker" element shows the extent of exposure above and below the 50 percent block which captures the median.

Using this presentation of exposure data facilitated the identification of high and low occupational exposure by process. The Agency segregated the occupation/process data into sets of high and low exposures for six industries for whom SECALs would be required. In the text below, the nickel-cadmium battery industry is used to illustrate the verification process used to prove that certain occupation/process groups were statistically different based on exposure data.

Six plants producing nickel-cadmium batteries constitute an industry. Each of the six plants produces more than one type of battery (sealed cell, vented, aerospace, commercial, etc.) involving different processes. Each plant can achieve different lowest feasible levels. To assess the lowest feasible level, high and low exposed occupation by process groups were identified and separately analyzed.

Ten sources of data on exposures in these six plants were available. All data sources are considered legitimate and no preference is expressed among them. Differences in levels may be explained by different levels of engineering controls, different points in time in the plant, different production levels, different work practices, different process modifications, or upset conditions.

In the nickel-cadmium battery industry, the following occupations/processes were identified as having high exposures: plate preparation operations and plate making operations. All other occupations and processes for which the Agency had information were identified as having low exposures. Figure VIII-B1 shows the segregated data.


        Figure VIII-B1  - NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERIES

(For Figure VIII-B1, Click Here)

In the nickel-cadmium battery sector the exposure data were as follows:

_____________________________________________________________
                            |  high group    |  low group
____________________________|________________|_______________
Number of observations .... |  26 (=N(H))    | 48 (=N(L))
Mean value ................ |  72.9 (=X(H))  | 14.4 (=X(L))
Standard deviation ........ |  62.7 (=S(H))  | 23.5 (=S(L))
____________________________|________________|_______________

To verify that the two groups within this industry were distinct, the Agency tested whether the means of the two samples were the same.

Formally, the proposed null hypothesis was that the means were equal, or equivalently, that the difference in means was zero. In general terms, if the difference in means of the two samples is large compared to its distribution, which is centered around zero, then it is unlikely that the samples are drawn from the same population. Under the assumption that the difference in means was distributed normally (central limit theorem) the appropriate test statistic is:

(mean of high exposures - mean of low exposures) - true mean divided by standard error of the difference in means

The standard deviation of the difference in means is closely approximated by the square root of the sum of the squared standard errors of the means and the standard error is given by:


S.E.(HL) = Square root(S(H)(2)/N(H) + S(L)(2)/N(L))

Then, the test statistic is a standard normal random variable equal to:

z = [(X(H) - X(L)) - 0]/S.E.(HL)

For the standard normal distribution, there is less than a 5 percent probability that the (absolute) value of a test statistic would exceed 2.0 if its true mean was zero. The probability of the test statistic being 4.6 or larger (4.6 was the actual value for z in the formula above) under the assumption that the means are equal is less than 0.001. Therefore the null hypothesis that the means of the exposure data are equal is rejected and the conclusion that they are drawn from distinct distributions is accepted.

As the exposure samples are not large, we also tested their difference with the more conservative t statistic with (N(H) + N(L) - 2) = 72 degrees of freedom.

The standard error is estimated as:

S.E.(HL)(t) = Square root {[(N(H)-1)S(H)(2)+(N(L)-1)S(L)2(])x(1/N(L)
+1/N(H))/(N(H)+N(L)-2)}

For the nickel-cadmium data the t statistic is 5.8. In this case, there is less than a five percent probability that the t statistic will be larger than 2.0 if the means are actually equal. Under the assumption that the means are equal, the probability that the t statistic should be as large as 5.8 is less that 0.001. We again reject the null hypothesis that the means are equal.

Once a statistical difference between high and low exposure groups was verified, the data were analyzed separately. In developing graphs of existing exposures for each occupation/process type, medians and means were used from each of the exposure sources.

The resulting distributions for nickel-cadmium battery producers are shown in Figures VIII-B2 and VIII-B3, with the high group represented by occupations directly involved in plate preparation and plate making operations and the low group by all other industry occupations, including impregnation, spiraling, cell assembly, nickel plating, sorting and stacking processes. (In these Figures and those that follow all data were "fitted" to a straight line using ordinary least squares methodology.) The final step in identifying appropriate SECAL levels for the two groups was done through a modelling process. The current exposure pattern for each group was reduced based upon alternative engineering control efficiency levels of 80, 60, 40 and 20 percent. The higher the efficiency level, the lower the projected exposure level. Figures VIII-B4 and VIII-B5 show the reduction effect and shift in the distribution of exposures for the high and low groups in nickel-cadmium battery production.

Finally, a selection had to be made among the different efficiency reduction factors based upon evidence and testimony in the record and economic feasibility considerations. Where evidence in the record clearly indicated that an engineering control strategy would reduce exposure levels, the reduction factor range most closely approximating the new projected exposure levels was selected.


   Figure VIII-B2  - BATTERIES (LOW EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-B2, Click Here) Figure VIII-B3 - BATTERIES (HIGH EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-B3, Click Here) Figure VIII-B4 - BATTERIES (HIGH EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-B4, Click Here) Figure VIII-B5 - BATTERIES (LOW EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-B5, Click Here) !ht!L#800#!/ht!

The only basis for revising this choice was if the control strategy was so costly as to make the option economically infeasible for a given industry. Industry cost and profit ratios were relied on in making a determination of economic feasibility. The higher the ratio, the more important it became. If costs represented 20 percent or more of profits, the shift to a less costly engineering control strategy and lower reduction factor (60 percent instead of 80, for example) was considered. For battery producers this reduction was made. The regulatory cost to profit ratio exceeded 20 percent and the less costly 40 - 60 percent range of reduction level was used.

Following selection of the reduction factor range, the appropriate SECAL for an exposure group was made at the level achievable for most (60 - 80 percent) of the exposure observations. For workers exposed to cadmium in battery production a SECAL of 50 ug/m(3) for plate preparation and platemaking processes was identified; for all other occupations and processes a SECAL of 15 ug/m(3) was identified.

The methodology outlined above was applied to each industry in which additional analysis for determining the feasibility of achieving the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) with engineering controls appeared to be useful. The sector-by-sector analysis found bifurcated exposures by process type across all industries and verified the appropriateness of different SECALs for affected industries. Table VIII-B1 shows the SECAL levels in high exposure industries and Table VIII-B2 provides a distribution of employees by SECAL or PEL level in each high exposure industry sector.

Unit Cost Estimates and Economic Feasibility

Unit Costs. OSHA developed unit cost estimates based on the engineering controls that would be required for each operation to reduce ambient exposure levels of cadmium. Some cost estimates submitted to the record included controls or measures of questionable effectiveness and very high cost. As discussed in more detail for specific industries, the data and evidence in the record provided consistent estimates of the approximate cost of additional controls once differences in underlying assumptions were taken into account.

Local exhaust ventilation systems are the predominant method of engineering control to reduce occupational exposures to cadmium, and they can be adapted to exposure sources in many different industries. JACA [3] provided estimates of the cost of local exhaust ventilation systems that ranged from $51,000 to $110,000 (in current dollars). These estimates reflect the total costs, including costs for one or more hoods, duct work, a baghouse, a stack, and installation. Annual operating and maintenance costs were estimated to be 10 percent of the capital cost. Based on these estimates, OSHA concluded that the average unit cost for a local exhaust ventilation system would be $80,000 in capital costs and $8,000 in annual costs.

Other evidence submitted to the record regarding the unit costs of local exhaust ventilation systems was generally consistent with the JACA estimates.


     TABLE VIII-B1. -- SECALs FOR PROCESSES IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES
___________________________________________________________________________
                      |        | Number  |                        | SECAL
                      |        |   of    |                        | or PEL
    Industry sector   | Plants | workers |     Processes          | (ug/
                      |        |         |                        | m(3))
______________________|________|_________|________________________|________
                      |        |         |                        |
Nickel cadmium battery|      6 |     375 | Plate making, plate    |
                      |        |         |  preparation ......... |   50
                      |        |   1,125 | All other processes .. |   15
Zinc/cadmium refining |      5 |     202 | Cadmium refining,      |
                      |        |         |  casting, melting,     |
                      |        |         |  oxide production,     |
                      |        |         |  sinter plant ........ |   50
                      |        |   1,148 | All other processes .. |    5
Pigment manufacture   |      4 |      60 | Calcining, crushing,   |
                      |        |         |  milling, blending     |
                      |        |         |  operations .......... |   50
                      |        |      40 | All other processes .. |   15
Stabilizers           |      5 |      50 | Cadmium oxide charging,|
                      |        |         |  crushing, drying,     |
                      |        |         |  blending operations.. |   50
                      |        |     150 | All other processes .. |    5
Lead smelting         |      4 |      60 | Sinter plant, blast    |
                      |        |         |  furnace, baghouse,    |
                      |        |         |  yard area ........... |   50
                      |        |     340 | All other processes .. |    5
Plating               |    400 |     120 | Mechanical plating ... |   15
                      |        |   1,080 | All other processes .. |    5
______________________|________|_________|________________________|________



         TABLE VIII-B2. -- DISTRIBUTION OF EXPOSED EMPLOYEES IN HIGH
                           EXPOSURE INDUSTRIES
____________________________________________________________________________
      |          |          |        |           |        |          |
PEL/  | Batteries|  Zinc/   |Pigments|Stabilizers|  Lead  |  Plating |Totals
SECAL |          | Cadmium  |        |           |        |          |
(ug/  |          |          |        |           |        |          |
m(3)) |          |          |        |           |        |          |
______|__________|__________|________|___________|________|__________|______
      |High| Low |High| Low |High|Low|High | Low |High|Low|High| Low |
______|____|_____|____|_____|____|___|_____|_____|____|___|____|_____|______
PEL   |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
5 ug/ |....|.....|....|1,148|....|...|.....| 150 |....|340|....|1,080|2,718
m(3)) |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
SECAL |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
50 ug/| 375|.....| 202|.....| 60 |...|  50 |.....| 60 |...|....|.....|  747
m(3)) |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |
15 ug/|....|1,125|....|.....|....| 40|.....|.....|....|...| 120|.....|1,285
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |_____
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |2,032
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |_____
      |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |-----
Total |    |     |    |     |    |   |     |     |    |   |    |     |4,750
______|____|_____|____|_____|____|___|_____|_____|____|___|____|_____|______

Of the additional information submitted, PACE [4] provided the most comprehensive description of controls and unit costs. For example, the installation of a local exhaust ventilation system with a hood, ducts, and a Venturi scrubber was estimated to cost $57,000 in a cadmium refining operation. In another cadmium refining operation, a collection hood and exhaust system with sloped, flushed ducts was estimated to cost $24,000. PACE also identified additions or improvements in ventilation for at least five operations in the production of cadmium stabilizers with a total cost of less than $150,000. In conclusion, OSHA is confident that a unit of cost $80,000 provides a fair representation of the cost of implementing a substantial local exhaust ventilation system.

In addition to local exhaust ventilation systems, PACE recommended the use of other engineering controls for operations in several industries. OSHA agrees that many of these controls may provide significant reductions in exposures and included costs for these controls in the final analysis. For example, in several industries PACE recommended the use of clean air islands and estimated the cost as $3 per cfm (cubic feet per minute). The recommended systems ranged from 2,000 to 9,000 cfm and cover areas from 4 feet by 5 feet to 6 feet by 15 feet. OSHA concluded that the average unit cost for this type of control would be about $18,000.

Other types of controls referred to by PACE and other commenters involved a variety of relatively inexpensive modifications but were often applicable to specific operations or circumstances. Where the evidence suggested that such control options could be implemented effectively, costs for such controls were included in the final analysis. Since OSHA cannot realistically determine every control possibility in every operation in every plant, a unit cost of $9,000 for such controls was estimated based on the cost data submitted. Total costs per plant for such controls were approximated by estimating the appropriate number of units of these controls applicable in each type of affected establishment.

For example, estimates submitted by PACE included: partition an area from rest of building, $9,000; panel ceiling, $10,000-$15,000; complex enclosure of briquette press, $5,000; glove box hood with mechanical assist, $5,000; power conveyor for pouring, $11,000; downflow grate at front of furnace, $3,000; pass-through airlock glove box, $5,000; enclose drum fill, $1,700; enclose feed table with 10' by 3' backdraft hood, $1,600; GEMCO valve, flex boot, and flange, $2,600; modify dump enclosure for 2 tanks, $3,000; blending enclosure, $4,000; and special protection of electrical equipment, $15,000.

Unit costs for housekeeping consisted of capital costs for industrial vacuum cleaning systems and labor costs for using the system regularly. JACA assumed that a HEPA-filtered industrial vacuum cleaner could be purchased for $1,500. PACE's estimated cost for a large portable HEPA-filtered vacuum was $10,000, and the estimated cost for a central vacuum system with piping for 20,000 square feet of floor/platform area was $31,200. OSHA believes that the cost of establishing an adequate housekeeping program can be approximated by using an average unit cost of $15,000 per system; furthermore, the analysis recognizes that more than one such system may be needed in some plants. In addition to costs for power and maintenance, OSHA estimated that sufficient utilization of such a system may require annual labor costs of $7,000 (representing about 500 hours per year).

Unit costs used to estimate compliance costs for other requirements of the cadmium standard were based on information provided to the record. The annual cost of protecting an employee with a HEPA-filtered respirator, including fit testing, was about $300, according to testimony from an industry representative based on experience with respirator programs [5]. The laboratory cost of analyzing the results of exposure monitoring is an estimated $40 per sample, and the cost of collecting the samples would average about $200 per sample, according to estimates provided by an industrial hygiene firm [3]. Costs for hygiene facilities, training, and recordkeeping were evaluated for each industry based on estimates of current compliance and the extent of additional efforts needed. The unit cost for providing a daily shower during the work shift for employees exposed above the PEL was estimated at $900 annually, based on fifteen minutes per day for 240 days per year at $15 an hour.

Costs of compliance with the medical surveillance provisions were calculated based on unit cost estimates for specific elements. The analysis of samples of urine and blood for cadmium was estimated to cost $60 per sample, based on estimates from industrial medical clinics [3]. According to a public health research group, the unit cost for the analysis of a urine sample for B(2)-microglobulin was $80 per sample [6]. The cost of an annual physical, including the wages paid to the employee, was estimated to be $250. This figure is based on research conducted by JACA (adjusted to current dollars), and is consistent with unit costs for comparable medical exams used in other OSHA analyses, reflecting current prices for industrial clinical services. Cost estimates provided by industry reflected unit costs for exams between $300 and $400, but these estimates may include biological monitoring costs and may not reflect the minimum cost necessary for compliance with the standard.

The unit cost associated with the medical removal of an employee was calculated by assuming that on average the employer would incur hiring and training costs of $500 per removed employee. In addition, the wage for the job the removed employee would be transferred to was assumed to average $2 an hour (generally more than 10 percent) less than the wage for the former job, and removed employees would generally have full-time (2,000 hours per year) positions. As a result, medical removal of an employee for 18 months would cost about $6,000 for the wage differential plus $500 for hiring and training costs; removal of an employee for 9 months would cost a total of about $3,500 (costs for additional medical testing are evaluated separately). OSHA concludes that the average unit cost per medical removal would be about $5,000 (on the assumption that half medically removed workers will return to work after nine months and half will receive benefits for 18 months).

Economic Feasibility. Once the unit costs were assigned to engineering controls, work practice changes, new administrative requirements, and personal protective equipment, industry costs to comply with the rule provisions were calculated. The total incremental cost to comply with the rule was separately calculated for each affected industry segment. Industry differences in cost impacts reflected current baseline practices and levels of worker exposure, and the number of establishments in a particular sector using cadmium.

Industry cost estimates (the amount of capital needed to comply with the rule) were compared with revenues and profit margins for recent years in order to determine the economic impact and feasibility of the regulation. No industry sector analyzed had a cost to profit ratio in excess of 0.5. For those sectors where costs represented between 20 - 50 percent of profit, this fact was considered when selecting engineering control strategies to reduce existing cadmium exposure levels.

NOTES

1. USWA v. Marshall, 647 F.2d. 2. OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45B CH-1, Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance, December 31, 1990.

3. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

4. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE Incorporated, April 30, 1990.

5. Exhibit 19-30, "Comments on OSHA Proposed Cadmium Regulation,"

Big River Zinc Corporation, May 10, 1990.

6. Exhibit 123, "Comments of Public Citizen Health Research Group and the International Chemical Workers Union on OSHA's Proposed Standard Governing Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," Public Citizen, October 17, 1990.

C. Exposures, Costs, and Feasibility Analyses by Industry

Nickel-Cadmium Battery Production

Industry overview. The nickel-cadmium battery industry in the United States consists of six major manufacturers operating six facilities in different states across the country. The largest establishment is located in Florida and employs over 1,700 employees. The smallest facility has 16 employees and is located in Wisconsin. The remaining facilities have between 150 and 450 employees. [1, Slide 2]. Total employment for the industry is almost 3,000, of whom about half (1,500) are involved in production and maintenance and are potentially exposed to cadmium. [1, Slide 3].

There are many different types of nickel-cadmium batteries produced and designs are often customized for specific industrial, aerospace, military, household, commercial, or specialty applications. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) classified battery production in the United States into two categories: industrial-military-aerospace and household-commercial-specialty. NEMA estimated that approximately two thirds of the employees exposed to cadmium in the battery industry were involved in the production of household, commercial, and specialty batteries. [1, Slide 3].

Production processes. The production of nickel-cadmium batteries can be broken down into four basic steps. Each step may involve several operations that can vary depending on the type of battery and scale of production, but these steps encompass the manufacturing process utilized for battery production regardless of the type of battery or the particular facility. NEMA preferred to characterize the manufacturing process with a generic description of these four steps; detailed descriptions were withheld "because of their highly confidential and proprietary nature." [2, p. 3].

Step 1 is called plate making in the production of large industrial, aerospace, and military nickel-cadmium batteries; this step is also referred to as sintered plate manufacture in the production of small household and commercial nickel-cadmium batteries. In both cases the process begins with the same material, nickel-plated perforated steel, and produces a porous nickel plate. [2, p. 3].

A paste of finely divided nickel metal is pressed into the open grid of perforated and nickel-plated sheet steel. This is followed by sintering or drying in an oven. The dried plate can then be rolled up into a spiral or be cut, weighed, and coined for particular specifications prior to impregnation.

Step 2 involves impregnation. The porous nickel plates are immersed in a cadmium nitrate solution, rinsed, dried, and then immersed in sodium hydroxide. After rerinsing, the plates are dried and inspected. Continuous spiral wound plates are dipped as spools on large circular holding racks and then despiraled.

Sometimes an alternate process is used for this step. A paste of cadmium oxide with fillers and binders is prepared and then continuously pressed into a moving perforated sheet which is subsequently dried.

Step 3 is plate preparation and involves cutting, inspecting, and sorting the plates. This step ensures that the plates are of proper size and quality. In addition, the plates are stacked and readied for assembly.

Step 4 is the assembly of the battery or cell. For large industrial batteries, alternate plates containing cadmium hydroxide and nickel hydroxide are welded to terminals and placed in the battery casing. The casing is filled with an electrolyte solution and sealed.

The assembly of small household cells involves winding the electrodes into a tight cylinder together with an inert separation material. The roll is fitted into a nickel-plated metal can which is sealed after the electrolyte is added. Most of these steps are performed by automatic machines. [2, p. 4].

Employee exposures. The preliminary analysis produced by OSHA for the proposed rule relied on an exposure profile developed by JACA Corporation. [3, Table 3-8]. JACA relied on two primary sources for exposure monitoring data from nickel-cadmium battery producers. The first source was seven years of sampling results from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) database through August 1986. The second source was a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) performed by NIOSH at a battery plant in 1983. JACA also visited a nickel-cadmium battery manufacturing plant to assist in the interpretation and categorization of the data. JACA's exposure profile is presented in Table VIII-C1. Geometric mean exposures in six of the seven job categories, representing over 75 percent of the exposed employees, are estimated to be less than 17 ug/m(3).

PACE Incorporated developed an exposure profile for nickel-cadmium battery production at the request of the Cadmium Council. [4, Table A4-1]. This information is summarized in Table VIII-C2. The PACE estimates were calculated from data supplied from one plant. In nine of the eighteen job categories listed, the mean exposures are less than 22 ug/m(3); in four of the seven process areas listed, the mean exposures are generally less than 25 ug/m(3). PACE did not indicate what proportion of the workforce was represented by the job categories or process areas.

Another exposure profile was developed by Multinational Business Services, Inc. (MBS) as part of their report for NEMA. [5, Exhibit 1]. Their exposure profile, presented as a frequency distribution, was based on "representative industry data correlated by MBS" and is shown in Table VIII-C3. MBS concluded that 48 percent of all worker exposures were at or below 20 ug/m(3). Based on additional information provided by NEMA [2, Table II], for three process areas representing 80 percent of the exposed workforce exposures were at or below 20 ug/m(3) for 60 percent of employee exposures.

NEMA supplied occupational exposure data in its original submission by process step for different types of batteries. The results were compiled by NEMA from data supplied by six battery manufacturers [2, Table III] and are reprinted in Table VIII-C4.


TABLE VIII-C1. -- PROFILE OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM IN THE
                  NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY INDUSTRY BASED ON JACA
                  CORPORATION
____________________________________________________________________________
                                        |   Concentration in ug/m(3)
               Job category             |___________________________________
                                        |  Geometric | Median |    Range
                                        |     mean   |        |
________________________________________|____________|________|_____________
                                        |            |        |
Materials handler ......................|       0.18 |   0.05 |   0.05-14.00
Impregnation operator ..................|      16.52 |  20.00 |  10.00-22.00
Coating operator .......................|      14.19 |  14.00 |  12.00-17.00
Plate preparation operator .............|      90.07 |  83.00 | 26.00-284.00
Assembler ..............................|       7.96 |   9.50 |   3.00-12.00
Supervisor .............................|       1.11 |   1.05 |    0.05-7.00
Maintenance ............................|       3.47 |   3.00 | 0.05-1,560.0
________________________________________|____________|________|____________
  Source: JACA Corporation, Exhibit 13, Table 3-8.



TABLE VIII-C2. -- PROFILE OF OCCUPATIONAL
   EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM IN THE NICKEL-
   CADMIUM BATTERY INDUSTRY BASED ON
   PACE INCORPORATED
__________________________________________
                              | Geometric
      Job Category            |   mean
                              | exposures
                              | (ug/m(3))
______________________________|___________
                              |
Impregnation area operator:   |
  1...........................|      4.3
  2...........................|      1.8
  3...........................|     10.0
  4...........................|     14.0
  5...........................|    130.0
  6...........................|     28.0
Plate preparation.............|     15.0
Cell assembly operator:       |
  1...........................|     72.0
  2...........................|     46.0
Cell Closing Operator:        |
  1...........................|     12.0
  2...........................|     21.0
  3...........................|     13.0
Electrical tester.............|      3.0
Negative plate manufacturing..|    252.0
Negative plate preparation    |
  operator:                   |
  1...........................|     75.0
  2...........................|     78.0
  3...........................|     32.0
  4...........................|     83.0
______________________________|___________
  Source: PACE Incorporated, Exhibit 19-43.
Attachment L, Table A4-1.


TABLE VIII-C3. -- PROFILE OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM IN THE
          NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY INDUSTRY BASED ON MBS INCORPORATED

                           [In percent]
___________________________________________________________________________
                              |     Distribution of exposures (ug/m(3))
                              |____________________________________________
          Process             | 0-5 | 6-20 | 21-50 | 51-100 |101-150 | Over
                              |     |      |       |        |        | 150
______________________________|_____|______|_______|________|________|_____
                              |     |      |       |        |        |
Platemaking ..................|  0.9|   0.9|    9.8|    26.8|   25.0 | 36.6
Impregnation .................| 37.3|  40.7|   18.6|     2.6|    0.8 |  0.0
Plate preparation ............|  2.9|  60.9|   30.4|     5.8|    0.0 |  0.0
Cell assembly ................| 18.5|  30.6|   24.4|    20.8|    4.9 |  0.8
______________________________|_____|______|_______|________|________|_____
  Source: Multinational Business Services, Inc., Exhibit 19-37 B,
Exhibit 1.

Unfortunately, NEMA did not submit the individual monitoring results, did not provide mean exposure levels, and did not give any indication of the distribution of exposures. However, the data do indicate that the type of battery produced does not significantly affect the ranges of exposures in most of the process steps.

As part of its post-hearing comments NEMA supplied more detailed exposure data from five facilities. [6, Appendices 1-5 and 7, p. 2]. The facilities were identified as companies A through E and the data are summarized in Tables VIII-C5 through VIII-C9, respectively. At company A, average exposure levels for non-manufacturing areas, for the lab, for ambient air in the production buildings, and for three of four production processes were below 15 ug/m(3). Company B submitted only a series of ranges of exposures. Some ranges included exposures from 1 ug/m(3) to over 1,000 ug/m(3); at least one exposure range for most processes was between 1 ug/m(3) and 20 ug/m(3). Company C submitted exposure data for non-manufacturing areas (all less than 3 ug/m(3)) and for the platemaking process. Three of the four operations in the platemaking process had mean exposures of less than 25 ug/m(3). Data submitted by company D show that eight of ten job categories in production had exposures of 13 ug/m(3) or less. Company E submitted data for six production job categories, and four of these had exposures of 13 ug/m(3) or less.


   TABLE VIII-C4. -- PROFILE OF OCCUPATIONAL
       EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM IN THE NICKEL-
       CADMIUM BATTERY INDUSTRY BY TYPE OF
       BATTERY PRODUCED BASED ON NEMA
_______________________________________________
                    |     Ranges of cadmium
                    |      concentrations
                    |        (ug/m(3))
                    |__________________________
   Process step     | Industrial- | Household-
                    |  aerospace- | commercial
                    |  military   | batteries
                    | batteries   |
____________________|_____________|____________
                    |             |
Platemaking ........|    4-180    |   5-190
Impregnation .......|    5-180    |   5-180
Plate preparation ..|    2-104    |  12-190
Cell assembly.......|.............|   8-40
____________________|_____________|____________
  Source: NEMA, Exhibit 19-37 Table III.


TABLE VIII-C5. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR
   NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY PRODUCTION AT
   COMPANY A
_________________________________________________
                         | Average exposure level
                         |      (ug/m(3))
Process                  |_______________________
                         |    (1)    |    (2)
_________________________|___________|___________
                         |           |
Platemaking:             |           |
  Press .................|      9.0  |...........
  Dry ...................|      2.0  |...........
Impregnation ............|      5.3  |       5.3
Plate preparation:       |           |
  Weld ..................|     51.6  |...........
  Shear .................|     57.0  |...........
  Wet scrub .............|      8.1  |...........
  Dry scrub .............|...........|       3.5
Assembly:                |           |
  Stacking ..............|     14.4  |...........
  Testing ...............|      2.0  |...........
  General area, April 16,|           |
    1990 ................|...........|      31.8
  General area, except   |           |
    April 16, 1990 ......|...........|       9.3
Non-manufacturing:       |           |
  Managers ..............|      4.3  |       3.7
  Lab ...................|      1.0  |...........
Ambient air:             |           |
  Building 1 ............|      2.9  |...........
  Building 3 ............|     12.9  |...........
_________________________|___________|___________
  Footnote(1) Source: NEMA, Exhibit 96.
  Footnote(2) Source: NEMA, Exhibit 124.


TABLE VIII-C6. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR
  NICKEL-CADMIUM EXPOSURE PRODUCTION AT
  COMPANY B
_________________________________________________
                                   |   Range of
          Process                  |   exposure
                                   |    levels
                                   |   (ug/m(3))
___________________________________|_____________
                                   |
Platemaking --                     |
  Paste application:               |
    June, 1990 ....................|    10-395
    April, 1990 ...................|      1-57
    March, 1990 ...................|    12-282
    February, 1990 ................|    23-109
    January, 1990 .................|    15-187
    1987-1989 .....................|    1-1144
    Seven selected sampling days ..|      1-19
  Paste preparation:               |
    1987-1990 .....................|    1-1189
Impregnation, 1989-1990:           |
  Plating .........................|       1-5
  Plate cleaning ..................|      1-20
  Spiraling .......................|       1-2
  Despiraling .....................|      1-74
Plate preparation, 1990:           |
  Tabbing .........................|      7-96
  Cutting .........................|      1-17
  Inspection ......................|      1-16
Cell Assembly, 1990:               |
  Assembly, 9 of 10 sampling days .|      1-27
  Winding, 9 of 11 sampling days ..|      1-36
  Components, Formation & Test ....|      5-13
Waste Management, 1989-1990........|       1-2
Maintenance, 1989-1990 ............|      3-35
___________________________________|_______________
  Source: NEMA, Exhibit 96.


TABLE VIII-C7. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR NICKEL-
    CADMIUM BATTERY PRODUCTION AT COMPANY C
___________________________________________________
                        | Exposure levels (ug/m(3))
      Process           |
                        |__________________________
                        |   Range    |  Geometric
                        |            |    mean
________________________|____________|_____________
                        |            |
Non-manufacturing:      |            |
  Canteen ..............|  0.6-2.3   |       1.2
  QC Lab ...............|............|       0.6
  West Bay .............|............|       0.5
Platemaking:            |            |
  Pellet making ........|   20-671   |      97.5
  Breakdown ............|     8-83   |      23.1
  Cd-Ni production .....|    20-29   |      24.1
  Powder packaging......|............|      10.0
________________________|____________|_____________
  Source:  NEMA, Exhibit 96.


TABLE VIII-C8. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR NICKEL-
   CADMIUM BATTERY PRODUCTION AT COMPANY D
____________________________________________________
                       | Sample results (T1ug/m(3))
      Process          |____________________________
                       |    1988     |    1989
_______________________|_____________|______________
                       |             |
Platemaking ...........|       0.0   |         0.0
Impregnation:          |             |
  I & S operator ......|       5.0   |        13.0
  Plaque brusher ......|.............|       124.0
  Plaque roller .......|      30.0   |        11.0
  Basket cleaning .....|.............|        31.0
Plate preparation:     |             |
  Shearing ............|       6.0   |         6.0
  Tab welding .........|       4.0   |        13.0
  Sort & repair........|       9.0   |         6.0
Cell assembly stacker .|      10.0   |         6.0
Salvage operator.......|.............|         2.0
Warehouse/storage      |             |
  Material handlers....|.............|         0.0
Non-manufacturing .....|.............|         0.0
_______________________|_____________|________________
  Source: NEMA, Exhibit 96.


TABLE VIII-C9.  -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR
   NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY PRODUCTION AT COMPANY E
___________________________________________________
                                        | Sample
         Job title                      | result
                                        |(T1ug/m(3)
________________________________________|__________
                                        |
Slitter operator........................|     74
PEP operator............................|     52
Electrode recovery operator ............|      6
Sub C line operator ....................|     10
AA line operator .......................|      1
Packet inspector .......................|     13
________________________________________|__________
  Source:  NEMA, Exhibit 96.


TABLE VIII-C10. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY
  PRODUCTION FROM NIOSH INVESTIGATION 88-199
_________________________________________________________________________
                                        |Cadmium concentrations (ug/m(3))
           Process                      |________________________________
                                        |    Mean   |   Median  | Range
________________________________________|___________|___________|________
                                        |           |           |
Platemaking:                            |           |           |
  Nickel plating .......................|        6  |        1  |   1-31
  Nickel slurry ........................|        3  |        1  |   1-14
  Sintering ............................|        6  |        3  |   1-41
  Sizing ...............................|        8  |        6  |   1-19
  Spiraling ............................|        5  |        6  |    3-9
  Impregnation .........................|        9  |        7  |   1-42
  Despiraling ..........................|       68  |       58  | 10-144
  Cleaning .............................|       31  |       15  |  1-130
  Maintenance ..........................|       15  |       13  |   1-53
Pressed plate:                          |           |           |
  Paste preparation ....................|      367  |      185  |18-1014
  Tab welding ..........................|       35  |       35  |  31-44
  Paste machine ........................|      113  |       86  | 18-716
  Tab staking ..........................|       74  |       72  | 19-180
  Slitting .............................|       31  |       25  |  13-47
  Setting up ...........................|      111  |      114  | 93-124
  Maintenance ..........................|       61  |       39  |  2-373
  Materials handling ...................|       48  |       41  |  8-113
  Dipping paste ........................|      195  |      195  |.......
  Rovers ...............................|       66  |       56  | 16-123
  Leaders ..............................|       67  |       53  | 14-186
  Rework/reclaim .......................|       95  |       89  | 33-198
Plate Preparation:                      |           |           |
  Slitting and blanking ................|       20  |       13  |  1-129
  Sorting and stacking .................|       21  |       12  |   6-98
  Materials handling ...................|       14  |        9  |   7-27
  Rework/reclaim .......................|       16  |        8  |   4-43
Cell assembly:                          |           |           |
  Winding ..............................|       21  |       12  |   4-70
  Closing ..............................|        5  |        2  |   1-21
________________________________________|___________|___________|_______
  Source:  NIOSH, Exhibit 128, Attachment 3.

Table VIII-C10 presents data submitted by NIOSH from an analysis of exposures at a nickel-cadmium battery plant evaluated in 1988. [8, Attachment 3, Tables 1-4]. These data were based on over 1,000 monitoring samples taken at the plant in that year. NIOSH expressed difficulties in compiling the company's sampling results "due to lack of consistent workstation terminology." In three of the four production processes, the mean exposures for almost all job categories were less than 25 ug/m(3).

Existing and Feasible Additional Controls. Nickel-cadmium battery manufacturers have made an effort to control occupational exposure to cadmium. Local exhaust ventilation, automation, enclosure, and housekeeping practices are presently utilized to varying degrees. Respirator use for employees in high exposure areas is standard practice. Further reductions in exposure levels are possible through increased utilization of current control methods and through the implementation of additional controls.

JACA Corporation's description of baseline controls included local exhaust ventilation hoods for three of five production job categories (excluding supervisors and maintenance workers). Additional or improved ventilation systems were recommended for the materials handler, the impregnation operator, the coating operator, and the plate preparation operator. JACA estimated that the increased ventilation would reduce exposure levels by about 85 percent in each of these job categories. [3, Table 4-3].

JACA also recommended other controls to limit airborne concentrations of cadmium. These included increased housekeeping, such as vacuuming; additional hygiene practices, such as showering and using separate work clothing; and improved information and training programs to encourage work practices that minimize exposure levels.

PACE outlined recommendations for additional controls at each process step in its report. [4, Section 4]. Additional controls during impregnation would include changes in material handling methods, improved and increased local exhaust ventilation, isolation of the process, and increased frequency of wash down of the equipment and the area. At plate preparation operations for sintered plates, feasible engineering controls would include "application of local exhaust ventilation at locations that are not significant sources under the current standard, improved ventilation at the currently significant sources, partial enclosure of some phases of the operation, ... and significantly increased utilization of an expanded central vacuum cleaning system." [4, p. 4-9].

For operations involving paste mixing and plate preparation for pressed plates, PACE assumed that each would have to be relocated to a new building, specially constructed with a state-of-the-art inside-out design. Paste mixing involves large quantities of dry cadmium-bearing powder, and PACE conceded that even in the new building, "the exposures will be [close] to the current PEL." [4, p. 4-10]. PACE also listed modified material handling methods, isolation, and significantly increased frequency of clean-up procedures as additional feasible control methods for these operations.

During cell assembly, additional controls recommended by PACE included improved enclosures of process equipment, increased exhaust ventilation, local exhaust ventilation provided at material handling sites, and significantly increased general housekeeping by means of expanded central vacuum cleaning systems. During cell closing, "control measures would include local exhaust at specific generation points, isolation of the operation from the other cadmium generation operations, ... and strict attention to general housekeeping." [4, p. 4-11]. The PACE report did not include estimates of the expected effectiveness of individual controls for this industry, but similar incremental controls recommended in other industries were estimated to achieve exposure reductions from 70 to over 90 percent [4]. PACE concluded that the implementation of all recommended controls for nickel-cadmium battery producers, including new buildings, would enable mean exposures in 14 of 18 job categories to be 5 ug/m(3) or less and mean exposures in 17 of 18 job categories to be 13 ug/m(3) or less [4, Table A4-1].

NEMA provided a general view of the exposure control technology in use at nickel-cadmium battery plants: "Companies have installed the best available feasible technology for controlling exposure to their employees ... the most sophisticated manufacturing equipment ... Ventilation has been engineered to the extent feasible ... extensive respiratory protection programs are being used." [2, p. 5]. NEMA concluded that a major redesign of manufacturing plants would be required in an attempt to achieve compliance with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3), which they considered technologically infeasible.

The MBS report presented the position that 5 ug/m(3) is technologically infeasible with engineering controls and work practices. The MBS report assessed additional controls necessary for an attempt to achieve compliance with the standard, based on the assumption that new buildings would be required for electrode production and assembly. Methods of exposure reduction short of such extreme measures were not discussed.

In its post-hearing comments, NEMA listed controls that have been implemented at the Gates facility through 1990. [6, Table 1]. These included improved and additional ventilation for over a dozen machines, process isolation, machine enclosures, automated paste handling, and improved environmental procedures for employees. Descriptions of controls at other companies indicated that ventilation, protective clothing, and respirators were generally employed in areas with significant cadmium exposure.

Company B submitted post-hearing comments describing the additional controls that they felt would be required to meet a separate engineering control air limit (SECAL) of 25 ug/m(3). [9, p. 1-8]. These would include new buildings for despiraling and negative platemaking operations, major process modifications throughout the plant, and new production equipment such as leak proof drying ovens. Many less drastic improvements were listed as well, including improved and additional local exhaust ventilation, improved enclosure, increased vacuuming, and periodic wash down.

Implementing changes and exercising extra care in work practices can result in significant reductions in exposure levels. OSHA inspections and NIOSH health hazard evaluations often reveal that the total amount of a contaminant released into the air can depend heavily on how employees handle products, containers, and equipment. This factor will be of vital importance in complying with the new standard: one gram of cadmium dust is sufficient to produce an airborne concentration of 25 ug/m(3) for 40 thousand cubic meters or about 1.4 million cubic feet of air.

Technologically Feasible Limits for a SECAL. Given the array of existing exposure data, OSHA separated exposures into high and low occupation/process exposure groups to facilitate the feasibility analysis. (For a more detailed discussion of the approach see the preceding Section B - Discussion of Technological and Economic Feasibility Determinations).

Data were divided at a breakpoint which maximized the difference between the two data sets. This exercise resulted in the identification of "high" exposure occupations/processes which included plate preparation and platemaking operations. (It is recognized that job titles differ among plants; some operators performing the same activities have different job titles in different plants.) All other occupations/processes were categorized as having "low" exposures, including impregnation and cell assembly operations and activities. Figure VIII-C1 shows the segregated data.


     Figure VIII-CI  - NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERIES

(For Figure VIII-C1, Click Here)

Approximately 375 workers are included in the high exposure group and 1,125 employees are in the low exposure group.

Median exposure data for the two sets were as follows:
______________________________________________________
                            | High Group | Low Group
____________________________|____________|____________
Number of Observations .....|      26    |      48
Mean .......................|      72.9  |      14.4
Standard Deviation .........|      62.7  |      23.5
____________________________|____________|____________

To verify that the two groups within this industry were distinct, a t test was performed on the difference in the means. The null hypothesis that the means of the exposure data were equal was rejected, and the Agency concluded that the exposure groups were drawn from separate distributions.

After the statistical difference between high and low exposure groups was verified, the data were treated separately. In developing Figures VIII-C2 and VIII-C3, individual occupation/process median or mean exposure values were drawn from each of the different data sources.

A modelling process was employed in order to correctly identify appropriate SECAL levels for the two groups. The current exposure patterns were reduced based upon alternative engineering control efficiency levels of 80, 60, 40, and 20 percent. The higher the efficiency level, the lower the projected exposure level.

Figures VIII-C4 and VIII-C5 show the reduction and shift in the distribution of exposures for the high and low groups in nickel-cadmium battery production.


    Figure VIII-C2  - BATTERIES (HIGH EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C2, Click Here) Figure VIII-C3 - BATTERIES (LOW EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C3, Click Here) Figure VIII-C4 - BATTERIES (HIGH EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C4, Click Here) Figure VIII-C5 - BATTERIES (LOW EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C5, Click Here)

(The higher the reduction factor the closer the projected exposure line moves to the vertical axis.) The selection of an appropriate efficiency reduction factor was based on evidence and testimony in the record and economic feasibility considerations. The only basis for revising an engineering control efficiency factor down was economic infeasibility. The industry cost to profit ratio was used as a guide in this process.

A criticism of OSHA's preliminary feasibility analysis was that the estimates of control effectiveness were overly optimistic. For example, JACA estimated that the expected efficiency of new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems for exposures in the battery industry would be 85 percent in most cases and up to 96 percent in situations where high hood efficiency was possible. [3, p. 4-9 and 13, p. 9].

The strongest criticism of the JACA estimates was presented by PACE. For the nickel-cadmium battery industry the PACE analysis concluded that a net reduction of exposure levels of approximately 75 percent could be achieved in plate preparation operations primarily through improved exhaust ventilation, improved enclosure, and improved housekeeping. [13, p. 8]. PACE also concluded that "Engineering controls can bring one of these [impregnation process] operations into compliance with a 5 ug Cd/m(3) but not a 1 ug Cd/m(3) standard. Three of these operations are amenable to separation from the cadmium source, and, therefore, can comply with the proposed 5 ug Cd/m(3) standard." [13, Appendix 5, p. 2].

PACE referred to "the installation of more extensive engineering controls" for many other operations but did not offer estimates of the effectiveness of any individual controls. PACE estimated that overall reductions of 80 to over 90 percent in mean exposures could be achieved in most job categories in the nickel-cadmium battery industry. [4, Table A4-1]. For two processes these reductions included new buildings, but for the balance the controls consisted of conventional technology, such as improved local exhaust ventilation, changes in material handling methods, partial enclosure, increased vacuuming and washdown, and partitions. [4, p. 4-8 through 4-12].

The testimony of two independent industrial hygienist [10, 11] and of the experienced experts and industrial hygienists of NIOSH [12] supported the conclusion that conventional control technology can substantially reduce cadmium exposures across all industries.

OSHA notes that controls can be used individually or in combination. If one control is not sufficient, additional ones can be used. It is the interaction of various engineering controls and work practices as part of an integrated system of controls that will produce the best overall reduction in exposure levels.

This review and analysis of the record needed to be supplemented with economic feasibility considerations before a determination could be made regarding appropriate engineering controls and their effectiveness level. For battery producers, engineering solutions to achieve an 80 percent or higher reduction in cadmium levels would have required major capital expenditures (multi-million dollars per plant) to rebuild or replace existing facilities. Yet annual profits in this sector are reported to be less than $7.5 million (see Economic Impact Section). Capital expenditures needed to achieve an 80 percent reduction in cadmium levels do not appear to be economically feasible at this time. Instead, less expensive engineering controls with a lower efficiency expectation (40 - 60 percent) were identified. Based on this reasoning OSHA determined that a reduction of 40 - 60 percent in cadmium exposures in the nickel-cadmium battery industry was both technologically and economically feasible.

Following the selection of this efficiency factor range, the appropriate SECALs for each exposure group were identified at the level achievable for 60 - 80 percent of the exposure observations. For the high exposure occupations/processes group, including plate preparation and plate making activities, a SECAL of 50 ug/m(3) was identified. For all other occupations/processes in this industry, a SECAL of 15 ug/m(3) was identified.

Compliance with the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) with engineering controls and work practices would be infeasible in this industry. Compliance with this standard can only be achieved through the use of respirators. Respirators are readily available with a wide range of protection factors that can adequately protect workers from the potential exposures in this industry. It is likely that respiratory protection would be required for most of the production and maintenance employees full time. This fact was recognized by OSHA in the preliminary regulatory impact analysis (PRIA); the conclusion was repeated by virtually all commenters who addressed the issue and is consistently supported by the substantial evidence in the record.

NIOSH expressed significant reservations about implementing mandatory daily respirator use for entire production shifts, even if the PEL was infeasible. "Never as a routine practice would we recommend that respirators be worn full time by employees." [14, p. 8-202]. Such respirator use has negative effects that may affect an employee's comfort, ability to communicate, and productivity. OSHA believes that the increased health risks associated with exposures to low levels of cadmium warrant the requirement for respiratory protection despite these effects.

Costs of Compliance with a 50-15 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Estimates of total compliance costs for nickel-cadmium battery producers submitted to the record, varied greatly. The calculation of these costs can be broken down into several components, such as the types of controls that are assumed to be required, the number of controls that would be required, the unit cost of the required controls, and the costs of requirements identified in the rule. An evaluation of the evidence in the record regarding compliance costs reveals a general agreement on these cost estimates.

Disagreement on total compliance costs was invariably related to a misunderstanding of technological feasibility. One misunderstanding involved the criteria for judging technological feasibility. OSHA's approach to technological feasibility is based on concerns about employee health risks and fairness to employers. The approach incorporates a recognition that respirators may be necessary to reach a protective exposure level under certain circumstances and includes a corresponding flexibility in enforcement. A thorough discussion of this approach can be found in the lead remand analysis [54 FR 29142].

The assumption that a technologically feasible level is one which will be very rarely exceeded by any exposure sample will result in dramatically higher cost estimates for a given exposure limit. This erroneous assumption leads to the conclusion that all imaginable controls must be implemented at very high cost.

The cost estimates produced by PACE, NEMA, and MBS were based on the assumption that a level is feasible only if the probability of any sample exceeding the level is very small (less than 5 percent). PACE considered a level achievable only if the mean exposure was less than 40 percent of the level. NEMA remarked that "there are frequent excursions of 20 to 25 ug/m(3) due to process upsets so that an exposure level of 30 ug/m(3) cannot be achieved with 95% certainty even under these rigorous controls." [6, p. 5]. OSHA's requirements for methods of compliance already take into account situations such as process upsets and maintenance by explicitly recognizing that engineering controls may not be feasible for these circumstances.

Another mistaken assumption which resulted in grossly inflated estimates of total costs involved the requirement to install engineering controls to the extent feasible. NEMA claimed that "Every U.S. manufacturer would be faced with virtual redesign of sizable segments of its production facilities in order to attempt to meet the proposed exposure standards." [2, p. 7]. PACE and MBS included the cost of new buildings in their total cost estimates; such costs comprised most of the total cost estimate. OSHA's approach to feasibility does not require employers to go to such extreme lengths.

In estimating the costs of compliance with this standard, OSHA first estimated the costs of installing feasible additional controls within existing building structures. The original estimate for this was provided by JACA in the preliminary analysis. In current dollars, the estimated cost of local exhaust ventilation systems (installed) ranged from $51,000 to $112,000. Annual operating and maintenance costs were estimated to be 10 percent of the capital cost. JACA also estimated that HEPA-filtered industrial vacuum cleaners would cost about $1,500 each and that the cost of additional vacuuming would be the current nonsupervisory wage rate. [3, p. 6-8 and 6-28].

In the PACE report, descriptions of recommended controls for the nickel-cadmium battery industry were linked to specific cost estimates. PACE identified additional controls for an operation already provided with exhaust ventilation that included "a new Venturi scrubber of 1500 cfm capacity to reduce air emissions ... providing CAI [clean air island] air supply plenum of about 6 feet by 15 feet at the operator work station ... The area would be steam-cleaned and painted ... and it would then be partitioned off from the rest of the building." [4, p. 2-4]. For this operation, PACE expected mean exposure levels to be reduced from 54 ug/m(3) to 9 ug/m(3); the capital cost was estimated to be $126,000 and the estimated annual operating cost was $18,100.

For another job category, PACE expected mean exposures to be reduced from 34 ug/m(3) to 5 ug/m(3) through the installation of a new hood and exhaust system, the establishment of a clean air island over the work station, and by steam cleaning and painting the room. PACE estimated that the capital costs associated with these controls would be $43,000 and that the annual operating cost would be $16,900. [4, p. 2-5].

The PACE report included itemized costs in some tables. The cost of clean air islands was given as $3 per cfm (cubic foot per minute) with systems ranging from 2,000 cfm to 9,000 cfm that cover areas from 4 feet by 5 feet to 6 feet by 15 feet. The cost of an exhaust ventilation system with Venturi scrubbers, sloped and flushed corrosion resistant ducts, and a 4,500 cfm capacity was estimated to be $57,000. Partitioning an area from the rest of the plant with 900 square feet of material was estimated to cost $9,000. And the cost of a new vacuum cleaning system was estimated to be $15,000. [4, Table A2-4].

JACA estimated that additional engineering controls could be installed for four of five major job categories (materials handler, impregnation operator, coating operator, and plate preparation operator) identified in nickel-cadmium battery production. The battery manufacturing process description offered by PACE described additional controls that could be applied in six areas but did not give an indication of the number of such controls to be implemented. In its total cost estimate PACE included expensive modifications to the air conditioning system and the replacement of baghouses with banks of HEPA filters. While these changes may lower cadmium concentrations in air released from the building, OSHA believes that the effect on employee exposures would be negligible.

The total costs given in the PACE report also included new buildings, an expanded water treatment facility, and "a crew of janitorial personnel" that would "wet wipe any contaminated surfaces throughout the work shifts." OSHA believes that exposure levels can be sufficiently reduced without incurring such expenses. PACE also claimed that in addition to an annual expense of $1.8 million for increased maintenance, power and fuel, a single plant would incur $2.1 million annually for "increased operating labor." [4, p. 4-5 and Table A4-2].

OSHA explicitly and repeatedly asked industry sources to provide costs for individual controls recommended in each area. The costs supplied by PACE for the nickel-cadmium battery industry were aggregated and included items not needed for compliance with the standard. Similarly, the high cost estimates developed by MBS were associated with new buildings and also included over $5.9 million for "annual operating costs." MBS did not list costs for specific controls operation by operation. [5].

Company B submitted post-hearing comments describing the controls that could be implemented in nine manufacturing areas. The list of controls was based on a perceived need for "achieving 25 ug/m(3) 95% of the time" and included new buildings as well as other major rebuilding efforts. These controls go beyond what OSHA considers additional feasible controls. Costs for the engineering controls were not itemized; aggregated costs of millions of dollars were not explained, and it is unclear how over $4 million in annual expenses in addition to the capital costs were calculated. [9].

Since 72 percent of the nickel-cadmium batteries manufactured in the United States are produced by one plant [15, p. 3], it is difficult to develop a single profile of the number of controls required by a typical plant. Company A submitted exposure data for nine operations distributed among the four manufacturing process steps. Most of these currently have some degree of ventilation, and respiratory protection is used in five of the nine operations. Company B listed fourteen job titles for the four process steps in its exposure data and indicated current use of ventilation and respiratory protection to some degree. For Company C the primary location of cadmium use was in one small highly-protected room; exposure data were listed for four activities within the one process step. Potential control measures included enclosure, ventilation, and respirators. Company D listed exposures for nine production job categories. These were located in three of the four production process steps. Company E listed exposures for six job categories and indicated that ventilation controls were present at each one. [6, Appendices 1-5].

Based on a review of all comments submitted to the record, OSHA concludes that Table VIII-C11 provides a fair and accurate representation of the additional controls and costs needed to comply with the 50-15 ug/m(3) SECAL levels. Employers are able to choose among these and any other controls to reduce exposures in the most cost-effective manner for their particular circumstances. For example, an employer may already be providing ventilation in one operation and may choose to install a pneumatic conveying system, glove box technology, modifications to material handling methods, or another solution for the specific situation. The resulting costs would generally be comparable to those estimated in Table VIII-C11.

The largest plant, with approximately 50 percent of the exposed employees in the industry and "with as many as 16 to 19 discrete operations" [2, p. 5], was estimated to need new or improved local exhaust ventilation at eight locations, clean air islands at ten locations, two additional central vacuum cleaning systems, and improved enclosure or partitions for five operations. The numbers of these controls estimated to be implemented are greater than the number recommended in either the PACE or the MBS reports [4,5]. In contrast, these sources based their cost estimates on more extensive building modifications and new buildings construction.


TABLE VIII-C11. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR
                   CADMIUM IN THE NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY INDUSTRY
________________________________________________________________________
            |  Controls per plant |           |      Cost per control  |
            |   by size of plant  |           |        ($thousands)    |
            |_____________________|  Total    |________________________|
 Type of    |      |       |      | industry  |        | Annual|       |
 control    |      |       |      |controls(1)|        |  power|       |
            | Small| Medium| Large|           |Capital |  and  | Annual|
            |      |       |      |           |        |mainte-| labor |
            |      |       |      |           |        | nance |       |
____________|______|_______|______|___________|________|_______|_______|
            |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
Local       |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Exhaust    |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Ventilation|    1 |     5 |    8 |       29  |     80 |     8 |     0 |
Clean Air   |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Islands....|    1 |     5 |   10 |       31  |     18 |     2 |     0 |
Central     |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Vacuum     |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Systems....|    1 |     1 |    2 |        7  |     15 |     1 |     7 |
Enclosure...|    0 |     3 |    5 |       17  |      9 |     0 |     0 |
            |      |       |      |___________|        |       |       |
   Total....|......|.......|......|       84  |........|.......|.......|
____________|______|_______|______|___________|________|_______|_______|



TABLE VIII-C11. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR
CADMIUM IN THE NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY INDUSTRY -- Continued
_______________________________________________________________
            |   Industry costs ($thousands)    |
            |__________________________________|   Total
 Type of    |        |         | Annual|       | annualized
 control    | Capital| Annua-  | power |       |  industry
            |        | lized   | and   | Annual|    cost
            |        | capital |mainte-| labor | ($thousands)
            |        |         | nance |       |
____________|________|_________|_______|_______|_____________
            |        |         |       |       |
Local       |        |         |       |       |
 Exhaust    |        |         |       |       |
 Ventilation|  2,320 |    377  |  232  |    0  |      609
Clean Air   |        |         |       |       |
 Islands....|    558 |     91  |   62  |    0  |      153
Central     |        |         |       |       |
 Vacuum     |        |         |       |       |
 Systems....|    105 |     17  |    7  |   49  |       73
Enclosure...|    153 |     25  |    0  |    0  |       25
            |________|_________|_______|_______|____________
   Total....|  3,136 |    511  |   301 |   49  |      861
____________|________|_________|_______|_______|____________
  Footnote(1) Based on one small plant, four medium plants,
and one large plant.
  Source:  Office of regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor.

Additional controls at each of the four medium-sized plants were estimated to be five new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems, five clean air islands, one additional central vacuum cleaning system, and new or improved enclosures for three operations. At the smallest plant, where exposures are limited to one room and where the manufacturing exposure monitoring data were representative of two employees, feasible additional controls would include an improved local exhaust ventilation system and a clean air island.

Further reductions in exposures can be achieved at all plants through more attention to appropriate work practices and through improved housekeeping practices. Table VIII-C11 summarizes the costs associated with the additional controls. The capital costs, the annual power and maintenance costs, and the annual labor costs are presented for each control. Capital costs for the industry are estimated to be $3.1 million and annual costs are estimated to be $350,000. Total annualized costs were calculated by amortizing the capital costs over ten years with a ten percent interest rate and adding the resulting annualized cost to the other annual costs. The annualized costs of engineering controls in the nickel-cadmium battery industry are estimated to be $861,000.

Compliance with other provisions in the new cadmium standard would also require additional costs. These include costs for increased respirator use, more comprehensive exposure monitoring programs, medical surveillance requirements (including requirements for medical removal), hygiene provisions (shower and eating facilities and protective work clothing), and additional efforts associated with recordkeeping and other information-related requirements (including regulated areas, compliance programs, and training).

Nickel-cadmium battery plants generally have established respirator programs for employees in high exposure areas. In order to comply with the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) it is likely that 80 percent of the production and maintenance employees would be required to wear respirators full time after the implementation of additional feasible controls. JACA estimated that about half of the employees exposed above the new PEL already wear respirators full time, and this estimate was consistent with information supplied by industry. [3, p. 6-17]. Thus, the revised standard would require respirator costs for an additional 40 percent of the 1,500 production and maintenance employees, or about 600 workers.

Appropriate respiratory protection was estimated to cost $300 per employee per year. Most commenters did not provide estimates of the additional cost of respiratory protection except to indicate that the numbers of employees had been underestimated in the preliminary analysis. One industry commenter estimated that the annual cost of protecting an employee with a HEPA-filtered respirator, including a fit test, would be $295 [17, Attachment III]. The estimated incremental annual cost of respiratory protection for the nickel-cadmium battery industry is $180,000.

The revised standard requires semi-annual exposure monitoring of "each shift for each job classification in each work area" but also allows representative samples to be taken for workers with similar exposures. JACA's assessment that the typical battery plant already performs this sampling annually was supported by the monitoring data submitted by industry. OSHA expects that plants will need to monitor 2 to 20 job categories with an average of about 10 job categories per plant. The revised standard would require each shift to be monitored separately, and thus a total of about 180 jobs would need to be monitored (10 job categories per plant times 6 plants times 3 shifts).

The lab analysis of each exposure monitoring sample is estimated to cost $40. The services of an industrial hygienist or other qualified person necessary to perform the monitoring for the required set of samples on average would cost about $1,500 per plant. [3, p. 6-23]. Thus, the estimated annual cost to the industry attributable to increased exposure monitoring is $16,200 [6*$1,500+180*$40].

The medical surveillance requirements of the revised standard involve a complex combination of different categories of employees and a series of triggers and schedules of different types of exams. The base requirements are for annual biological monitoring, including tests for cadmium in urine, cadmium in blood, and B(2)-microglobulin in urine, and for a full medical examination every two years. More frequent biological monitoring and medical exams are required if the tests indicate elevated levels. NIOSH submitted data on the results of biological monitoring for the general population and for workers in the nickel-cadmium battery industry. [8, Attachment 3, Tables 5 and 7]. These data indicate that a number of employees would be required to receive more frequent testing and exams.

Nickel-cadmium battery producers generally indicated in the record that medical surveillance, including monitoring levels of cadmium in blood and urine, was already being provided for most employees exposed to cadmium. [16, p. 10-96]. NEMA, the trade association for the industry, stated that the "industry is currently employing medical surveillance, respirator use, protective clothing/equipment use, regulated areas designation, employee information and training, and labeling/identification." [2, Attachment 1, page 3]. This confirmed OSHA's preliminary assessment that annual medical exams were provided to employees in this industry.

The medical surveillance provisions of the final rule would require an expanded program for most establishments in the industry, resulting in both more workers covered and more extensive and more frequent medical tests. The cost of an annual physical, including the wages paid to the employee, is estimated on the basis of OSHA experience to be about $250. The cost of the lab analysis for a B(2)-microglobulin sample was cited by a public health research group as $80. [18, p. 4]. Analyses of samples for cadmium in urine and cadmium in blood are estimated to be $60 each, as presented by JACA and unchallenged in the record. An additional $5 is added to the cost of each of the biological monitoring samples for costs associated with collecting the samples.

For purposes of calculating the incremental costs of compliance associated with the revised standard and consistent with the evidence submitted to the record, OSHA estimated the numbers of additional exams and tests that could be expected to be required annually. Approximately 300 additional medical exams are estimated to be needed for employees currently not covered or for whom exams would be required more frequently, including employees receiving medical removal protection. Tests for B(2)-microglobulin generally are not currently provided. About 30 percent of the exposed workforce may be subject to more frequent biological monitoring, with 20 percent receiving semi-annual monitoring and 10 percent receiving quarterly monitoring. As a result, an estimated 2,000 additional tests for B(2)-microglobulin, 750 additional tests for cadmium in urine and 750 tests for cadmium in blood would be necessary. The total estimated cost for additional medical exams and biological monitoring is thus estimated to be $342,500 annually.

Requirements for medical removal may involve compliance costs in addition to those for more frequent medical exams and monitoring estimated above. The criteria for mandatory removal would affect employees with high body levels of cadmium. The criteria for removal also allow for considerable physician's discretion. An estimated 3 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed initially on the basis of these criteria and the discretion of physicians.

Compliance with the new PEL for cadmium and other requirements of the final cadmium standard should prevent a continuing need to remove employees. The number of employees with relatively high past exposures who would be more likely to be removed should decline through attrition. However, as the criteria for removal become broader in future years (lower levels of cadmium in blood and urine will trigger mandatory removal), additional employees may be subject to removal. The costs associated with the medical removal provisions are approximated by assuming that on average, 3 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed every 5 years.

The number of employees removed should be small enough to enable establishments to provide removed employees with alternative positions. Costs to the employer would include paying possible wage differentials and hiring and training employees in new positions. OSHA estimates that the average cost per removed employee would be no greater than $5,000. An estimated 45 employees may be removed every five years on average, in the nickel-cadmium battery industry, and the average annual cost for the industry would be $45,000.

The total annual cost for the medical surveillance and medical removal provisions is estimated to be $387,500.

Other provisions of the revised standard that involve compliance costs include those related to hygiene facilities and to additional recordkeeping. As previously described, most plants already comply with requirements for work clothing, regulated areas, information, and training. Some of these requirements are currently covered by other standards.

Employers in the nickel-cadmium battery industry indicated that although lunch rooms and shower rooms were already provided, some costs would have to be incurred to increase their capacity and/or modify the facilities as required by the standard. Employers would also have to pay wages to the additional employees required to shower and change. Estimates of the costs of facility modifications range from zero to over $2 million. The high estimate was submitted by company B which did not itemize costs. OSHA believes that an average of $200,000 in capital costs and $5,000 in annual operating costs would be representative of most firms. These figures are supported by estimates from one firm [17, Attachment 3] and are generally consistent with other comments in the record. The estimated cost of showering on work time is $900 per employee annually (based on fifteen minutes per day for 240 days per year at $15 an hour) and would apply to an estimated 300 additional employees. This cost estimate was supported by one industry estimate [17, Attachment 3]. Thus, the costs associated with the hygiene requirements are estimated to be $1.2 million in capital costs and $300,000 in annual costs; the estimated annualized cost is $495,000.

Comments that addressed recordkeeping usually pointed out that the equirements were burdensome and unnecessary. Comments did not contradict the costs, which were estimated to be $5 per employee annually; this estimate was confirmed by one industry commenter [17, Attachment 3]. This cost estimate includes the need for additional equipment and staff time. For the nickel-cadmium battery industry, the total annual incremental cost would be $7,500.

A summary of the estimated costs of compliance for the nickel-cadmium battery industry is presented in Table VIII-C12. The total annualized cost is estimated to be $1.95 million. Over half of this cost is for exposure controls and respirators; most of the remainder is associated with medical surveillance and hygiene facilities.

Economic Feasibility of 50-15 ug/m(3) SECALs and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The MBS study submitted by NEMA concluded that additional annual compliance costs of $2.25 million would be economically feasible for this industry. These costs were calculated for a PEL of 50 ug/m(3). NEMA subsequently urged OSHA to adopt a PEL of 40 ug/m(3), indicating that costs at this level would be economically feasible. The arguments on feasibility limitations submitted by industry generally focused on the technological infeasibility of achieving 5 ug/m(3); extremely high cost estimates were generated at this level.

OSHA has determined that the costs associated with the revised cadmium standard are economically feasible for the nickel-cadmium battery industry. Although the impact of these costs may not be negligible and can be expected to include reduced profits, the effects of the cadmium standard should not be substantial in comparison to the general market forces affecting this industry.


TABLE VIII-C12. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
  WITH THE CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE NICKEL-CADMIUM
  BATTERY INDUSTRY
____________________________________________________
                                |
                                |  Annualized
         Provision              |     cost
                                | ($thousands)
________________________________|___________________
                                |
Exposed control ................|       861.0
Respirator use .................|       180.0
Exposure monitoring ............|        16.2
Medical surveillance ...........|       387.5
Hygiene facilities/practices....|       495.0
Recordkeeping and Information...|         7.5
                                |___________________
   Total........................|     1,947.2
________________________________|___________________
  Note:  Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor.

The demand for nickel-cadmium batteries continues to be strong and growing in the United States and worldwide. Nickel-cadmium batteries offer the best overall performance for energy storage and retrieval; the advantages over other cells include a high ampere hour capacity, performance capability in a wide temperature range, long service life, safety, high energy density, efficient recharge capability, and low cost. Nickel-cadmium cells are used in most commercial and military aircraft, spacecraft, satellites, and ships. Rechargeable nickel-cadmium cells have a wide variety of uses. Equipment currently dependent on this technology includes phones, pagers, toys, tools, emergency naval and communication radios, police and fire transceivers, cameras, computers, heart monitors, portable surgical equipment, emergency lights, intrusion alarms, and back-up power.

Annual sales of nickel-cadmium batteries in the United States are approximately $350 million. Imports currently supply about 45 percent of domestic demand, up from about 18 percent in 1985. The domestic nickel-cadmium battery industry currently has revenues of about $185 million. Profits are estimated to be $7.4 million annually, resulting in a return on sales of 4 percent and a return on equity of 7 percent. [5, p. 3 and Exhibit 2].

The prospects for recouping compliance costs by raising prices are limited. Foreign competition is strong and there is reportedly sufficient production capacity outside the U.S. to meet the entire global demand. [16, p. 10-81]. A rise in prices is likely to be accompanied by an offsetting decline in sales. The elasticity of demand faced by individual establishments may be as high as 1, based on the experience of one domestic producer's attempt to raise prices in response to increases in the price of cadmium in 1988. This producer is currently operating at about 50 percent of capacity. [16, p. 10-167 and p. 10-171].

Assuming that all compliance costs would be absorbed from profits, the estimated costs may reduce the return on sales to about 3 percent and the return on equity to about 5 percent. The maximum reduction in profits would be approximately 26 percent. Alternatively, an increase in revenues of about 1 percent would completely offset the compliance costs without any reduction in profits. This would be possible if the level of demand increased. Although imports have increased their share in the U.S. market, the expansion in worldwide demand has enabled the U.S. domestic industry to maintain production levels.

The promulgation of this standard is not expected to result in plant closures and any effect on investment decisions or job creations, are uncertain. The incremental effects of this standard are not expected to produce any substantive overall production changes.

SOURCES

1. Exhibit 65, Testimony of Douglas Bannerman, on behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, July 19,1990.

2. Exhibit 19-37, Comments of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, May 11, 1990.

3. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

4. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE Incorporated, April 30, 1990.

5. Exhibit 19-37 B, "The Cadmium Rule - Destroying Workers' Jobs To Protect Them?" Multinational Business Services, Inc., September, 1989.

6. Exhibit 96, Comments of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, September 14, 1990.

7. Exhibit 124, Comments of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, October 9, 1990.

8. Exhibit 128, Attachment 3, "Health Hazard Evaluation 88-199,"

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, October, 1990.

9. Exhibit 121, Comments from 'Company B,' October 11, 1990. 10. Exhibit 26, Comments of Robert D. Soule, CIH, CSP, PE, May 9, 1990.

11. Exhibit 27, Testimony of Leslie Ungers, CIH, Ungers and Associates, Inc., May 18, 1990.

12. Exhibit 57, Testimony of NIOSH, July 17, 1990. 13. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment M, "Analysis of OSHA's Preliminary Conclusions Concerning the Technological Feasibility of Achieving a 5 or a 1 ug/m(3) Permissible Exposure Limit for Cadmium Fume and Dust," PACE, Inc., May 10, 1990.
14. Hearing Transcript, Tuesday, July 17, 1990. 15. Exhibit 130, Comments from NEMA, October 17, 1990. 16. Hearing Transcript, Thursday, July 19, 1990. 17. Exhibit 19-30, Comments from Big River Zinc, April 3, 1990. 18. Exhibit 123, Comments of the Public Citizen Health Research Group and the International Chemical Workers Union, October 17, 1990.
19. Exhibit 106, Comments of NIOSH, September 18, 1990.

Zinc Refining / Cadmium Production

Industry overview. Cadmium is primarily produced as a by-product of zinc refining and is also recovered from cadmium-bearing scrap and waste products. Cadmium is not mined independently because sufficient deposits occur naturally in zinc ores. U.S. zinc concentrates have a relatively high cadmium content and may contain between 0.3 and 1.0 percent cadmium.

There are currently four primary zinc smelters in the U.S. with a combined annual capacity of 300,000 metric tons. [13, p. 2-2]. Three of these plants produce finished cadmium as well as zinc products; one zinc refiner ships out its cadmium concentrates for processing at another facility. While world output has been increasing, U.S. zinc mine and refinery production has decreased steadily in the past twenty years. The domestic production of zinc has fallen to about 30 percent of the peak level in 1969. The reduction in domestic production has resulted from excess world capacity, environmental control costs, and higher production costs.

Cadmium is currently produced at four facilities in the U.S. In addition to the three primary zinc smelters that operate cadmium refining circuits, one plant produces cadmium from materials supplied by other refineries and secondary sources. The production of cadmium in the U.S. has declined steadily, and current levels are about 30 percent of the peak levels reached in the late 1960s. The decline in U.S. cadmium production is generally the result of the decline in domestic zinc production because of the naturally close link of these minerals. In 1979, eight facilities refined cadmium metal; half of these have shut down due to declining demand and poor market conditions. [1, pp. 2-2 through 2-5].

Total employment for the zinc refining and cadmium producing facilities is about 1,800 workers. Of these, approximately 75 percent (1,350) are production and maintenance employees. The four zinc plants have a total of 300 to 600 employees each and the cadmium plant has about 45 employees.

The total number of workers directly involved in the production of cadmium at the four cadmium refining facilities is about 200. [11, p. VII-59 through VII-97, p. 10-194].

Production processes. Zinc smelters convert zinc concentrate and zinc bearing secondary materials to metallic zinc. The two basic methods used to accomplish this are the electrolytic process and the electrothermic process. In both types of processes the feed streams contain several metals in addition to zinc. As the zinc is separated, the other metals are also separated and become raw materials for other smelters. Cadmium is one of the metals that is separated from the feed during the production of zinc. The cadmium concentrate then becomes an input for the cadmium refining process. Figure VIII-C6 presents a flow sheet for a typical zinc smelter.

In both the electrothermic and electrolytic processes, the zinc concentrate is converted from zinc sulfide to zinc oxide in fluid bed roasters. The hot oxide is separated from the roaster flue gas and is called calcine.


      Figure VIII-C6  - TYPICAL FLOW CHART FOR ELECTROLYTIC
                        ZINC SMELTERS

(For Figure VIII-C6, Click Here)

In the electrolytic process the calcine is leached and the dissolved cadmium product is precipitated and filtered. In the electrothermic process the calcine is fed into the sinter machine with other materials, and the cadmium is concentrated in the dust contained in the sinter machine exhaust gas. The cadmium is leached from the baghouse catch, and then precipitated and filtered. The cadmium concentrate obtained in both zinc refining processes is further processed by melting and refining in an independent operation. The cadmium is recovered either as sponge by a final precipitation with zinc dust or by electrolyzing the solution and causing the cadmium to be deposited on the cathode. In either case, the cadmium is melted and cast or converted to cadmium powder or cadmium oxide.

Employee exposures. Data on employee exposures to cadmium in the zinc refining and cadmium production industries have been submitted to the record from several sources. The exposure profile used for the preliminary analysis was developed by JACA Corporation. [1, Table 3-3]. This profile was based on seven years of sampling results from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) database through August 1986 and on a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) performed by NIOSH at a refinery in 1977. JACA also visited a cadmium production plant to facilitate the interpretation and categorization of the data.

JACA's exposure profile represented employees involved in cadmium refining only; other operations in the zinc refining industry were analyzed separately as part of the generic cross-industry occupations. In response to concerns raised by several commenters, the following analysis covers the zinc refining and cadmium production industries as a whole. JACA's exposure data for cadmium production operations are presented in Table VIII-C13. Three of the six job categories have mean exposures above 100 ug/m(3).

At the request of the Cadmium Council, PACE Incorporated conducted a study on cadmium exposures in the primary zinc industry [2] and also analyzed cadmium exposures at a primary cadmium production plant as part of another report [3]. Table VIII-C14 shows the PACE exposure profile for employees involved in cadmium refining only (as in the JACA exposure profile). [3, Table A2-1]. Of the 14 job categories listed, six have mean exposures under 25 ug/m(3) and three have mean exposures above 100 ug/m(3).

The cadmium refinery plant submitted detailed exposure monitoring data to the record that are generally consistent with the JACA and PACE exposure profiles. [7, Attachment I]. A summary of these data is presented in Table VIII-C15. Approximately half of the job categories have mean exposures below 25 ug/m(3).

In its report on the zinc industry, PACE provided exposure profiles for both electrolytic and electrothermic zinc refining (including cadmium refining operations). [2, Appendix A, Table 1 and Appendix B, Table 1]. Table VIII-C16 presents the exposure data for electrolytic zinc refining, and Table VIII-C17 presents the exposure data for electrothermic zinc refining. Exposures in the two types of refining processes are generally similar.


TABLE VIII-C13. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR CADMIUM
  PRODUCTION BASED ON JACA
_____________________________________________________________
                          |      Concentration in UG/M(3)
     Job                  |__________________________________
   category               | Geometric | Median |   Range
__________________________|___________|________|______________
                          |           |        |
Solution operator.........|     123.6 |  155.0 |   10.0-580.0
Cement operator...........|     105.7 |  185.0 |   10.0-780.0
Furnace operator..........|     189.3 |  310.0 | 20.0-1,650.0
Materials handler.........|       0.3 |    0.1 |     0.1-49.0
Process supervisor........|       1.4 |    1.1 |      0.7-7.0
Maintenance technician....|     146.8 |  110.0 | 30.0-1,560.0
__________________________|___________|________|______________
  Source: Exhibit 13, JACA, Table 3-3



TABLE VIII-C14. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA
  FOR CADMIUM PRODUCTION BASED ON PACE
_______________________________________
                           | Geometric
                           |   mean
   Job category            | exposures
                           | (ug/m(3)
___________________________|___________
                           |
Solution charger...........|     226
Solution operator..........|      54
Sponge operator............|      34
Sponge presser.............|      65
Neutralization operator....|      17
Weigh and pack.............|      41
Premelt operator...........|     302
Retort operator............|   1,396
Maintenance................|      55
Laboratory.................|       7
Mechanical equipment.......|      23
Thalium operator...........|      17
Litharge operator..........|      13
Utility and extra..........|      19
___________________________|____________
  Source:  Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L,
Table A2-1.


TABLE VIII-C15. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR
  CADMIUM REFINING BASED ON COMPANY DATA
_______________________________________________
                    | Exposure levels (ug/m(3))
   Process          |__________________________
                    |           | Geometric
                    |  Range    |    mean
____________________|___________|______________
                    |           |
General (Lab,       |           |
 Utility, Laundry)..|     1-125 |       12
Transport/unloading.|   6-2,957 |       32
Mechanical/         |           |
 maintenance........|     1-379 |       16
Cadmium refining....|     5-230 |       34
Cadmium casting.....|   4-1,007 |      117
Retort department...|  80-9,425 |      653
Thalium operator....|     12-21 |       16
Litharge operator...|   4-1,373 |       15
____________________|___________|______________
  Source: Exhibit 19-32, Attachment 1.


TABLE VIII-C16. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR
  ELECTROLYTIC ZINC REFINING BASED ON PACE
__________________________________________________
                       | Exposure levels (ug/m(3))
   Process             |__________________________
                       |           | Geometric
                       |  Range    |    mean
_______________________|___________|______________
                       |           |
Yard department:       |           |
 Equipment operator....|       1-9 |         3
 Concentrate charger...|       1-7 |         3
 Laborer...............|      2-45 |        13
 Concentrate beltman...|      3-51 |        16
 Sampler...............|      6-12 |         9
 Janitor...............|       4-4 |         4
 Warehouse trucker.....|...........|...........
Pre-leach:             |           |
 Pre-leach operator....|      ND-2 |         2
Roaster department:    |           |
 Roaster operator......|      1-19 |         6
 Roaster helper........|      1-18 |         7
Acid plant:            |           |
 Acid plant operator...|       2-2 |         2
 Acid plant helper.....|...........|         1
 Acid loader...........|...........|         1
Leach/purification     |           |
 plant:                |           |
 Head leacher..........|      ND-3 |         2
 1st stage operator....|      ND-2 |         2
 2nd stage operator....|       2-5 |         3
 Residue dryer.........|       3-8 |         5
 Laborer, 2nd stage....|      5-96 |        17
   Other areas.........|      4-14 |         8
   Line reamer.........|       5-6 |         6
 Pressman (both        |           |
   stages).............|      5-19 |        12
 ZSM/Cd operator.......|      4-27 |        10
 Cadmium leach         |           |
   helper..............|      4-11 |         8
Cadmium department:    |           |
 Finish operator --    |           |
   Melter..............|    17-198 |        56
 Finish operator --    |           |
   Oxide...............|    46-600 |       220
 Lead casting..........|     14-35 |        23
 Lead sheering.........|     12-12 |        12
Cell room department:  |           |
 (represents over 40%  |           |
 of total employees)...|      < 1-2 |         1
_______________________|___________|_______________
  ND: Not Detectable.
  Source: Exhibit 19-43.  Attachment K, Appendix A.
Table 1.


  TABLE VIII-C17. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR
    ELECTROTHERMIC ZINC REFINING BASED ON PACE
__________________________________________________
                       | Exposure levels (ug/m(3))
   Process             |__________________________
                       |           | Geometric
                       |  Range    |    mean
_______________________|___________|______________
                       |           |
Acid Plant:            |           |
 Acid plant operator...|       1-1 |          1
 Shift utility.........|       1-1 |          1
 Day utility...........|       1-1 |          1
Roaster Plant:         |           |
 Foreman...............|       1-1 |          1
 Feed utility ore......|      1-16 |          6
 Roaster plant         |           |
   operator............|      ND-2 |          1
 Shift utility.........|      1-36 |         10
 Mechanical repairman..|      1-1  |          1
Sinter Plant:          |           |
 Foreman...............|    ND-111 |         19
 Utility men...........|     4-116 |         24
 Sinter machine        |           |
   operators...........|      7-70 |         24
 Sinter plant          |           |
   weighmen............|    10-216 |         95
 Material handlers.....|     3-373 |         57
 Laborers..............|    ND-319 |         64
 Mechanical repairmen..|     1-118 |         20
Slag Plant:            |           |
 Slag plant operators..|     ND-24 |          5
Coke & Residue Plant:  |           |
 Coke & residue        |           |
   operator............|      3-31 |         11
Furnace Plant:         |           |
 Foreman...............|...........|...........
 Furnace group leader..|       1-7 |          2
 Furnace operators.....|       1-5 |          1
 Utility men...........|      2-29 |          4
 Shift utility men.....|      1-18 |          5
 Top operators.........|      1-29 |         13
 Ass't top operators...|      3-47 |         14
 Slag operators........|      1-10 |          2
 Casting operators.....|...........|...........
 Compressor operators..|...........|...........
 Laborers..............|       1-8 |          3
 Mechanical repairmen..|     ND-37 |          6
Zinc Sulfate Plant:    |           |
 Supervisor............|     17-21 |         19
 Operator..............|     10-42 |         23
Secondary Materials    |           |
 Plant:                |           |
 Materials handler.....|      1-32 |          8
 Heavy equipment       |           |
   operators...........|      1-14 |          4
Zinc Dust Plants:      |           |
 All operators.........|      ND-5 |          1
Refinery:              |           |
 All operators.........|      ND-2 |          1
Maintenance:           |           |
 Mechanical utility    |           |
   (not in production  |           |
   area)...............|       2-3 |          2
 Electrical Repairmen..|      1-50 |          7
 Bricklayers...........|       1-5 |          2
_______________________|___________|______________
  Notes: Utility/Maintenance data excludes work on
dust collectors.
  ND: Not Detectable.
  Source: Exhibit 19-43, Attachment K, Appendix B,
Table 1.

In electrolytic refining, 25 of the 27 job categories have mean exposures below 25 ug/m(3), and 18 job categories have mean exposures less than 10 ug/m(3). In electrothermic refining, 32 of the 35 job categories have mean exposures below 25 ug/m(3), and 23 job categories have mean exposures less than 10 ug/m(3).

Data on cadmium exposures during zinc and cadmium refining were also provided for the record by a zinc refining company [5, Attachment I, p. 5] and are summarized in Table VIII-C18. The company employs 385 people of whom 162 are considered exposed. Among the exposed production workers, only four employees have average exposures above 20 ug/m(3); 21 of 27 production job categories had average exposures below 10 ug/m(3). For this company over 85 percent of the monitoring samples were less than 20 ug/m(3) in every area except the cadmium plant. [5, Attachment I, Table I].

Existing and feasible additional controls. The JACA report described hoods ducted to baghouses as part of existing controls for the solution operator, furnace operator, and materials handler in the cadmium refining plant which they visited. JACA recommended the installation of additional and improved local exhaust ventilation for the solution operator and the furnace operator. JACA also recommended enclosed screw conveyors as an alternative to manually transferring materials between tanks. Mechanized systems would be implemented for the transfer of moist cadmium cement from the cementation tank to the oxidation bins and for the transfer of dried cement to the leach tanks.


  TABLE VIII-C18. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE
    DATA FOR ELECTROLYTIC ZINC REFINING
    BASED ON COMPANY DATA
_____________________________________
                       | Exposure
                       |  levels
                       | (ug/m(3))
     Process           |_____________
                       | Arithmetic
                       |   mean(1)
_______________________|_____________
                       |
Yard workers...........|        8.37
Roaster operators......|        6.30
Acid plant operators...|        1.50
Leach/purification     |
 operators.............|        7.06
Cellroom attendant.....|        0.50
Cadmium finishing      |
 (4 employees).........|      102.35
Casting................|        1.55
Lab analyst (when in   |
 Cd plant).............|       57.00
Test plant technician  |
 (for new Cd projects).|       93.50
_______________________|_____________
  Footnote(1) Generally higher than
geometric mean.
  Source: Exhibit 19-30, Attachment 1,
page 5.

JACA also recommended improved housekeeping measures such as vacuuming, damp mopping, and improved cleanup prior to maintenance. [1, pp. 4-4 through 4-7].

PACE provided a more detailed analysis of the cadmium refining plant. PACE identified 14 separate job categories at the plant which had a total of 45 workers exposed over two shifts. Both existing and recommended additional controls were described. Additional controls were recommended for most job categories and included local exhaust ventilation systems, enclosed material handling systems, clean air islands, and vacuum cleaning systems. [3, pp. 2-3 through 2-13].

The cadmium refining plant provided descriptions of existing controls for each of eight departments. [7, Attachment III]. The company stated that all feasible controls and housekeeping methods were utilized for control of exposure to arsenic and lead and that these same controls also reduced cadmium exposure. [7, p. 4].

PACE provided the most detailed analysis of existing and additional controls for zinc refining plants [2]. In the yard department, the roadway could be relocated and the dry sweeper could be replaced with a wet sweeper. Equipment operators could be protected by providing enclosed, ventilated cabs. An enclosed work station, a clean air island, and a side draft ventilation system could be provided for the concentrate beltman. For the roaster department PACE described several specific controls, summarized by "improved housekeeping, ventilation at specific sources and changes in work practices will reduce exposures." [2, Appendix A, page 17]. For the leach/purification plant PACE recommended isolation of the calcine hoppers by means of a sheet metal wall with additional ventilation inside the enclosure, the installation of two central vacuum cleaning systems, local exhaust ventilation at the cyclone feeder, improved ventilation at the roll filters, general ventilation for negative pressure in the residue tower area, enclosure and ventilation of the briquette press, and a clean air island for the briquette press operator. To lower exposures in the cadmium plant, the PACE analysis described significantly revised exhaust ventilation systems and tighter fitting furnace enclosures.

Technologically feasible limit for a SECAL. In order to determine the appropriate SECAL level for this industry sector, OSHA separated exposures into high and low occupation/process exposure groups to facilitate the analysis (see Section B for a more complete description of this approach). Data were divided at a breakpoint which maximized the difference between the mean values for the two separated data sets.

The data segregation resulted in the identification of a "high"

occupation/process exposure group which included cadmium refining, cadmium casting, cadmium oxide production, and sinter plant operations, involving about 202 workers. All other plant operations including zinc leaching operations, yard department, acid plant, cell room, etc., were included in the "low" exposure group involving about 1,148 employees. Figure VIII-C7 graphically presents the segregated data. The vertical line within each box depicts the median value for the distribution.


      Figure VIII-C7  - ZINC/CADMIUM REFINING

(For Figure VIII-C7, Click Here)


  Mean exposure data for the two sets were as follows:
______________________________________________________
                          | High Group  |  Low Group
__________________________|_____________|_____________
                          |             |
Number of Observations....|   39        |     51
Mean......................|   91.4      |      5.8
Standard Deviation........|  141.7      |      5.3
__________________________|_____________|_____________

To verify that the two groups within this industry were distinct, a t test was performed on the difference in the means. The null hypothesis that the means of the exposure data were equal, was rejected and the conclusion that they were drawn from separate statistical distributions, was accepted.

After the statistical difference between high and low exposure groups was verified, the data were analyzed separately. In Figures VIII-C8 and VIII-C9, separate process mean exposure values were drawn from each available data source. All process data in each group were "fitted" to a straight line using ordinary least squares methodology. For the high exposed cadmium group over one half of the exposures were at or below 100 ug/m(3) (Figure VIII-C8).

For each group a model was developed to graphically show the effect on the exposure distribution after current exposures are reduced using alternative engineering control efficiency factors of 80 percent down to 20 percent, in 20 percent increments. The higher the efficiency level, the lower the projected exposure level and the closer the projected exposure line moves to the vertical axis. Figures VIII-C10 and VIII-C11 show the reduction and shift in the distribution of exposures for the high and low groups in zinc refining/cadmium production operations.


     Figure VIII-C8  - ZINC/CADMIUM (HIGH EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C8, Click Here) Figure VIII-C9 - ZINC/CADMIUM (LOW EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C9, Click Here) Figure VIII-C10 - ZINC/CADMIUM (HIGH EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C10, Click Here) Figure VIII-C11 - ZINC/CADMIUM (LOW EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C11, Click Here)

The selection of an appropriate engineering control reduction factor was based on evidence and testimony in the record and economic feasibility considerations. The only basis for selecting an engineering control solution with a lower efficiency than an alternative strategy with a higher factor, was economic infeasibility of the latter.

The evidence in the record substantiates the finding that additional feasible controls are available and can be implemented to further reduce exposure levels. The extent of current controls in place and the applicability of specific additional controls will vary depending on the individual plant, but the relevant comments in the record all basically agree that a multitude of control options exists to limit airborne cadmium concentrations. These are generally conventional technologies that are commonly known, readily available, and to some degree currently used in the industry, as described above.

The controls can be used individually or in combination. If one control is not sufficient, additional ones can be used. It is the interaction of various engineering controls and work practices as part of an integrated system of controls that can produce the needed overall reduction in exposure levels. OSHA does not specify which control must be implemented. Rather, OSHA allows the employer the choice best suited to the particular characteristics of the workplace.

JACA estimated that the expected efficiency of new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems for exposures in the cadmium refining industry would be over 90 percent in situations where high hood efficiency was possible. [1, Table 4-2]. PACE provided a detailed analysis of the expected effectiveness of engineering controls for both zinc refining and cadmium refining. [2, 3]. For each job category PACE determined the percent of the total exposure that was attributable to different exposure sources and then applied control effectiveness estimates to each source. Estimates of the effectiveness of specific controls were not given, but they can be derived by comparing descriptions of recommended controls in one section with the expected reductions in exposure levels presented in tables supplied by PACE.

In cadmium production operations, PACE's expected percent reduction due to controls at specific sources ranged from 75 to 95 percent. Overall exposure reductions for operators ranged from 75 to over 90 percent (60 percent for maintenance). In zinc refining operations, where cadmium exposures are much lower, controls at individual sources were expected to achieve reductions of up to 80 percent. Background and variability of exposure levels would be reduced significantly. Overall, mean employee exposures would consistently be less than 10 ug/m(3) except in cadmium refining areas.

This review and analysis of the record needed to be supplemented with economic feasibility considerations before a determination could be made regarding appropriate engineering controls and their effectiveness level. According to PACE, engineering solutions to achieve an 80 percent or higher reduction in cadmium production would require major capital expenditures and the rebuilding and replacement of existing facilities. Capital costs to achieve this reduction margin could reach over $3 million per affected plant according to PACE [3, p. 2-3]. Achieving an 80 percent reduction in cadmium levels does not appear to be economically feasible at this time. (Total annual revenues in this sector average less than $50 million per plant. If the profit margin on this amount was five percent, per plant profits would be $2.5 million. Since 1979, four cadmium refining facilities have closed, leaving four domestic producers nationwide.) Instead, less expensive engineering controls with a lower efficiency expectation (60 percent) were identified. Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA believes that an engineering control reduction level of 60 percent is reasonable for this industry segment and is both technologically and economically feasible.

Following the selection of this efficiency factor, the appropriate engineering control level for each exposure group was identified at the point achievable for 60 - 80 percent of the exposures. For the high exposure processes including cadmium refining, cadmium casting, cadmium oxide production and sinter plant operations, a SECAL of 50 ug/m(3) is identified. For all low exposed processes, OSHA believes that the PEL level of 5 ug/m(3) is achievable through engineering controls.

For the high exposure group, compliance with the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) with engineering controls and work practices is infeasible at this time and can only be achieved through the use of respirators. Respirators are readily available with a wide range of protection factors that can adequately protect workers from the potential exposures in this industry. Respiratory protection will be required for many of the production and maintenance employees full time. This result was anticipated in the preliminary analysis and was consistently supported by the substantial evidence in the record.

Costs of Compliance with the 50 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The costs of compliance with the revised cadmium standard consist of costs for additional engineering controls, increased respirator use, more comprehensive exposure monitoring programs, medical surveillance requirements, hygiene provisions (shower rooms, work clothing, etc.), and training and recordkeeping requirements.

Estimates of the costs of installing new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems were provided by JACA. In current dollars, the costs of these systems range from $51,000 to $112,000. [1, Table 6-1]. Annual operating and maintenance costs were estimated to be 10 percent of the capital cost.

PACE provided cost estimates for several types of controls in its analysis of the cadmium production industry. [3, Table A2-4]. A pneumatic conveying system was estimated to cost $60,000 with $4,000 in annual operating and maintenance costs; exhaust ventilation systems with hoods and ducts were estimated to cost $24,000 to $254,000; costs for clean air islands ranged from $6,000 to $27,000; partitioning an area from the rest of the building was estimated to cost $9,000; a complex enclosure of a machine was estimated to cost $5,000; the cost of installing a central vacuum cleaning system was estimated to be $15,000; relocating an operation would cost about $25,000; and a decontamination booth for maintenance work, with exhaust system, monorail and hoist, and vacuum and steam cleaning facilities was estimated to cost $47,000. These estimates were consistent with the evidence in the record for costs of similar engineering controls.

JACA recommended additional engineering controls for three of the six job categories identified in cadmium production. PACE recommended significant additional control measures for ten of fifteen job categories. In its analysis of a zinc refining plant (including cadmium production operations), PACE recommended control measures in four of the seven departments, representing about twenty job categories. Both the PACE and JACA analyses were based on an attempt to achieve 5 ug/m(3).

For purposes of estimating the costs of additional engineering controls in this industry, OSHA developed estimates of the number of different types of controls that are expected to be installed. The additional feasible controls recommended and described in the record for this industry are generally common methods of controlling airborne exposures. Each plant would choose the control methods that represent the best solution for their particular situation, depending on the configuration of the operation, the extent of current controls, and the applicability of additional controls.

For example, in some situations ventilation may already be present and exposures may be more effectively controlled by installing glove boxes or mechanized material transfer equipment, or by relocating the operation rather than improving ventilation. Costs for these alternatives would be comparable to the costs for the control methods identified. Thus, OSHA's estimates of the numbers of controls serve to identify work stations where exposures need to be reduced; additional controls provide the basis for estimating total costs. As noted, these control costs may serve as a proxy for the cost of alternative solutions at some operations, in some firms.

Based on a review of the relevant comments submitted to the record, Table VIII-C19 presents the additional controls and their potential costs, needed for compliance with the 50 ug/m(3) SECAL and the PEL. The three plants with both zinc refining and cadmium refining operations are estimated to need new or improved local exhaust ventilation at six operations, clean air islands at five locations, two additional central vacuum cleaning systems, and improved enclosure or partitions for seven operations. Additional controls for cadmium refining operations would include four local exhaust ventilation systems, three clean air islands, one central vacuum cleaning system, and enclosure of four operations. Zinc refining operations are estimated to need two local exhaust ventilation systems, two clean air islands, one central vacuum cleaning system, and enclosure of three areas.


TABLE VIII-C19. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR CADMIUM
                   IN THE ZINC REFINING/CADMIUM PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
________________________________________________________________________
            |  Controls per plant |           |      Cost per control  |
            | by type of plant(1) |           |        ($thousands)    |
            |_____________________|  Total    |________________________|
 Type of    |      |       |      | industry  |        | Annual|       |
 control    |      |       |      |controls(2)|        |  power|       |
            |   A  |   B   |   C  |           |Capital |  and  | Annual|
            |      |       |      |           |        |mainte-| labor |
            |      |       |      |           |        | nance |       |
____________|______|_______|______|___________|________|_______|_______|
            |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
Local       |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Exhaust    |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Ventilation|    4 |     6 |    8 |       24  |     80 |     8 |     0 |
Clean Air   |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Islands....|    3 |     5 |    2 |       20  |     18 |     2 |     0 |
Central     |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Vacuum     |      |       |      |           |        |       |       |
 Systems....|    1 |     2 |    1 |        8  |     15 |     1 |     7 |
Enclosure...|    4 |     7 |    3 |       28  |      9 |     0 |     0 |
            |      |       |      |___________|        |       |       |
   Total....|......|.......|......|       80  |........|.......|.......|
____________|______|_______|______|___________|________|_______|_______|



TABLE VIII-C19. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR CADMIUM
  IN THE ZINC REFINING/CADMIUM PRODUCTION INDUSTRY - (continued)
_______________________________________________________________
            |   Industry costs ($thousands)    |
            |__________________________________|   Total
 Type of    |        |         | Annual|       | annualized
 control    | Capital| Annua-  | power |       |  industry
            |        | lized   | and   | Annual|    cost
            |        | capital |mainte-| labor | ($thousands)
            |        |         | nance |       |
____________|________|_________|_______|_______|_____________
            |        |         |       |       |
Local       |        |         |       |       |
 Exhaust    |        |         |       |       |
 Ventilation|  1,920 |    312  |  192  |    0  |      504
Clean Air   |        |         |       |       |
 Islands....|    360 |     59  |   40  |    0  |       99
Central     |        |         |       |       |
 Vacuum     |        |         |       |       |
 Systems....|    120 |     20  |    8  |   56  |       84
Enclosure...|    252 |     41  |    0  |    0  |       41
            |________|_________|_______|_______|____________
   Total....|  2,652 |    432  |   240 |   56  |      728
____________|________|_________|_______|_______|____________
  Footnote(1) Type A plant cadmium refining only, Type B
plant zinc refining and cadmium refining, Type C plant zinc
refining only.
  Footnote(2) Based on one type A plant, three type B plants,
and one type C plant.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor.

Table VIII-C19 shows the capital costs of additional controls, $2.65 million, and the annual costs, $296,000. Total annualized costs are calculated by amortizing the capital costs over ten years with a ten percent interest rate and adding the resulting annualized cost to the other annual costs. The total annualized costs of engineering controls in the zinc refining/cadmium production industry are estimated to be $728,000.

Three companies submitted lengthy comments and testimony about the extent of current programs for respirator use, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, hygiene facilities, information and training, and recordkeeping [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. The industry generally already provides extensive programs in these areas, but the revised standard may require some of these programs to be expanded.

The plants involved in zinc and cadmium refining currently have established respirator programs for employees in high exposure areas. In order to comply with the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) it is likely that about 80 percent of the production and maintenance employees in the industry would be required to wear respirators full time even after the implementation of additional feasible controls. Employees in cadmium refining areas are already provided with respirators, but many employees with exposures below 20 ug/m(3) do not wear respirators. One zinc refiner estimated that regular respirator use would have to be expanded from 20 employees currently to 289 employees working in the plant. [11, p. VII-30]. Another comment from a zinc refiner indicated that almost all of the 120 employees exposed at or above 1 ug/m(3) currently wear respirators. [5, Attachment I, pp. 5-7].

The incremental costs associated with respirator use as a result of the revised cadmium standard are based on providing respirators for an estimated 500 additional employees in the industry. The industry currently employs about 1,800 workers, of whom about 75 percent are production or maintenance employees [11, p. VII-59]. Given that all employees in the cadmium refining operations already wear respirators, the 500 employees represent about half of the remaining workers who would be required to wear respirators under the revised standard.

The annual cost per employee of providing a respirator, HEPA filter changes, and a fit test was estimated by one zinc industry employer to be about $300. [5, Attachment III, p. 1]. Thus, the annual cost for the industry for additional respirator use is estimated to be $150,000.

As evident from employers' submissions of monitoring results to the record, zinc and cadmium refining facilities already conduct exposure monitoring regularly. The revised standard requires semi-annual exposure monitoring of "each shift for each job classification in each work area." Plants refining zinc and cadmium have an average of 20 job categories, and plants refining only zinc or cadmium have an average of about 10 job categories affected by this requirement. Counting each shift separately, a total of 240 job categories would have to be monitored semi-annually. Since about half of this monitoring is already conducted, approximately 240 additional samples would have to be taken each year in this industry.

The lab analysis of each sample is estimated to cost $40. The services of an industrial hygienist required to perform the monitoring for each plant would cost on average about $1,500. [1, p. 6-23]. Thus, the estimated annual cost attributable to increased exposure monitoring is $17,100.

The medical surveillance requirements of the revised standard involve a complex combination of different categories of employees and a series of triggers and different schedules of various exams and tests. The standard basically requires annual biological monitoring, including tests for cadmium in urine, cadmium in blood, and B(2)-microglobulin in urine, and a full medical examination every two years.

Most employees at cadmium refiners are already provided with annual medical exams and biological monitoring including blood and urine cadmium analyses and urine protein analyses. [8]. About half of the exposed employees at zinc refiners are included in biological monitoring programs, and those with high cadmium exposure (less than 10 percent of all exposed workers) are given annual physicals. [11, pp. VII-49 through VII-51]. Expanding the medical surveillance programs in this industry to meet the basic requirements of the revised cadmium standard would involve approximately 600 additional physicals (1,200 employees every two years) and an additional 600 of each of the three biological monitoring tests.

More frequent medical exams and biological monitoring may be required for some employees, including employees who may be medically removed. An estimated 50 additional medical exams and 150 additional sets of biological monitoring may be necessary annually for this purpose.

The cost of a physical, including the wages paid during the exam, was estimated to be about $250. The cost of the lab analysis for a B(2)-microglobulin sample was cited by a public health research group as $80. [4, p. 4]. Analyses of samples of cadmium in urine and in blood are estimated to be $60 each. An additional $5 is added to the cost of each of the biological monitoring samples for costs associated with collecting the samples. Thus, the total incremental annual costs of compliance with the medical surveillance requirements are estimated to be $323,750 [650*$250+750*($65+$65+$85)].

Requirements for medical removal may involve compliance costs in addition to those for more frequent medical exams and monitoring (estimated above). The criteria for mandatory removal would affect employees with the most extreme biological monitoring levels. The criteria for removal also allow for considerable physician's discretion. An estimated 3 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed initially on the basis of these criteria and the discretion of physicians.

Compliance with the new PEL for cadmium and other requirements of the final cadmium standard should prevent a continuing need to remove employees. The number of employees with relatively high past exposures who would be more likely to be removed, should decline through attrition. However, as the criteria for removal become broader in future years (lower levels of cadmium in blood and urine will trigger mandatory removal), additional employees may be subject to removal. The costs associated with the medical removal provisions are approximated by assuming that on average, 3 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed every 5 years.

The number of employees removed should be small enough to enable establishments to provide removed employees with alternative positions. Costs to the employer would include paying wage subsidies to employees moved into lower wage jobs, and hiring and training new employees. The average cost per removed employee would be an estimated $5,000. An estimated 40 employees may be removed every five years, on average, in the zinc and cadmium refining industry, and the annual cost for the industry would be $40,000.

The total annual cost for the medical surveillance and medical removal provisions is estimated to be $363,750.

Cadmium refining plants generally have established hygiene programs, including clean/dirty side change rooms, work clothing, and separate lunch rooms. [11, p. 10-216]. One zinc refiner currently provides showers and change rooms but stated that the modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the cadmium standard would cost about $200,000. This commenter also stated that disposable work clothing would have to be provided for about 200 additional employees at an annual cost of $104 per employee. [5, Attachment III, p.1].

Based on the record, OSHA has concluded that for the industry as a whole the costs of the hygiene provisions would include about $300,000 for shower room and/or lunch room modifications with $50,000 in annual expenses for work clothing and operating costs. In addition, the estimated annual cost of showering on work time is $900 per employee (based on fifteen minutes per day for 240 days per year at $15 an hour) and would apply to an estimated 400 employees. The total annualized costs of compliance with the hygiene provisions is thus estimated to be $459,000.

Incremental costs for recordkeeping and other information-related requirements are estimated to be about $5 per employee annually. Up to 1,000 additional employees may be affected by these requirements which would result in an annual compliance cost of about $5,000.

The total annualized costs of compliance with the cadmium standard for this industry are estimated to be $1.72 million. These costs are summarized by provision in Table VIII-C20.

Economic Feasibility of a 50 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Cadmium prices have generally ranged from $1 to $4 per pound over the past 25 years. [14, p. 6]. From 1983 through 1987 the average prices were below $2 per pound. In 1988, the average price per pound rose to over $7, and as of August 1989 the price had fallen back to about $4 per pound. [13, p. 8].


TABLE VIII-C20.  -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
 WITH THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE ZINC
 REFINING/CADMIUM PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
_____________________________________________________
                                      | Annualized
                                      |   cost
        Provision                     | [$thousands]
______________________________________|______________
                                      |
Exposure Control......................|     728.0
Respirator Use........................|     150.0
Exposure Monitoring...................|      17.1
Medical Surveillance..................|     363.8
Hygiene Facilities/Practices..........|     459.0
Recordkeeping and Information.........|       5.0
                                      |______________
    Total.............................|   1,722.9
______________________________________|______________
  Note:  Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor.

From 1984 to 1987 U.S. production of cadmium remained relatively stable, ranging from 1,486 to 1,686 metric tons. Preliminary data for 1988 suggest that U.S. cadmium production increased to nearly 1,900 metric tons as a result of increased zinc production and in response to higher zinc and cadmium prices. [13, p. 2-2].

Since cadmium is a necessary by-product of zinc refining, decisions regarding its production are not made independently of conditions in the zinc market. From 1984 to 1987 U.S. production of zinc was about 260,000 metric tons while the price of zinc was about 40 cents per pound [13, Table 2-3]. Thus, revenues from zinc production have been about $230 million.

At a price of $2 per pound, total revenues from cadmium production would amount to less than $7 million. Based on the average New York dealer price of $6.28 per pound in 1989, the value of domestic cadmium metal output in that year was $21.5 million. [14, p. 10].

Cadmium and other by-product revenues are usually considered credits (i.e., negative costs) by zinc refiners. [14, p. 9]. These revenues partially offset the production costs of the principal product (zinc). The magnitude of the credit fluctuates according to by-product prices, but tends to be a relatively small portion of total revenues.

Zinc refiners are unlikely to discontinue cadmium production unless the total costs of producing zinc and cadmium outweigh the total revenues. Zinc refiners and cadmium refiners did not discontinue operations when the price of cadmium remained below $2 per pound for several years in the 1980s. For cadmium and zinc producers, the estimated compliance costs associated with this standard would be completely offset by an increase in the price of cadmium of less than fifty cents per pound. Since the price of cadmium has recently risen by two to five dollars per pound over prices a few years ago, refiners should be earning sufficient revenues to cover compliance costs.

For zinc refiners the estimated compliance costs represent a fraction of 1 percent of revenues. Given the inherent fluctuations in the price of zinc, costs of this magnitude could not alone cause a zinc refiner to cease production. An independent study by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, concluded that annualized costs for engineering controls for the industry of $983,000 represented "a reasonable cost." [14, Attachment I, p. 1]. Some commenters raised concerns that the impact of the standard could hinder the ability to recover cadmium from scrap and other forms of recycling. At current prices cadmium production is financially viable. Cadmium-containing residuals are classified as hazardous waste and their disposal is estimated to cost $0.50 per pound of cadmium. Thus, "the price of cadmium metal would have to drop about $0.50 below the operating costs before primary cadmium producers would actually shut down their cadmium circuits and dispose of residuals instead." [13, p. 4-2]. Due to the high costs associated with the disposal of cadmium-bearing waste, cadmium refiners should be able to obtain supplies at relatively low prices.

Cadmium refining operations are currently conducted with extensive use of respiratory protection and would have to continue to do so with or without the revised cadmium standard. The feasibility of cadmium recycling efforts would depend on the price of cadmium and other factors in the business environment. The incremental compliance costs associated with this standard would be a very minor factor in investment decisions on this scale.

Due to environmental regulation, labor costs, and other factors, the costs of domestic cadmium refining may be higher than in other countries. Prior to 1974, the United States was the world's leading refiner of cadmium with 11 plants producing cadmium. Cadmium production dropped 82 percent by 1982 even though demand remained strong. By 1989 the United States had gone from being nearly self-sufficient in cadmium to a net import reliance of 62 percent. [14, p. 9].

The impacts of the revised cadmium standard are completely overshadowed by more fundamental circumstances and developments in this industry. Cadmium refining operations can continue in this country under the revised cadmium standard. The survival of or investment in such plants depends on many factors. The revised standard would have a negligible influence in this area because 1) the incremental costs represent a small fraction of revenues and return on equity and 2) the basic nature of cadmium refining operations with the need for respiratory protection would not be changed.

OSHA concludes that the revised cadmium standard is economically feasible for the zinc refining / cadmium producing industry. This determination is based on the evidence submitted to the record, including the costs imposed by the standard and the industry's ability to absorb these costs.

NOTES

1. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

2. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment K, "Technical Feasibility of a Workplace Standard for Airborne Cadmium in the Primary Zinc Industry," PACE Incorporated, December 5, 1989.

3. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE Incorporated, April 30, 1990.

4. Exhibit 123, "Comments of Public Citizen Health Research Group and the International Chemical Workers Union on OSHA's Proposed Standard Governing Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," Public Citizen, October 17, 1990.

5. Exhibit 19-30, "Comments on OSHA Proposed Cadmium Regulation,"

Big River Zinc Corporation, May 10, 1990.

6. Exhibit 19-31, "Statement of Zinc Corporation of America on the OSHA Proposed Rulemaking on Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," Zinc Corporation of America, Thomas E. Janeck, May 11, 1990.

7. Exhibit 19-32, Comments of ASARCO Incorporated, May 9, 1990. 8. Exhibit 107, Comments of ASARCO Incorporated, September 18, 1990. 9. Exhibit 111, Comments of ASARCO Incorporated, September 26, 1990. 10. Exhibit 125, Comments of Big River Zinc Corporation, October 16, 1990.

11. Hearing Transcript, pages VII-29 through VII-110 and pages 10-204 through 10-216.

12. Exhibit 106, Comments of NIOSH, September 18, 1990. 13. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment I, "Economic and Technological Feasibility of a 5 Microgram per Cubic Meter Workplace Standard for Airborne Cadmium," Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., April 30, 1990.

14. Exhibit 105, Studies submitted by Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Interior, September 18, 1990.

Pigment Production

Industry overview. Cadmium pigments are manufactured at four plants in the United States. Approximately 600 tons of cadmium are used in the production of cadmium-based pigments annually. A total of about 100 employees are exposed to cadmium in these facilities. [1, p. 5].

Cadmium pigments are inorganic compounds that range in color from yellow to red. They are used to color plastics, paints, ceramics, and printing inks. The pigments are usually produced as powders but are also available in other forms such as pastes and liquids. For applications in the plastics industry, cadmium pigments are available in master batch pellets, which incorporate the pigment in pellets of compounded polymer resins.

Compared to other inorganic pigments, cadmium pigments are relatively expensive. Cadmium pigments are preferred and essential for many uses because other pigments lack the qualities that cadmium pigments provide. The advantages of using cadmium pigments include heat stability for manufacturing plastics at high temperatures or coating high-temperature surfaces; coloring power that is strong and bright; and resistance to fading due to aging or sunlight.

Production processes. The process for manufacturing cadmium pigments differs among companies, and manufacturers may utilize different combinations of job classes depending on the process. In general the process entails the addition of cadmium metal to a tank which contains an acid solution. Depending on the color desired, sodium sulfide and selenium or zinc sulfide are added. The resulting precipitate is filtered, washed, and dried. The dried precipitate is then calcined, forming the desired cadmium pigment. The pigment is further milled or blended to meet customer specifications. Finally, it is packaged, usually in fiber drums.

The cadmium pigment manufacturing process generally involves the following job classes in addition to supervisors, maintenance mechanics, and laboratory technicians: solution operators, wet solids operators, calcine operators, and dry solids operators. [1, p. 6].

The solution operator is in charge of adding cadmium metal flakes to the preparation tank and may also be involved in the striking operation which is a wet process. Depending on the manufacturer, this position may be two different jobs, an operator and a striker. The wet solids operator transfers the wet presscake either manually or automatically to the drying department. In some pigment plants the material is manually transferred from drying trays to the crushing operation where it is packed in drums and sent to the calcining department. In other facilities, the pigment is dried in a closed system using either a belt dryer or pan dryer. Depending on the facility, pigment is either added to the calcine manually by the calcine operator or it is transferred to the calcine by air from a portable container. Dry solids operators are responsible for further grinding, milling, or blending of the cadmium pigment. When product specifications are met, the pigment is packaged.

Employee exposures. The preliminary analysis accompanying the proposed rule relied on the exposure profile developed by JACA Corporation. [2, Table 3-6]. JACA's exposure profile was based on seven years of sampling results from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) data base through August 1986. JACA also visited a pigment manufacturing plant to better understand and interpret exposure data. Their exposure profile is presented in Table VIII-C21. Four of the six job categories identified have geometric mean exposures of less than 6 ug/m(3); the remaining two job categories have mean exposures between 40 ug/m(3) and 50 ug/m(3).

PACE Incorporated developed an exposure profile for the pigment manufacturing industry at the request of the Cadmium Council. [3, Table A10-1]. This information is summarized in Table VIII-C22. These data are summarized in Table VIII C-23. The PACE estimates were calculated from data supplied from one plant. Three of the eight job categories listed have mean exposures of less than 50 ug/m(3); four of the job categories have mean exposures of 100 ug/m(3) or more.

One pigment manufacturing plant submitted personal monitoring data to the record as part of its post-hearing comments, including samples taken during 1990. [4, Section D-1]. The average eight-hour time-weighted average exposures vary from less than 30 ug/m(3) in some job categories to over 100 ug/m(3) in others.


TABLE VIII-C21. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR CADMIUM PIGMENT PRODUCTION
                   BASED ON JACA
_________________________________________________________________________
                                       | Concentration in ug/m(3)
                                       |_________________________________
         Job category                  | Geometric |        |
                                       |   mean    | Median |   Range
_______________________________________|___________|________|____________
                                       |           |        |
Solution operator......................|     46.2  |   28.0 |  22.0-160.0
Wet solids operator....................|      5.6  |   17.5 |   0.1-470.0
Calcine operator.......................|     40.3  |  243.0 | 0.1-1,020.0
Dry solids operator....................|      3.9  |    2.0 | 0.1-1,200.0
Process supervisor.....................|      1.1  |    1.1 |     0.1-7.0
Maintenance technician.................|      3.5  |    3.0 | 0.1-1,560.0
_______________________________________|___________|________|____________
  Source: Exhibit 13, JACA, Table 3-6


TABLE VIII-C22. -- PROFILE OF OCCUPATIONAL
 EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM IN THE CADMIUM PIGMENT
 INDUSTRY BASED ON PACE INCORPORATED
___________________________________________________
                                       | Geometric
                                       |   mean
         Job category                  | exposures
                                       | (ug/m(3))
_______________________________________|___________
                                       |
Attack operator........................|      79
Strike operator........................|      29
Pressman...............................|      43
Crusher operator.......................|     140
Calcine operator.......................|     100
Wet system operator....................|      44
Millman................................|     222
Blend operator.........................|     145
_______________________________________|___________
  Source: PACE Incorporated, Exhibit 19-43,
Attachment L, Table A-10-1.


TABLE VIII-C23. -- OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM
 DURING CADMIUM PIGMENT PRODUCTION BASED ON SCM
 PLANT DATA
___________________________________________________
                                       | Arithmetic
                                       |  mean(1)
         Job category                  | exposures
                                       | (ug/m(3))
_______________________________________|___________
                                       |
Attack operator........................|      27
Strike operator........................|      12
Pressman...............................|      56
Crusher operator.......................|     278
Calcine operator.......................|      50
Wet system operator....................|      43
Millman................................|     348
Blend operator.........................|      53
Mixer operator.........................|     163
Maintenance mechanic...................|      24
Supervisor.............................|       9
_______________________________________|___________
  Footnote(1) Generally higher than geometric mean.
  Note:  Based on 1990 eight-hour time-weighted
average personal monitoring data for all job categories
except attack operator and pressman, for which 1990
data were not available and 1988-1989 data were used.
  Source: SCM Chemicals, Post-Hearing Documentary
Evidence, Exhibit 112, Part D-1.

Existing and Feasible Additional Controls. Descriptions of existing controls and feasible additional controls were provided to the record from three primary sources.

JACA Corporation described the limited use of ventilation systems observed during a site visit to one plant; most operators were not protected by engineering controls [2, page 4-10]. JACA recommended an extensive expansion and improvement of the ventilation system, including additional high-efficiency local exhaust ventilation hoods at four work stations.

The plant visited by JACA subsequently implemented a major exposure reduction project, the details of which are described in Exhibit 112. The project was completed by early 1989. The improvements and modifications listed as part of this effort include a variety of controls and were based on a comprehensive approach to reducing exposures levels throughout the plant. According to evidence supplied by the plant,

The design of the exposure reduction project involved a number of components, including improvement of the existing ventilation system, installation of extensive new ventilation equipment, installation of central vacuuming equipment, installation of pneumatic transfer equipment, and other improvements to the processes and work practices. [4, Section D-2, p. 3].

PACE Incorporated evaluated existing controls and prospects for additional controls in the pigment manufacturing industry [3]. The plant visited by PACE and considered representative of the industry was the same plant that was visited by JACA. By the time of the PACE site visit, the plant had completed its exposure reduction project as outlined above. Additional controls recommended by PACE included the enclosure of the box opening and dumping operation at the attack tanks and adding back-draft exhaust ventilation. Together with improved work practices and reduced background concentrations of airborne cadmium, mean worker exposures at the attack tanks would be expected to be reduced by over 80 percent to 13 ug/m(3) [3, p. 10-4].

PACE suggested that exposures at the strike tanks would be significantly reduced by providing more effective exhaust ventilation for the tanks and by establishing frequent wash down of surfaces in this area to prevent contaminant accumulation.

PACE's recommendations for pigment transfer and calcining included improved ventilation and establishing dedicated equipment and enclosed chutes for multiple production lines which would also involve building modifications.

PACE identified improved ventilation and enclosure as feasible additional controls for the milling and blending operations. The use of parallel production lines may also reduce exposures in these operations, assuming that a sufficient number of production lines could be built and that the lines would remain dedicated to a particular color without the need for clean out.

According to PACE, exposures during pressing and washing operations could be reduced by replacing recessed plate filter presses with automatic pressure filters. Manual material handling would be eliminated as the discharge from the belt filters would be maintained in enclosures. However, implementing parallel production equipment to sufficiently accommodate manufacturing needs may not be feasible and would also create additional exposures during cleaning and maintenance of the chutes and enclosures.

PACE further proposed that controls for the drying operation include an extension of the semi-automatic processing from the pressure filters, eliminating manual handling of trays, tray drying racks, and the use of static drying ovens. Drying would be accomplished with continuous screw dryers from the pressure filter discharge in a closed system. Dedicated dryers would be required for each of the dedicated pressure filter lines.

Pigment manufacturers contend that establishing dedicated production lines would not be feasible given the need to make a variety of products. In order to compete effectively, the plants offer a wide range of products and need to maintain the flexibility to change specifications frequently by producing custom blends using a batch process. The batch nature of the production process requires frequent clean out of equipment.

The capability for batch production seems necessary and likely to continue in plants which compete globally in this industry; and the total number of clean outs are not likely to be reduced. OSHA concludes that feasible controls are available to minimize exposures to cadmium during pigment manufacturing. These would include ventilation systems, enclosures, and housekeeping measures. The industry appears to have implemented some controls already, although further improvements should be possible based upon the PACE report analysis.

Technologically feasible limits for a SECAL. In order to determine appropriate limits for this industry segment, occupation/process exposures were separated into high and low categories (see Section B for a more complete discussion of this approach). In general, high exposure occupations/processes had average exposure readings above 100 ug/m(3); the low exposure group had average exposures at or below 50 ug/m(3).

Separated data indicate that the high exposure processes include calcining, crushing, milling, and blending operations (with a total of 60 exposed employees) while low exposure occupations/processes include wet system, attack, and strike activities, maintenance and supervision (about 40 employees exposed). Figure VIII-C12 graphically shows the separated data.

Mean exposure data for the two sets were as follows:

_____________________________________________________________
                            | High Group   |  Low Group
____________________________|______________|_________________
Number of Observations......|       13     |       12
Mean........................|      129.6   |       23.4
Standard Deviation..........|      100.3   |       23.1
____________________________|______________|_________________

To verify that the two groups within this industry were distinct, a t test was performed on the difference in the means. The null hypothesis that the means of the exposure data were equal, was rejected and the conclusion that they were drawn from separate statistical distribution, was accepted.


     Figure VIII-C12  - PIGMENTS

(For Figure VIII-C12, Click Here)

After the statistical difference between high and low exposure groups was verified, the data were analyzed separately. Separate process mean exposure values were drawn from each available data source. All exposure values in each set were "fitted" to a straight line using ordinary lease square formula. The result is shown in Figures VIII-C13 and VIII-C14.

A model was developed in order to identify the appropriate SECAL level for each exposure group. Current exposures for each group were reduced based upon alternative engineering control efficiency levels of 80, 60, 40, and 20 percent. The higher the efficiency level, the lower the projected exposure level and the closer it came to the vertical axis. Figures VIII-C15 and VIII-C16 show the reductions and shift in the distribution of exposures for the high and low groups in pigments manufacture.

The selection of an appropriate efficiency reduction factor was based on assessments of the anticipated ability to control cadmium exposures in this industry as provided by JACA, PACE, and industry sources. JACA projected that a reduction in exposure levels of 90 - 95 percent was achievable through additional ventilation and improvements in housekeeping and work practices [2, p. 4-12]. According to PACE, 80 percent reductions in exposure levels would be achievable but would require major capital expenditures and new production systems which were considered infeasible by industry sources. The economic feasibility of the control strategy was an important consideration in this sector since total sector profits were only $1.5 million.


   Figure VIII-C13  - PIGMENTS (HIGH EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C13, Click Here) Figure VIII-C14 - PIGMENTS (LOW EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C14, Click Here) Figure VIII-C15 - PIGMENTS (HIGH EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C15, Click Here) Figure VIII-C16 - PIGMENTS (LOW EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C16, Click Here)

In the final analysis it was determined that feasibility constraints may prevent establishments in this sector from achieving an exposure reduction level of over 80 percent. A reduction factor range of 60 - 80 percent was selected based on the expected effectiveness of the additional engineering controls that can be implemented in these establishments. OSHA believes this reduction range is both technologically and economically feasible for this industry.

Following selection of the efficiency factor range, the appropriate SECALs for each exposure group were identified at the level achievable for about 60-80 percent of the exposure observations. For the high exposure operations a SECAL of 50 ug/m(3) was identified, and for the low exposure operations a SECAL of 15 ug/m(3) was identified.

The cadmium standard authorizes supplemental reliance on respirators after all feasible engineering controls have been implemented. When exposure levels are not sufficiently reduced through engineering controls alone, compliance with the standard can be achieved in this industry through the use of respiratory protection.

Costs of compliance with 50-15 ug/m(3) SECALs and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The costs of compliance include costs for additional engineering controls, increased respirator use, more comprehensive exposure monitoring programs, medical surveillance requirements, hygiene provisions, and training and recordkeeping requirements. The estimated compliance costs represent the incremental costs necessary for achieving compliance with the final rule from a baseline of current practices; these costs do not include current or past expenditures.

JACA provided estimates of the costs of installing new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems. In current dollars, the costs of these systems range from $51,000 to $112,000. [2, Table 6-1]. Annual operating and maintenance costs were estimated to be 10 percent of the capital cost. JACA projected that new or improved ventilation systems could be installed at four work stations per plant.

PACE provided cost estimates for several types of controls in its analysis of the cadmium production industry [3]. Controls for the attack tanks included enclosure and back-draft exhaust ventilation, with a capital cost of about $30,000 and an annual cost of about $1,500. Controls at the strike tanks included improved ventilation and increased wash down of surfaces to prevent contaminant accumulation; the capital cost would be $25,000 and the annual cost would be $4,000. Controls suggested by PACE for other operations would require building modifications and the establishment of dedicated production lines. OSHA does not require major capital expenditure for plants in this industry based on economic feasibility considerations.

Details of an exposure reduction program recently completed was submitted to the record by one pigment manufacturing plant [4, Section D-2]. The program included an improved ventilation system with additional local ventilation systems in three areas, two central vacuum systems, new pneumatic transfer systems, two steam-heated make-up air units, replacement of six mechanical scales with six digital scales, new larger blenders, portable wet vacuum units, and a complete upgrade of the electrical system.

The project involved $1.1 million in capital costs and about $140,000 in annual costs for maintenance and power. It appears, however, that these costs were not entirely dedicated to hazard reduction. Part of this cost involved the purchase of new and more efficient equipment which should not be attributed to compliance costs. Adjustment for this factor would result in cost estimates consistent with those from JACA and PACE. (JACA's total costs of compliance were lower because fewer controls were recommended; PACE's total costs were higher due to large costs for dedicated lines and building modifications.) The other three plants in the industry appear not to have implemented extensive exposure control programs. These plants would be required to install additional engineering controls but would not be required to redesign production systems or invest in new buildings.

Pigment manufacturers emphasized that each plant was different and required different control solutions. OSHA recognizes that each plant would develop engineering controls based on individual circumstances and that the combination of controls appropriate at one plant may differ from that at another. OSHA assumes that the costs of the controls identified below would approximate the actual costs for the industry.

The combined work force at the four plants is about 100 workers. Most of these workers would probably need respiratory protection to meet the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) regardless of the number of controls installed.

Table VIII-C24 presents the estimated numbers of additional controls that plants may need to implement, the unit costs of the controls, and the total cost of engineering controls for the industry. OSHA estimates that on average each plant would install three new local exhaust ventilation systems, provide enclosures for three operations, and install one additional central vacuum cleaning system, or use a different combination of controls with an equivalent cost. The total annualized cost of additional engineering controls for the industry is estimated to be $312,000.

In addition to engineering controls, compliance with the revised standard would require respirator use, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, hygiene facilities, information and training programs, and recordkeeping. The pigment manufacturing industry generally already provides extensive programs in these areas, but the revised standard may require some of these programs to be expanded. The estimated costs of compliance represent the incremental expenditure necessary to meet the requirements and do not include costs of current programs.

Testimony from the industry indicated that companies currently provide medical exams for every employee annually or every two years, conduct biological monitoring and exposure monitoring annually or more frequently, and that some respirator use occurs among the entire workforce [5].


TABLE VIII-24.  -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ADDITIONAL CONTROLS IN THE PIGMENT
                   MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
___________________________________________________________________________
                      |          |        |  Cost per control [$thousands]
                      |          |        |________________________________
  Type of control     |          | Total  |         |  Annual   |
                      | Controls |industry|         |  power    |  Annual
                      | per plant|controls| Capital |   and     |   labor
                      |          |        |         |maintenance|
______________________|__________|________|_________|___________|__________
                      |          |        |         |           |
Local Exhaust.........|       3  |     12 |     80  |       8   |      0
Central Vacuum Systems|       1  |      4 |     15  |       1   |      7
Enclosure.............|       3  |     12 |      9  |       0   |      0
                      |__________|________|_________|___________|__________
   Total..............|..........|     28 |.........|...........|..........
______________________|__________|________|_________|___________|__________


TABLE VIII-24.  -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ADDITIONAL CONTROLS IN THE PIGMENT
                   MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (continued)
___________________________________________________________________________
                      |      Industry cost [$thousands]       |
                      |_______________________________________|   Total
  Type of control     |          |         |  Annual |        | annualized
                      |          |  Annua- |  power  | Annual | industry
                      |  Capital |  lized  |   and   |  labor |   cost
                      |          | capital | mainte- |        | [$thou-
                      |          |         |  nance  |        |  sands]
______________________|__________|_________|_________|________|____________
                      |          |         |         |        |
Local Exhaust.........|     960  |    156  |     96  |      0 |     252
Central Vacuum Systems|      60  |     10  |      4  |     28 |      42
Enclosure.............|     108  |     18  |      0  |      0 |      18
                      |__________|_________|_________|________|____________
   Total..............|   1,128  |    184  |    100  |     28 |     312
______________________|__________|_________|_________|________|____________
  (1) Based on four plants needing additional contols.
  Note:  Totals may not add due to rounding.
  Source: Office of regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

For purposes of calculating the costs of compliance for the industry, OSHA estimates that 80 percent of the 100 exposed employees would have to wear a respirator, and that about half of this respirator use is currently occurring. Thus, additional respiratory protection would be needed for about 40 employees. With an average annual cost per employee of $300 for providing a respirator, HEPA filter changes, and a fit test, the annual cost for the industry would be $12,000.

The revised standard requires exposure monitoring semi-annually for "each shift for each job classification in each work area." On average, six job categories over three shifts in four plants would require 144 samples to be taken annually in the industry. If one quarter of this sampling is already done, the laboratory cost of analyzing each sample is $40, and the average cost per plant to perform the sampling is $1,500 annually, then the additional annual cost to the industry for this provision would be about $10,300.

Compliance with the medical surveillance provisions of the revised standard appears to be partially met by pigment producers [5]. However, OSHA believes that some employees may not be provided with all of the required exams and tests. More frequent exams and tests are required for employees under certain conditions and for employees who may be medically removed.

Expanding the medical surveillance programs in this industry to meet the requirements of the revised standard may involve 30 additional physicals annually and an additional 100 of each of the three biological monitoring tests. Physicals are estimated to cost $250 each, lab analysis for a B(2)-microglobulin sample is estimated to cost $80, lab analyses for cadmium in blood and urine are estimated to cost $60 each, and the cost of collecting biological monitoring samples is estimated to be $5 per sample. Incremental costs for medical exams and testing for the industry are thus estimated to be $29,000 annually (30 * $250 + 100 * $215).

Requirements for medical removal may involve compliance costs in addition to those for more frequent medical exams and monitoring estimated above. The criteria for mandatory removal would affect employees with the most extreme biological monitoring levels. The criteria for removal also allow for considerable physician's discretion. An estimated 6 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed initially on the basis of these criteria and the discretion of physicians.

Compliance with the new PEL for cadmium and other requirements of the final cadmium standard should prevent a continuing need to remove employees. The number of employees with relatively high past exposures who would be more likely to be removed should decline through attrition. However, as the criteria for removal become broader in future years (lower levels of cadmium in blood and urine triggering mandatory removal), additional employees may be subject to removal. The costs associated with the medical removal provisions are approximated by assuming that on average, 6 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed every 5 years.

The number of employees removed should be small enough to enable establishments to provide removed employees with alternative positions. Costs to the employer would include paying possible wage subsidies to removed workers, and hiring and training new employees. The average cost per removed employee would be an estimated $5,000. An estimated 6 employees may be removed every five years on average in the cadmium pigment industry, and the average annual cost for the industry would be $6,000.

The total annual cost for the medical surveillance and medical removal provisions is thus an estimated $35,000.

Achieving compliance with the hygiene provisions of the revised standard may involve additional costs at some establishments. PACE estimated that the necessary expansion of showering facilities would cost about $90,000 per establishment, which is an annualized cost of about $14,650. In addition, the estimated annual cost per employee associated with showering is $900 and would apply to an estimated 50 additional employees. The total annual industry cost associated with the hygiene provisions is thus estimated to be $103,600.

Incremental costs for recordkeeping are estimated to be about $5 per employee annually. Up to 100 employees may be affected by these requirements which would result in an annual compliance cost of about $500. The training requirements and other information-related requirements are not expected to involve additional compliance costs.

The total annualized costs of compliance with the cadmium standard for this industry are estimated to be $473,400. These costs are summarized by provision in Table VIII-C25.

Economic feasibility of 50-15 ug/m(3) SECALs and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The economic feasibility of the revised cadmium standard for the cadmium pigments industry was analyzed on the basis of the technological feasibility analysis and the projected costs of compliance presented above. The batch production process used to manufacture cadmium pigments limits the applicability of some types of engineering controls. The use of respirators is authorized by the final rule where engineering controls have been implemented to the extent feasible and worker exposures remain above 5 ug/m(3).

The determination of economic feasibility is based on an analysis of the financial and economic impacts of compliance with the revised cadmium standard. The main focus involves impacts on prices and profitability, including an assessment of the elasticity of demand for the industry's product. In addition, consideration is given to effects on competition, employment, capital requirements, industry output, and international trade.

The most important determinant of a regulated industry's pricing flexibility is demand elasticity. The extent to which regulated firms can pass through compliance costs to their customers by increasing prices depends largely on the elasticity of demand. Compliance costs that cannot be recovered through price increases would have to be absorbed from profits. A relatively inelastic demand increases the ability of producers to increase prices without losing sales.


TABLE VIII-C25. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISED CADMIUM
 STANDARD FOR THE PIGMENT PRODUCTION
 INDUSTRY.
_____________________________________
                      | Annualized
                      |   cost
   Provision          | [$thousands]
______________________|______________
Exposure control......|      312.0
Respirator use........|       12.0
Exposure monitoring...|       10.3
Medical surveillance..|       35.0
Hygiene facilities/   |
  practices...........|      103.6
Recordkeeping and     |
  information.........|        0.5
                      |______________
    Total.............|      473.4
______________________|______________
  Note: Costs do not include current
expenditures.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

Factors that influence demand elasticity include the availability of substitutes for the product, the importance of the product in customers' budgets, the degree of technological or contractual dependence of customers, and the importance of price versus non-price attributes of the product.

The typical U.S. cadmium pigment producer earns about $7.5 million in revenues annually [8, p. 4-7]. Profits are estimated to be about 5 percent of revenues [2, p. 7-8], or $375,000 annually. According to industry sources, "U.S. producers utilize facilities with similar processes and scale economies so that compliance with the standard is not likely to result in differences in costs among U.S. producers." [8, p. 4-7].

In order to evaluate the potential impact of compliance with the revised cadmium standard, the maximum effect on prices and profits was determined. Under conditions of inelastic demand, compliance costs could be passed on to customers through higher prices. A price increase of less than 1.6 percent would be sufficient to fully offset the compliance costs. If none of the compliance costs could be recovered by raising prices, then the costs would result in a reduction of profits of 31 percent. The actual result would probably involve a combination of a small rise in prices and a reduction in profits.

The overall demand for cadmium pigments appears to be relatively inelastic due to their superior coloring features and chemical properties. Cadmium pigments inhibit aging, prevent embrittlement, resist migration and interaction with other chemicals, and withstand processing temperatures of up to 600 degrees Celsius. The sum of these properties allows cadmium pigments to be used for coloring all types of plastics and is unattainable by any other class of colorants.

Cadmium pigments are also more expensive than other types of pigments. In some applications, such as the production of low-density polyethylene, the properties of cadmium pigments are not required and less expensive substitutes can be used. Environmental regulations in the U.S. and abroad have also provided incentives to substitute away from cadmium pigments. Where their unique properties are not essential, the use of cadmium pigments has been declining.

The plastics industry is currently the main consumer of cadmium pigments, using about 80 to 90 percent of total consumption. Other applications can be found in the paints, ceramics, and enamel industries. On the whole, the limits of substitution appear to have been reached [4, Part D4, p. 1]. Growth in the overall demand for cadmium pigments should be limited to those applications requiring their use. The total demand is likely to remain relatively inelastic under current technological conditions.

Pigments account for only small percentage of the cost of final products. For example, only about 1.5 percent of plastic by weight is attributable to cadmium pigments. Since plastic resins are relatively expensive, the cost of cadmium pigments contained in the resins amounts to less than 1 percent of the cost of the final product.

Although the total demand for the industry is inelastic on a global scale, the demand for the product of individual firm or a subset of firms would be more elastic due to competitive forces of the market. Since the revised rule affects all firms in the U.S., the total demand for these firms should be evaluated in the context of the presence of foreign competition.

Currently each domestic producer has a market share of over 15 percent [8, p. 2-21]. (A major U.S. production facility producing 5.5 million pounds per year recently closed, allowing competitors to increase market shares and revenues [Ibid.].) Industry sources indicate that imports account for 20 to 30 percent of the U.S. market. The imported pigments reportedly sell for 15 to 30 percent less than domestically produced pigments [8, p. 4-7], signifying that domestic producers are able to maintain sales volumes through some form of product differentiation possibly involving customer service or product quality control. It is not clear whether the higher prices are associated with less efficient production systems, higher production costs, or larger profit margins.

The costs of compliance with the cadmium standard would increase production costs for U.S. producers. However, the magnitude of these costs are not likely to cause a significant impact on the domestic industry because of the relatively small changes in prices and profits that would result. These changes would be overshadowed by more fundamental and substantial developments in the industry, including price changes of raw materials and labor, restrictive environmental regulations in the U.S. and other countries, and changes in demand.

Compliance with the revised cadmium standard is considered to be economically feasible for the pigment manufacturing industry. One U.S. plant recently completed an exposure reduction project which involved over $1 million in capital costs. (The annualized cost is estimated to be about $320,000 [4, Section D-2].) This investment indicates an expectation of profitability and a willingness to remain in the industry despite increased production costs.

NOTES

1. Exhibit 19-40, Dry Color Manufacturers' Association, Comments "Re: Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," May 11, 1990.

2. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

3. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE Incorporated, April 30, 1990.

4. Exhibit 112, "Post-Hearing Documentary Evidence Submission by SCM Chemicals, Inc.", Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & Hamilton, September 18, 1990.

5. Hearing Transcript, p. 5-55, p. 5-56, p. 5-158, p. 5-214, p. 5-221;

June 11, 1990.

6. Exhibit 106, Attachments. 7. Exhibit 112, Attachment E. 8. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment I, "Economic and Technological Feasibility of a 5 Microgram per Cubic Meter Workplace Standard for Airborne Cadmium," Putnam, Hayes, & Bartlett, Inc., April 30, 1990.

Stabilizer Production

Industry overview. Cadmium stabilizers are used primarily in the production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The stabilizers are available in solid and liquid forms and are added to plastic resins to provide heat stability and protection from ultraviolet light. The cadmium content of the stabilizers can range from 1 to 15 percent by weight, and the stabilizers constitute from 0.5 to 2.5 percent of the final PVC compound [1, p. 2-18].

Cadmium stabilizers are currently supplied by four companies operating five plants in the United States [2, Attachment I, p. 3; and 1, p. 4-6], and employing 200 workers with cadmium exposure. The scale of production is similar in the five plants. Three of the four manufacturers are large and diverse chemical companies, and cadmium stabilizers represent a "very small percentage" of their total revenues. The consumption of cadmium in this industry has remained fairly constant since 1978, ranging from about 500 to 650 metric tons per year [1, p. 2-18 and 4-6].

Production processes. The production of cadmium stabilizers involves several steps. The first step is referred to as the reaction step. Cadmium oxide is added to a reaction vessel with one or more organic acids. Other compounds may be added depending on the specific product chemistry desired.

For powdered stabilizers, the reaction step is followed by drying, flaking, and regrinding. Liquid stabilizers are filtered and pumped to blending tanks. Both types of stabilizers may be blended with other substances before being packaged in bulk containers [3, p. 8-1].

Employee exposures. The exposure profile in the preliminary analysis was based on research conducted by JACA Corporation, using data from seven years of sampling results in OSHA's IMIS data base [4, Tables 3-4 and 3-5]. JACA developed separate exposure profiles for workers in the dry and wet processes and these are presented in Table VIII-C26. In the dry process, production workers have estimated mean exposures between 45 ug/m(3) and 65 ug/m(3); in the wet process, mean exposures for production workers are less than 50 ug/m(3). Supervisors and maintenance technicians during both processes are estimated to have mean exposures of less than 5 ug/m(3), but individual samples can vary widely.

The exposure profile developed by PACE [3, p. 8-2] is presented in Table VIII-C27. Seven job categories are listed for solids production, and six of these have estimated mean exposures over 40 ug/m(3). The job category listed for liquid production has an estimated mean exposure of 139 ug/m(3).

One stabilizer manufacturer submitted exposure monitoring data for dry and liquid processes [2, Attachment III]. The samples were collected in cadmium process areas with and without cadmium products running. In addition, the data are disaggregated into categories indicating exposure levels before and after the installation of additional engineering controls, such as improved ventilation and enclosure.


TABLE VIII-C26. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR CADMIUM STABILIZER
                   PRODUCTION BASED ON JACA
__________________________________________________________________
                                |  Concentration in ug/m(3)
                                |_________________________________
     Job category               | Geometric |        |
                                |    mean   | Median |   Range
________________________________|___________|________|____________
                                |           |        |
Dry Process:                    |           |        |
  Solution operator.............|      46.2 |   28.0 |  22.0-160.0
  Dry solids operator...........|      63.0 |  140.0 |   1.0-936.0
  Process supervisor............|       1.1 |    1.1 |     0.1-7.0
  Maintenance technician........|       3.5 |    3.0 | 0.1-1,560.0
Wet process:                    |           |        |
  Solution operator.............|      46.2 |   28.0 |  22.0-160.0
  Maintenance technician........|       3.5 |    3.0 | 0.1-1,560.0
________________________________|___________|________|_____________
  Source: Exhibit 13, JACA, Tables 3-4 and 3-5.


TABLE VIII-C27. -- PROFILE OF OCCUPATIONAL
  EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM IN THE CADMIUM
  STABILIZER INDUSTRY BASED ON PACE
  INCORPORATED
____________________________________________
                                | Geometric
                                |    mean
     Job Category               | exposures
                                | (ug/m(3))
________________________________|___________
                                |
Solids Production:              |
  Cadmium oxide charging........|     126
  Flaker discharge..............|      10
  Crusher.......................|      45
  Grinder.......................|      85
  Rotary dryer..................|     224
  Tote bin unloader.............|      91
  Blender and packager..........|     214
Liquid Production:              |
  Cadmium oxide charging........|     139
________________________________|___________
  Source:  PACE Incorporated, Exhibit 19-43,
Attachment L, Table A8-1.


TABLE VIII-C28. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR CADMIUM STABILIZER
  PRODUCTION BASED ON COMPANY DATA
__________________________________________________________
                        |  Geometric mean concentration
                        |         in ug/m(3)
                        |_________________________________
     Job category       |          |          |  Without
                        |  Before  |  After   | cadmium in
                        | controls | controls |  process
________________________|__________|__________|___________
                        |          |          |
Dry process operator....|    174.8 |..........|      2.9
Dry process blending....|..........|     38.6 |      7.0
Liquid process..........|    117.4 |     24.4 |      1.2
________________________|__________|__________|___________
  Source: Exhibit 19-46, Attachment III, Synthetic Products
Company.

Table VIII-C28 summarizes the data submitted. Mean exposure levels during both types of processes involving cadmium stabilizers are less than 40 ug/m(3) after upgrading controls. Mean exposure levels when cadmium products are not running are 7 ug/m(3) or less for the dry process and under 2 ug/m(3) for the liquid process.

Employee exposures during the production of cadmium stabilizers are generally associated with specific tasks which occur intermittently. The dry process involves batch production; on average exposures to cadmium occur one week per month. Potential exposures during the liquid process are more limited and occur about two hours per week per shift [2, Appendix I, p. 4].

Existing and Feasible Additional Controls. OSHA's preliminary analysis, based on the JACA report [4], described existing controls at the blender and packaging areas of the dry process consisting of local exhaust ventilation hoods connected to a baghouse. Solution operators in the wet process had no controls.

For dry process stabilizer production, JACA recommended the installation of an additional local exhaust ventilation system with a baghouse for dissolver charging operations, and expanded and improved ventilation systems with a new baghouse for the blending and packaging areas. Enclosures and other measures to seal fugitive emissions were recommended for the charging, blending, and packaging areas. Improvements in housekeeping and work practices, including frequent vacuuming or damp mopping, were also recommended for each operation.

For wet process stabilizer production additional controls were recommended for the charging operation. These would include a close-fitting hood at the dissolving vessel connected to a baghouse, as well as improvements in housekeeping and work practices.

PACE Incorporated also provided descriptions of existing and feasible additional controls for both dry and wet process cadmium stabilizer production [3, p. 8-1 through 8-14]. For the dry process, PACE recommended that each reactor in the cadmium oxide charging operation be provided with an automated and enclosed drum-dumping station that would handle and charge the cadmium oxide and then automatically wash, rinse, and dry the empty drums. Existing local exhaust ventilation at this operation would be retained to ventilate the drum dump station and any waste water generated would be handled at existing treatment facilities. PACE noted possible difficulties in applying this technology in this industry and that the projected exposure reductions of over 85 percent "may not be achievable." [3, p. 8-4].

For the flaker operation, PACE recommended improved enclosure at the feed end and a ventilated drum enclosure to control the flaker discharge. Increased attention to housekeeping and work practices were also considered necessary to reduce exposure levels.

According to PACE, exposures could be reduced at the crusher operation by enclosing the feed table and providing backdraft ventilation, sealing fugitive emissions sources, and improving ventilation for the drum enclosure. The grinder operation was considered amenable to total enclosure in a negative pressure area using an additional exhaust ventilation system. Rotary dryer and tote bin unloading operations could be improved by sealing several fugitive emissions sources and by providing enclosures that would make ventilation systems more effective.

Exposure levels during blending and packaging operations could also be reduced. The drum filling station analyzed by PACE was described as "enclosed on three sides and provided with exhaust ventilation." [3, p. 8-9]. The average exposure at this station was estimated to be 214 ug/m(3), including contributions from other sources.

PACE presented recommendations of additional controls for this operation that included an automated drum dumping station with wash, rinse, and drying facilities, and a "completely revised" drum filling operation. These technologies "have been used successfully in other industries" [3, p. 8-4], are available at reasonable cost, and their implementation appears to be feasible in this industry.

In addition to operation-specific controls, PACE recommended other measures for reducing exposures during solids production. All interior surfaces of the building would be steam cleaned and painted to reduce the presence of residual materials. High-efficiency secondary filtration would be added to the exhaust discharges of all new and existing fabric filters to reduce cadmium emissions to the environment (and possibly intake concentrations). A clean production facility with a good housekeeping program can contribute to keeping exposures low.

One manufacturer submitted comments indicating that existing controls in the wet process include a recently upgraded ventilation system, standardized work practices, and the use of a central vacuum system. The company does "not envision that levels could be reduced much below" current exposure levels (below 25 ug/m(3)) in the wet process. In the dry process the blending and packaging operations have recently been completely redesigned and include improved ventilation systems, screws for transfer of material, enclosed bag compactors, and the use of a central vacuum cleaner. [2, Appendix I, p. 7]. Testimony from a cadmium stabilizer producer indicated that lower exposures can be expected for the dry process operator as a result of further engineering controls [11].

Technological Feasibility Limit for a SECAL. Following the procedure outlined in Section B above, OSHA separated exposures into high and low occupation/process exposure groups to facilitate analysis. Exposure data were divided such that the difference between the mean values for the two separated data sets, was maximized.

Data segregation resulted in the identification of a high occupation/process exposure group which included cadmium oxide charging, drying, crushing and blending operations (job categories in solids and liquids cadmium stabilizer production). These operations involve about 25 percent of employee exposures, representing about 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. All remaining occupations/processes in this sector, involving about 150 FTE workers, were in the low exposure category. Figure VIII-C17 presents the high and low exposure categories in a "box and whisker" graph.

Mean exposure data for the two sets were as follows:

__________________________________________________________
                         | High Group   |    Low Group
_________________________|______________|_________________
                         |              |
Number of Observations...|     13       |         6
Mean.....................|    116.3     |         3.2
Standard Deviation.......|     67.4     |         2.15
_________________________|______________|_________________

To verify that the two groups within this industry were distinct a t text was performed on the difference in the means. Even with the small sample and the large standard deviation for the high group the t statistic was 3.7. In this case, there was less than a six percent probability that the t statistic would be larger than 2.0 if the means were equal. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the means of the exposure data were equal was rejected, and the conclusion that they were drawn from separate statistical distribution was accepted.

After the statistical difference between high and low exposure groups was verified, the data were analyzed separately. In Figures VIII-C18 and VIII-C19 process mean exposure values were drawn from available data sources. The mean values for each group were "fitted" to a straight line using ordinary least squares methodology. For the high exposed cadmium group over one-half of the mean exposure values are above 100 ug/m(3) (Figure VIII-C18). All exposures in the low group are below 10 ug/m(3).


    Figure VIII-C17  - STABILIZERS

(For Figure VIII-C17, Click Here) Figure VIII-C18 - STABILIZERS (HIGH EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C18, Click Here) Figure VIII-C19 - STABILIZERS (LOW EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C19, Click Here)

For each group a model was developed to graphically show the effect on the exposure distribution after current exposures were reduced using alternative engineering control efficiency factors of 80 percent down to 20 percent, in 20 percent increments. The higher the efficiency level, the lower the projected exposure level and the closer the projected exposure line moves to the vertical axis. Figures VIII-C20 and VIII-C21 show the reduction and shift in the distribution of exposures for the high and low groups in stabilizer operations.

The selection of an appropriate engineering control reduction factor was based on evidence and testimony in the record and economic feasibility considerations.

The evidence in the record substantiates the finding that additional feasible controls are available and can be implemented to further reduce exposure levels. The extent of current controls in place and the applicability of specific additional controls will vary depending on the individual plant, but the relevant comments in the record all basically agree that a multitude of control options exists to limit airborne cadmium concentrations. These are generally conventional technologies that are commonly known, readily available, and to some degree currently used in the industry, as described above.

Analysis developed by JACA projected exposures of less than 5 ug/m(3) after the implementation of engineering controls in most liquid and dry processes [4, pp. 3-13, 3-15, 4-12].


    Figure VIII-C20  - STABILIZERS (HIGH EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C20, Click Here) Figure VIII-C21 - STABILIZERS (LOW EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C21, Click Here)

NIOSH stated in their testimony that the production of liquid and solid formulations should be controllable to 5 ug/m(3) through engineering containment and ventilation [5, p. 10]. NIOSH draws upon decades of industrial hygiene experience and hundreds of exposure control studies in making such evaluations [6], and characterizes stabilizer manufacture as "a typical batch chemical manufacturing process" [5, p. 27]. Mean exposures projected by PACE are 10 ug/m(3) or less for six out of eight job categories identified [3, p. 8-2].

Air monitoring data recently submitted to the record by a cadmium stabilizer manufacturer using the dry process, show that two of the four samples for blending and packing operations taken while running cadmium products were less than 15 ug/m(3). The geometric mean of all personal samples taken during blending and packing was less than 14 ug/m(3), and if two outliers above 99 ug/m(3) are excluded the mean is less than 9 ug/m(3) [7, Attachment 3]. Mean exposures when cadmium products are not running are reported to be less than 8 ug/m(3) in all job categories [2, Attachment III]; these conditions would apply to about 75 percent of the workdays [2, Appendix I, p. 3].

Significant exposures were reported for one operation in the wet process (charging CdO) [7, Attachment 4]. This operation occurs for about two hours per week per shift or for about 5 percent of the total hours for one job category [2, Attachment I, p. 4]. The mean exposure during this periodic operation is less than 25 ug/m(3); mean exposures at other times and in other operations are less than 2 ug/m(3) [2, Attachment III].

Based on exposure control information supplied by one stabilizer company, reduction levels of 60 - 80 percent appear to be technologically feasible. For example, company results for liquid process controls reported in Table VIII-C28 showed a 79.2 percent reduction in cadmium (mean concentrations fell from 117.4 ug/m(3) to 24.4 ug/m(3) after controls were introduced).

Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA believes that an engineering control reduction level of 60 - 80 percent is reasonable for this industry segment and is economically feasible. The cost of engineering controls for this industry (discussed below) do not appear to represent a significant financial burden. Therefore, the engineering control reduction target of 60 - 80 percent is judged to be economically feasible.

Following the selection of this efficiency factor, the appropriate engineering control level for each exposure group was identified at the point achievable for 60 - 80 percent of the exposure observations. For the high processes including cadmium oxide charging, drying, crushing and blending operations, a SECAL of 50 ug/m(3) is identified. For all low exposed processes, OSHA believes that the PEL level of 5 ug/m(3) is achievable through engineering controls.

For the high exposure group, compliance with the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) with engineering controls and work practices is infeasible at this time and can only be achieved through the use of respirators. Respirators are readily available with a wide range of protection factors that can adequately protect workers from the potential exposures in this industry. Respiratory protection will be required for some production and maintenance employees full-time.

Costs of Compliance with a 50 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Compliance with the revised cadmium rule includes costs for additional engineering controls, increased respirator use, more comprehensive exposure monitoring and medical surveillance programs, hygiene provisions, information and training, and record keeping requirements. Estimated compliance costs are measured from a baseline of current practices and do not include current or past expenditures.

JACA estimated that the cost of installing new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems in this industry would range from $51,000 to $112,000. Annual operating and maintenance costs were estimated to be 10 percent of the capital cost. [4, Table 6-1]. JACA also estimated that a typical dry process plant would need to install two such systems and that a typical wet process plant would need to install one such system.

New ventilation systems recommended by PACE for this industry are estimated to cost between $20,000 and $60,000 each, and three such systems are recommended per dry process plant. Improvements in ventilation systems, costing about $10,000 or less, would be needed, on average, at three additional stations. Annual costs associated with ventilation systems are generally about 5 percent of the capital costs. Drum dumping stations are estimated to cost $90,000 each, with annual expenses for power, heat, maintenance, and labor of less than 10 percent of the capital cost. Four such stations were recommended for dry process plants and one was recommended for wet process plants. Enclosures, hoods, valves, and other recommended emission controls generally cost less than $5,000, but range up to $16,000 for the total enclosure of the grinder platform.

Comments received from one manufacturer supported the cost data used in OSHA's preliminary analysis (although the effectiveness of the controls in achieving levels below 5 ug/m(3) was contested). This company also stated that the "costs developed in the PACE report to attain cadmium in air levels of between 10 and 25 ug/m(3) have been reviewed by us and are considered to be adequate 'ball park' numbers." [2, Appendix I, p. 10]. The company noted that the "technologies given in the PACE report ... are more sophisticated" than those implemented by the company and "yield only slightly lower estimated levels than we have attained but at a significantly larger investment." Thus, with the controls recommended by PACE, "we are in the realm of diminishing returns." [2, Appendix I, p. 10]. OSHA agrees with this assessment and believes that some expensive controls recommended by PACE may not achieve exposure reductions sufficient to justify their implementation.

In practice, each plant will be able to choose the combination of controls deemed necessary for compliance which is most cost-effective and best suited for its particular circumstances. However, in order to estimate the cost to cadmium stabilizer producers of installing additional engineering controls, the number of such controls for a typical plant was estimated. Controls used to estimate costs are based on evidence in the record indicating their effectiveness and feasibility for this industry.

Table VIII-C29 summarizes the costs of engineering controls estimated to be incurred by cadmium stabilizer producers. Two new ventilation systems at $80,000 each would be installed in dry process plants, and one would be installed in wet process plants. Some plants may spend an equivalent sum for new or improved ventilation systems at several exposure sources, as described in the PACE report. PACE identified additions or improvements in ventilation for at least five operations with a total cost of less than $150,000 [3, Table A8-4]. In addition, existing ventilation systems in this industry may be amenable to design improvements that would be "relatively minor in scope but would provide a significant improvement in dust control" (costing less than $1,500 and reducing emissions by 70 percent) according to PACE [3, p. 8-8 and Table A8-3].

Comments received from one manufacturer indicated that central vacuum systems were recently installed and in use at both the dry and wet process plants operated by the company [2, Appendix I, p. 7]. The plant visited by PACE apparently did not have such a system in place, and PACE recommended a system costing over $30,000. OSHA estimates that on average plants would install one central vacuum system (or incur equivalent expenditures for housekeeping or other additional controls) with a unit cost comparable to that estimated previously.


TABLE VIII-C29. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR
                   CADMIUM IN THE CADMIUM STABILIZER INDUSTRY
___________________________________________________________________________
               | Controls per plant |          |    Controls per control
               | by type of plant(1)|          |    (dollars in thousands)
Type of        |____________________|  Total   |___________________________
 control       |      |      |      | industry |         | Annual  |
               |   A  |   B  |  C   | controls |         | power   |
               |      |      |      |   (2)    | Capital |  and    | Annual
               |      |      |      |          |         | mainte- |  labor
               |      |      |      |          |         |  nance  |
_______________|______|______|______|__________|_________|_________|_______
               |      |      |      |          |         |         |
Local exhaust  |      |      |      |          |         |         |
 ventilation...|   3  |    1 |    2 |      10  |     80  |      8  |     0
Central vacuum |      |      |      |          |         |         |
 systems.......|   1  |    1 |    1 |       5  |     15  |      1  |     7
Enclosure......|   3  |    3 |    3 |      15  |      9  |      0  |     0
Material       |      |      |      |          |         |         |
 handling      |      |      |      |          |         |         |
 technology:   |      |      |      |          |         |         |
  Equipment....|   5  |    1 |    4 |      16  |      90 |      9  |     0
  New drums....|   1  |    1 |    1 |       5  |     200 |      0  |     0
               |      |      |      |          |         |         |
     Total.....|......|......|......|..........|.........|.........|......
_______________|______|______|______|__________|_________|_________|_______
  Footnote(1) Type A plant wet and dry processes; Type B plant; wet process
only; Type C plant dry process only.
  Footnote(2) Based on two type A plants, two type B plants, and one type C
plant.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.


TABLE VIII-C29. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR
  CADMIUM IN THE CADMIUM STABILIZER INDUSTRY (continued)
_______________________________________________________________________
               | Industry costs (dollars in thousands)    |  Total
               |__________________________________________| Annualized
               |        |            |   Annual  |        |  industry
  Type of      |        | Annualized | power and | Annual |    cost
  control      |Capital |  capital   |maintenance| labor  |(dollars in
               |        |            |           |        | thousands)
_______________|________|____________|___________|________|____________
               |        |            |           |        |
Local exhaust  |        |            |           |        |
 ventilation...|    800 |       130  |       80  |      0 |      210
Central vacuum |        |            |           |        |
 systems.......|     75 |        12  |        5  |     35 |       52
Enclosure......|    135 |        22  |        0  |      0 |       22
Material       |        |            |           |        |
 handling      |        |            |           |        |
 technology:   |        |            |           |        |
  Equipment....|  1,440 |       234  |      144  |      0 |      378
  New drums....|  1,000 |       163  |        0  |      0 |      163
               |________|____________|___________|________|____________
     Total.....|  3,450 |       561  |      229  |     35 |      825
_______________|________|____________|___________|________|____________
  Footnote(1) Type A plant wet and dry processes; Type B plant; wet
process only; Type C plant dry process only.
  Footnote(2) Based on two type A plants, two type B plants, and one
type C plant.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

Improvements in enclosure and containment have been shown to be effective and feasible methods for reducing exposures from several sources in this industry [3, p. 8-4 through 8-14]. Most improvements cost less than $2,000; total enclosure of the grinder platform may cost over $16,000 and also require the use of a closed circuit monitoring system [3, Table A8-4]. OSHA estimates that on average each plant would incur costs of $27,000 for enclosures, valves, flanges, and similar improvements to reduce exposures.

About half of the total compliance costs estimated by PACE for this industry involve improvements in material handling technology, primarily with automatic drum dumping stations. Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA concludes that the adoption of such technology would generally be feasible for this industry (although not necessarily in every establishment). As outlined by PACE [3, p. 8-4 et seq.], the stations would cost $90,000 each. At the plant level, four stations would be used for each dry process and one station for each wet process. In addition, new drums would need to be purchased at a cost of about $200,000.

Total estimated costs for engineering controls, including ventilation and vacuum systems, enclosures, and automated material handling technology, would involve $3.45 million in capital costs and $264,000 annually for power, maintenance, and labor. The corresponding total annualized cost would be $825,000.

Additional costs of compliance for this industry are associated with expanded exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and respirator programs, and with hygiene facilities and record keeping. Current efforts involving information and training programs should be sufficient for compliance with the revised standard.

Evidence in the record from two cadmium stabilizer plants (one dry process and one wet process) shows that all employees exposed to cadmium are currently using respiratory protection to supplement engineering controls [7, Attachments 3 & 4]. OSHA also recognizes that not all employees in the industry are likely to be wearing respirators for all exposures of 5 ug/m(3) or greater. Most employees in the industry will probably need respirators to comply with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3), and OSHA estimates that an additional 20 percent of the work force would need to be supplied with respiratory protection.

In the preliminary analysis OSHA estimated that about 200 employees were potentially exposed in this industry. One commenter pointed out that the subsequent reduction in the number of cadmium stabilizer suppliers from six to four "has reduced the number of exposed employees" [2, Attachment I, p. 2]. During the hearings it was suggested by one manufacturer that a total of 200 employees for the industry "might be a little bit low." [8]. Considering that employees producing cadmium stabilizers also produce non-cadmium products, 200 employees seems to provide a reasonable estimate of the number of exposed workers. Using a cost of $300 per employee per year [9, Attachment III, p. 1], the total annual cost of additional respiratory protection is estimated to be $12,000.

Exposure monitoring is required by the revised standard for every job category and every shift semi-annually. Data submitted to the record suggests that some monitoring is currently being performed and that additional monitoring would likely be necessary [7, Attachments 3 & 4]. OSHA estimates that on average each plant would have to monitor four job categories (including maintenance workers and supervisors) across three shifts [10] and that current monitoring accounts for about 20 percent of that required.

The costs of monitoring are estimated to be $40 per sample taken and $1,500 annually per plant for the services of an industrial hygienist or other competent person. The total cost of the additional monitoring required by the standard is thus estimated to be $11,340 [$40*4*3*2*5*0.8+5*$1500].

Evidence submitted to the record by the cadmium stabilizer industry consistently shows that employees are currently receiving medical exams and biological testing [2, p. 2; 7, Attachments 1 & 2; 12]. This evidence also indicates that biological testing would have to be performed more frequently to comply with the provisions of the revised standard.

OSHA estimates that an additional 100 samples each for cadmium in blood, cadmium in urine, and B(2)-microglobulin in urine would need to be taken annually to meet the basic requirements for biological monitoring. Another 40 sets of these samples may be necessary to meet requirements for more frequent testing of some employees. The lab analyses would cost $60, $60, and $80 per sample, respectively, and the estimated cost of collection is $5 per sample. The total additional annual cost of biological monitoring for the industry is estimated to be $30,100.

Requirements for medical removal may involve compliance costs in addition to those for more frequent medical exams and monitoring estimated above. The criteria for mandatory removal would affect employees with the most extreme biological monitoring levels. The criteria for removal also allow for considerable physician's discretion. An estimated 3 percent of the exposed workforce of 200 employees may be removed initially on the basis of these criteria and the discretion of physicians.

Compliance with the new PEL for cadmium and other requirements of the final cadmium standard should prevent a continuing need to remove employees. The number of employees with relatively high past exposures who would be more likely to be removed should also decline through attrition. However, as the criteria for removal become broader in future years (lower levels of cadmium in blood and urine triggering mandatory removal), additional employees may be subject to removal. The costs associated with the medical removal provisions are estimated based on 3 percent of the exposed workforce being removed every 5 years.

The number of employees removed should be small enough to enable establishments to provide removed employees with alternative positions. Costs to the employer would include paying possible wage differentials and hiring and training employees in new positions. The average cost per removed employee would be an estimated $5,000. An estimated 6 employees may be removed every five years on average in the cadmium stabilizer industry, and the average annual cost for the industry would be $6,000.

The total annual cost for the medical surveillance and medical removal provisions is estimated at $36,100.

Achieving compliance with the hygiene provisions of this standard may involve some additional costs for this industry. OSHA's preliminary conclusions regarding compliance with the proposed hygiene provisions were generally not challenged by industry. OSHA estimated that work clothing and appropriate shower and lunch facilities were already provided and that half of the affected workers currently do not shower after each shift. Under these assumptions, the cost of providing showers would be about $225 per employee per year (assuming employees are typically exposed for one week per month), or $22,500 annually for the industry.

PACE assigned over $16,000 in annual compliance costs for providing workers with daily changes of clean work clothes [3, p. 8-14], but did not add any costs for showering or for lunch rooms. A commenter from another industry stated that disposable work clothing could be provided for an annual cost of $104 per employee [9, Attachment III, p. 1].

OSHA concludes that the hygiene provisions are generally complied with in this industry but may not be consistently applied in all plants. On average each plant may incur an incremental cost of $10,000 to achieve full compliance with the revised standard. The total estimated annual cost for the industry would be $50,000.

Incremental recordkeeping costs imposed by the revised standard are estimated to be about $5 per employee annually. The estimated annual cost for the industry is $1,000.

Compliance costs for the stabilizer industry are summarized in Table VIII-C30. The total annualized cost of compliance is estimated to be $935,000.

Economic feasibility of a 50 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The compliance costs estimated above are considered economically feasible for the cadmium stabilizer industry. Most of the costs should be able to be passed on to customers through slight price increases. Cadmium stabilizers are essential or preferred over other types of stabilizers in several applications; the lack of adequate substitutes with the qualities of cadmium stabilizers should ensure a continued demand for this product.

Plants producing cadmium stabilizers generally produce other products as well, including potential substitutes, and cadmium stabilizers may represent a small fraction of a manufacturer's revenues. For three of the four U.S. manufacturers "cadmium-based stabilizers represent a very small percentage of total revenues." [1, p. 4-6]. The remaining company "derives 35 percent of its revenues from sales of cadmium-based stabilizer products." [1, p. 4-6]. Although increased production costs resulting from compliance with the revised cadmium standard are not expected to be subsidized by unrelated operations within a corporation, most firms do have the ability to absorb the compliance costs as part of operating costs for producing "revenues that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually." [1, p. 2-19].


TABLE VIII-C30. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH
  THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE CADMIUM
  STABILIZER INDUSTRY
____________________________________________________
                                    |  Annualized
            Provision               |     cost
                                    | ($thousands)
____________________________________|_______________
                                    |
Exposure control....................|      825.0
Respirator use......................|       12.0
Exposure monitoring.................|       11.3
Medical surveillance................|       36.1
Hygiene provisions..................|       50.0
Recordkeeping and information.......|        1.0
                                    |_______________
Total...............................|      935.4
____________________________________|_______________
  Note: Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor.

An increase in the cost of producing cadmium stabilizers can also be compared to total revenues and profits derived from product lines manufactured with or closely related to cadmium stabilizers. The ability to offer a complete array of products attracts customers who prefer to deal with one supplier for all their needs. Manufacturers tend to assess the viability of producing a group of products together and would treat the compliance cost as an increase in operating costs for the whole group, especially when multiple products are made at the same plant.

Revenues from cadmium stabilizers alone are about $23 million for one company [1, p. 2-19]. All four U.S. firms have a similar scale of production [1, p. 4-6], and total industry revenues from cadmium stabilizers are estimated to be $92 million. Cadmium stabilizers represent about 36 percent of the stabilizer market [4, p. 2-54], which is estimated to be worth about $256 million annually.

Profits before taxes are estimated to be about 9 percent, consistent with the estimate used for the preliminary analysis. No comments were received disputing this figure, and no other profitability data for this industry were submitted to the record. Before-tax profits for the production of stabilizers are an estimated $23 million, of which $8.3 million are attributable to the production of cadmium stabilizers.

The estimated compliance costs represent less than 0.4 percent of stabilizer revenues (or about 1 percent of cadmium stabilizer revenues). The costs also represent about 4 percent of before-tax stabilizer profits (or about 11 percent of before-tax cadmium stabilizer profits). Actual effects on profits should be less than this depending upon the elasticity of demand for the industry's product.

The "dominant, almost exclusive market" for cadmium stabilizers is for the production of flexible PVC [13], and the stabilizers constitute between 0.5 and 2.5 percent of the final PVC compound [1, p. 2-18]. Because cadmium stabilizers make up a small fraction of PVC compounds, a small increase in cadmium stabilizer prices would have a minimal effect on the cost of manufacturing PVC products. This would tend to make the demand for cadmium stabilizers less elastic, improving the ability of stabilizer producers to recover compliance costs by increasing prices.

Imports currently constitute an "insignificant fraction" of total domestic supply, and distribution channels are "quite important" because the shelf life of cadmium stabilizers is limited. [1, p. 2-19]. This factor also contributes to an inelastic demand for cadmium stabilizers.

"At present no good substitutes exist" for most cadmium stabilizer applications, and "cadmium usage is expected to remain at current levels." [1, p. 2-18]. The lack of adequate substitutes provides strong evidence for the inelasticity of demand for these products.

OSHA concludes that manufacturers of cadmium stabilizers will be able to raise prices sufficiently to recoup compliance costs without major reductions in profits or sales volumes. The regulation does not threaten the financial viability or the competitive stability of the industry. Cost impacts from this regulation are not expected to result in any plant closures or produce any significant dislocation.

A study was conducted by an industry trade association on the economic impacts for this industry of compliance costs representing as much as 2 percent of revenues from stabilizer operations [1, p. 9, 10]. The study found that with "the lack of close substitutes, the lack of cost differentials among existing producers, and the relatively small share of these stabilizers in the cost of PVC resins, stabilizer producers should be able to pass costs through to PVC plastic manufacturers." [1, p. 4-6]. A cadmium stabilizer producer reported that they had reviewed this study and concurred with the findings [2, Appendix I, p. 10].

The cost increase due to this regulation would have a negligible effect on major investment decisions (such as relocating manufacturing operations), which are influenced by more significant factors of production cost.


SOURCES

1.  Exhibit 19-43, Attachment I, "Economic and Technological Feasibility
    of a 5 Microgram per Cubic Meter Workplace Standard for Airborne
    Cadmium," Putnam, Hayes, & Bartlett, Inc., April 30, 1990.
2.  Exhibit 19-46, Comments "RE: Occupational Exposure to Cadmium 29 CFR
    1910," Synthetic Products Company, May 2, 1990.
3.  Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of
    Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE
    Incorporated, April 30, 1990.
4.  Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the
    Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.
5.  Exhibit 57, Testimony of NIOSH, July 17, 1990.
6.  Hearing Transcript, July 17, 1990, p. 8-112 and 8-113.
7.  Exhibit 102, Comments "RE: Occupational Exposure to Cadmium 29 CFR
    1910," Synthetic Products Company, September 17, 1990.
8.  Hearing Transcript, June 12, 1990, p. VI-81.
9.  Exhibit 19-30, Big River Zinc Corporation, "Comments on OSHA Proposed
    Cadmium Regulation," May 10, 1990.
10. Hearing Transcript, June 12, 1990, p. VI-94 and VI-118.
11. Hearing Transcript, June 12, 1990, p. VI-119.
12. Hearing Transcript, June 12, 1990, p. VI-99.
13. Hearing Transcript, June 12, 1990, p. VI-97.

Lead Smelting and Refining

Industry overview. Lead ore is recovered from underground and open pit mines around the world. The United States is one of the largest producers and consumers of the soft, heavy metal which has many important industrial uses. Lead ores are crushed and milled into lead concentrates before being sent to smelting operations.

Four lead smelters and/or refiners are currently operating in the United States. Two plants are both smelters and refiners, one plant is a smelter only, and one plant is a refiner only [1, p. 2-26 and 2, p. 3]. Two additional lead smelters were formerly active but have suspended operations. About 400 employees working in this industry sector are exposed to cadmium.

Production processes. Lead concentrates and other materials are received and transported with rail cars and cranes to provide the inputs necessary for producing lead. Multiple conveyors and storage bins are also used for materials handling throughout the plant. A preliminary step in the production process involves mixing and crushing raw materials in preparation for sintering. The sintering operation converts lead sulfides to agglomerated lead oxides. As the mixture is processed by the sintering machine, gases are produced which are used to make acids in another operation.

The sintered material is transferred to the blast furnace which is charged with coke, fluxes, and other materials. The blast furnace reduces the lead oxides to form lead bullion, which is further processed in the dross furnace to remove copper and other elements. The lead bullion produced by the dross furnace becomes the raw material for the lead refining process.

Lead refining involves several steps in which the lead bullion is processed through refining kettles to separate out other metals and remove any remaining impurities. Copper, silver, and zinc are removed and may be refined further in separate operations. The end product of the lead refining process is virtually pure lead which can be fed into a strip rolling mill or a straight line casting machine, depending on the type of product desired. The lead may also be combined with alloy materials before casting.

Employee exposures. Exposures to cadmium arise in the lead smelting and refining process because the lead concentrates received by plants contain small amounts of cadmium which exist naturally in the environment. Loose materials are transferred in large quantities and intense heat and rapid gas flows are used in the production process; emissions of lead and cadmium result in exposures in the work environment.

Employees may be exposed to cadmium in several job categories and operations. Material handlers are exposed to dusts generated by unloading railroad cars, operating cranes and conveyor systems, or loading and retrieving materials in stockpiles. Employees in the sinter plant are exposed to dusts generated by mixing and transferring materials. Employees in the furnace areas are exposed to emissions from conveyors, charging operations, tuyere punching (enabling air to enter a blast furnace to facilitate combustion), and filling ten ton pots with molten lead bullion. Fumes generated during refining and casting operations may also contain cadmium. Maintenance employees are exposed to dust and fume that may contain cadmium while working on equipment throughout the plant and on dust control systems including baghouse operations.

The exposure profile developed by JACA Corporation to represent a typical lead smelting and refining plant is presented in Table VIII-C31 [1, page 3-27]. Mean cadmium exposures for six of the seven job categories are less than 7 ug/m(3); all job categories have mean exposures less than 14 ug/m(3).

Exposure monitoring data were submitted for three lead smelting and/or refining plants by one company [2, Attachment I]. Data for a lead smelter are summarized in Table VIII-C32; data for a lead smelter and refiner are summarized in Table VIII-C33; and data for a lead refiner are summarized in Table VIII-C34. At each of these plants mean exposures for most workers are less 5 ug/m(3), and almost all exposures are less than 20 ug/m(3).

A study conducted for the Cadmium Council included an exposure profile for workers at a large lead smelting and refining facility [3, Tables IV-1 through IV-6]. These data are shown in Table VIII-C35. Thirty of the 47 job categories have current mean exposures less than 20 ug/m(3), and 37 have exposures less than 30 ug/m(3).


TABLE VIII-31. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR LEAD SMELTING AND
                  REFINING BASED ON JACA
__________________________________________________________________
                                 |   Concentration in ug/m(3)
                                 |________________________________
                                 | Geometric |        |
    Job category                 |   mean    | Median |   Range
_________________________________|___________|________|___________
                                 |           |        |
Furnace operator.................|      4.5  |    5.8 |  0.1-92.0
Material handler.................|      3.4  |    3.5 |  0.1-39.0
Maintenance technician...........|      6.6  |    4.2 |  0.1-92.0
Supervisor.......................|      9.1  |    2.4 |  0.1-39.0
Sinter machine operator..........|     13.1  |    9.0 | 0.8-174.0
Mixing room operator.............|      6.2  |    4.6 | 0.1-453.0
Refinery operator................|      0.6  |    0.7 |   0.1-5.0
_________________________________|___________|________|__________
  Source: Exhibit 13, JACA, Table 3-9.



TABLE VIII-C32. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR LEAD SMELTER BASED
                   ON COMPANY DATA
_______________________________________________________________________
                          |         Concentration in ug/m(3)
                          |____________________________________________
                          |           |     Number of samples
    Job category          | Geometric |________________________________
                          |   mean    |    |     |      |       |
                          |           | < 1 | 1-5 | 5-20 | 20-50 | >50
__________________________|___________|____|_____|______|_______|______
                          |           |    |     |      |       |
General:                  |           |    |     |      |       |
  Assayer.................|      < 1   | 13 |   3 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Instrument Man..........|       2   |  2 |  13 |    1 |    0  |   0
  Change House Attd.......|      < 1   | 19 |   5 |    1 |    0  |   0
Transport/Unloading:      |           |    |     |      |       |
  Foreman.................|       1   |  7 |   3 |    1 |    0  |   0
  Crane operator..........|       3   |  3 |   8 |    3 |    0  |   1
  Moisture sampler........|       1   |  3 |   5 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Sampler.................|       2   |  1 |  10 |    0 |    1  |   0
  Bucker..................|      < 1   | 13 |   3 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Mill tender.............|       2   |  1 |   7 |    2 |    0  |   0
  Crusherman..............|       2   |  2 |   5 |    2 |    0  |   0
  Plateman................|      < 1   |  5 |   2 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Backhoe operator........|       2   |  7 |   6 |    2 |    0  |   1
  Loco crane helper.......|       8   |  0 |   9 |    2 |    3  |   2
  Car dumper..............|       3   |  0 |  10 |    1 |    0  |   0
  Beltman.................|       5   |  0 |   2 |    3 |    0  |   0
  Screen floor man........|       2   |  2 |   7 |    1 |    1  |   0
  Car puller..............|       3   |  1 |   9 |    4 |    0  |   0
Mechanical/Maintenance:   |           |    |     |      |       |
  Foreman.................|       2   | 15 |  15 |    2 |    0  |   0
  Machinist...............|       2   | 16 |  16 |    7 |    2  |   1
  Mechanic................|      < 1   | 18 |   4 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Blacksmith..............|       2   |  2 |   6 |    1 |    0  |   0
  Pipefitter..............|       2   |  7 |  14 |    7 |    0  |   1
  Carpenter...............|       2   | 11 |  16 |    3 |    1  |   0
  Painter.................|      < 1   |  5 |   2 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Mason...................|       2   |  3 |   9 |    2 |    1  |   0
  Electrician.............|       3   | 10 |  17 |    9 |    3  |   1
  Welder..................|       3   | 12 |  23 |   13 |    1  |   2
  Oiler...................|      11   |  0 |   3 |    4 |    1  |   1
  Tool room man...........|      < 1   |  3 |   0 |    0 |    0  |   1
  Insulator...............|      < 1   |  9 |   3 |    1 |    0  |   1
Blast Furnace Department: |           |    |     |      |       |
  Foreman.................|       4   |  2 |  14 |    6 |    2  |   0
  Furnaceman..............|      17   |  0 |   3 |   11 |    3  |   7
  Loco engineer...........|       3   |  4 |  30 |    9 |    3  |   1
  Feed Floor hoistman.....|      20   |  1 |   8 |    2 |    6  |   8
  Front end loader........|       3   |  7 |  10 |    7 |    0  |   0
  Slag dumper.............|       1   |  1 |   2 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Slag Hauler.............|      < 1   |  3 |   0 |    0 |    0  |   0
Sinter Plant:             |           |    |     |      |       |
  Foreman.................|       1   | 10 |  12 |    2 |    0  |   0
  Crane man...............|       3   |  2 |  13 |    8 |    1  |   0
  Operator................|       7   |  4 |   3 |   11 |    3  |   2
  Helper..................|      12   |  1 |   1 |    6 |    3  |   1
  Machineman..............|      19   |  0 |   3 |    9 |    8  |   5
  Feederman...............|       9   |  1 |   9 |    8 |    2  |   4
Baghouse Man..............|      10   |  0 |   6 |    1 |    2  |   2
Dross Reverb Department:  |           |    |     |      |       |
  Furnaceman..............|       3   |  5 |  11 |    7 |    2  |   0
  Furnace helper..........|       3   |  3 |  15 |    4 |    1  |   1
  Crane man...............|      < 1   | 15 |   8 |    1 |    0  |   0
  Bullion man.............|       4   |  1 |  16 |    5 |    1  |   2
Zinc Fuming Department:   |           |    |     |      |       |
  Crane man...............|      < 1   |  9 |   0 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Furnaceman..............|      < 1   |  1 |   0 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Ladie chaser............|      < 1   |  8 |   1 |    0 |    0  |   0
Yard Department:          |           |    |     |      |       |
  Foreman.................|       2   |  0 |   5 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Front end loader........|       2   |  9 |  14 |    5 |    0  |   1
  Power sweeper operator..|       2   |  6 |   5 |    0 |    1  |   0
  Adobeman................|       2   |  0 |   8 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Laborer.................|       6   |  0 |   2 |    0 |    1  |   0
  Janitor.................|       7   |  1 |   3 |    3 |    1  |   1
  Breaking floor labor....|       4   |  1 |   4 |    4 |    0  |   0
  Break floor crane man...|       2   |  2 |   5 |    1 |    0  |   0
  Water truck operator....|      < 1   |  7 |   2 |    0 |    0  |   0
Acid Plant:               |           |    |     |      |       |
  Foreman.................|      < 1   |  6 |   2 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Operator................|      < 1   | 20 |   3 |    0 |    0  |   1
  Assistant operator......|      < 1   | 14 |   7 |    2 |    0  |   0
  Cottrellman.............|       6   |  0 |   4 |    3 |    1  |   0
  Acid loader.............|      < 1   |  8 |   0 |    0 |    0  |   0
  Dust loader.............|       6   |  1 |   2 |    5 |    1  |   0
Sample Man................|       1   |  5 |   7 |    0 |    0  |   0
__________________________|___________|____|_____|______|_______|_______
  Source: Exhibit 19-32, Attachment f.


TABLE VIII-C33. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR LEAD SMELTER  AND REFINER
                   BASED ON COMPANY DATA
_______________________________________________________________________
                          |         Concentration in ug/m(3)
                          |____________________________________________
                          |           |     Number of samples
    Job category          | Geometric |________________________________
                          |   mean    |    |     |      |       |
                          |           | < 1 | 1-5 | 5-20 | 20-50 | >50
__________________________|___________|____|_____|______|_______|______
                          |           |    |     |      |       |
General:                  |           |    |     |      |       |
  Administrative..........|       < 1  |  1 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Laboratory..............|       < 1  |  1 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Utility.................|       < 1  |  7 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Warehouse...............|       < 1  |  8 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
Lead Refinery:            |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  | 18 |   2 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Foreman.................|       < 1  |  1 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Craneman................|       < 1  | 21 |   1 |    2 |     0 |    0
  Kettleman...............|       < 1  | 22 |   4 |    0 |     0 |    0
Transport/Unloading:      |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  7 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Diesel engine operator..|        1  |  6 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Switchman...............|       < 1  |  7 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Moisture sampler........|       < 1  |  7 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Sampler.................|       < 1  |  9 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
Mechanical/Maintenance:   |           |    |     |      |       |
  Mechanical/maintenance..|        2  |  3 |   1 |    1 |     0 |    0
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  6 |   2 |    0 |     1 |    0
  Foreman.................|       < 1  |  1 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Painter.................|       < 1  |  3 |   2 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Electrician.............|        1  |  7 |   4 |    2 |     0 |    0
  Laborer.................|       < 1  |  1 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
Blast Furnace Department: |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|        3  |  8 |   4 |    3 |     6 |    0
  Foreman.................|       < 1  |  1 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Crane Man...............|        3  |  3 |  15 |    5 |     0 |    0
  Furnaceman..............|        5  |  1 |  11 |   10 |     2 |    0
  Charge car operator.....|        6  |  3 |   7 |    9 |     4 |    1
  Dross skimmer...........|        7  |  1 |   9 |   12 |     0 |    3
Sinter Plant:             |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|        1  | 15 |   9 |    1 |     0 |    1
  Foreman.................|       < 1  |  2 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Crane man...............|       < 1  | 19 |   5 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Operator................|        1  | 11 |  12 |    1 |     0 |    0
  Prop weigher............|        3  |  5 |   8 |    7 |     1 |    1
  Helper..................|        3  |  6 |  13 |    2 |     2 |    1
Baghouse:                 |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  1 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Baghouseman.............|        3  |  1 |   2 |    4 |     0 |    0
  Helper..................|        3  |  0 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
Molding Crew:             |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  | 10 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Molding Crew............|       < 1  | 16 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
 Mechanical/Maintenance...|       10  |  0 |   0 |    2 |     0 |    0
__________________________|___________|____|_____|______|_______|_______
  Source: Exhibit 19-32, Attachment f.


TABLE VIII-C34. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR LEAD REFINER BASED
                   ON COMPANY DATA
_____________________________________________________________________
                          |         Concentration in ug/m(3)
                          |____________________________________________
                          |           |     Number of samples
    Job category          | Geometric |________________________________
                          |   mean    |    |     |      |       |
                          |           | < 1 | 1-5 | 5-20 | 20-50 | >50
__________________________|___________|____|_____|______|_______|______
                          |           |    |     |      |       |
General:                  |           |    |     |      |       |
  Laboratory..............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Assayer.................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Utility.................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Watchman................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
Lead Refinery:            |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Crane man...............|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Softenerman.............|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Kettleman, desilver.....|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Kettleman, dezinc.......|       < 1  |  6 |   2 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Floorman................|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Mechanic................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Dockman.................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Molder..................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Salvage.................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
Transport/Unloading:      |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Leadman.................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Crane Operator..........|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Sampler.................|       < 1  |  2 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Truck driver............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Fork lift driver........|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
Mechanical/Maintenance:   |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Machinist...............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Mechanic................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Blacksmith..............|       < 1  |  5 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Pipefitter..............|       < 1  |  4 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Carpenter...............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Mason...................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Construction man........|       < 1  |  3 |   2 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Kettle welder...........|       < 1  |  4 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Laborer.................|        2  |  1 |   0 |    1 |     0 |    0
Power House:              |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Station tender..........|       < 1  |  8 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Electrician.............|       < 1  |  2 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Oiler...................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Laborer.................|       < 1  |  2 |   0 |    1 |     0 |    0
Residue Department:       |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  7 |   1 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Crane men...............|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Baghouse man............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Furnaceman..............|       < 1  |  5 |   4 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Kettleman...............|       < 1  |  5 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
Bismuth Department:       |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Cupelman................|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Retortman...............|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Kettleman...............|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Mechanic................|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Laborer.................|       < 1  |  4 |   0 |    1 |     0 |    0
Antimony Department:      |           |    |     |      |       |
  Supervisor..............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Oxide operator..........|       < 1  |  9 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
  Oxide packer............|       < 1  |  3 |   0 |    0 |     0 |    0
__________________________|___________|____|_____|______|_______|______
  Source: Exhibit 19-32, Attachment f.


TABLE VIII-C35. -- PROFILE OF
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO CADMIUM IN
THE LEAD SMELTING/REFINING INDUSTRY
BASED ON PHB STUDY
_______________________________________
                          |
    Job category          | Geometric
                          |   mean
                          | exposures
                          |  (ug/m(3)
__________________________|___________
                          |
Material Handling:        |
  Railroad engineer.......|        2
  Railroad conductor......|        5
  Railroad switchman......|       27
  Crane engineer..........|        1
  Crane laborer...........|        1
  Unloader 1..............|       59
  Unloader 2..............|       52
  Unloader helper.........|       29
  Service foreman.........|        3
  Yard pool trestle.......|       19
  Unloader 3..............|       26
  General foreman.........|        1
Sinter Plant:             |
  Control room man........|       17
  SP operator.............|      180
  SP helper...............|      240
  Mix room man............|      420
  Mix room helper.........|      116
  South end man...........|      135
  Foreman.................|       40
  General foreman.........|        1
  Oiler...................|       25
  Feed floor operator.....|      100
Blast Furnace:            |
  Trestle man.............|       14
  Feed floor man..........|       12
  Furnace helper..........|       26
  Head furnace operator...|       10
  Furnace operator........|       14
  Operator helper.........|       19
  Utility man.............|        8
  Crane operator..........|        6
  Foreman.................|        5
  General foreman.........|        2
Dross Plant:              |
  Crane operator..........|        4
  DP operator.............|       20
  DP operator helper......|       17
Refinery:                 |
  Fireman.................|        1
  Fireman helper..........|        2
  Refinery helper.........|        1
  Foreman.................|        1
  General foreman.........|        1
  Retort operator.........|        3
  Caster..................|        1
  Lead loader operator....|        1
  Weigher.................|        1
  Foreman.................|        1
Baghouse Area:            |
  Baghouse operator.......|       41
  Foreman.................|       12
__________________________|_______________
  Source:  Exhibit 19-43, Attachment J,
Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc. Tables IV-1
through IV-6.

Exposures to cadmium in the lead smelting and refining industry were also evaluated by the Bureau of Mines of the United States Department of the Interior [4, p. 7]. These data indicate that for over 80 percent of the workforce mean exposure levels are less than 25 ug/m(3).

Existing and feasible additional controls. JACA concluded in their study that due to the requirements of the OSHA lead standard, the lead smelting industry is already employing engineering controls to the extent feasible to control lead and cadmium exposures [1, p. 4-6]. A company operating two lead smelters confirmed that assessment. [2, Attachment G, p. 3]. The company also emphasized that the controls do not necessarily achieve the PEL for lead or the proposed PEL for cadmium and that the potential impacts of other provisions in the proposed cadmium standard should not be dismissed. In response to OSHA's request in the preamble for information on the extent of existing engineering controls, this company stated that with regard to lead plants, "all feasible engineering controls and housekeeping methods are utilized for control of exposure to arsenic and lead." [2, p. 4]. Exposures to cadmium in this industry occur concomitantly with exposures to lead and/or arsenic.

The study by Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett (PHB) described exposure sources and possibilities for additional controls for a large lead smelter and refiner [3, Chapter III]. However, some suggested controls are not adequately specified, hindering an evaluation of their feasibility, and PHB does not provide any cost estimates for the controls.

PHB found that improvements in the railroad yard could reduce exposures during unloading by over 80 percent. In the sinter plant improvements in enclosure and ventilation were projected to reduce exposures by 50 to 75 percent. According to PHB, new and improved ventilation, enclosure, and automation in the blast furnace area could reduce average exposures by about 50 percent. Improvements in the dross plant could achieve minor reductions in exposures, and exposures in refining operations generally cannot be reduced significantly. Exposures during baghouse operations were expected to remain near current levels.

It should be noted that the PHB submission was based on a site visit to one plant at which employee exposure readings were considerably higher than those reported at other plants. The high reduction factors noted in the PHB submission (50 to 80 percent) may be achievable for one plant but not for other plants in this sector.

Technological feasible limit for a SECAL. Following the procedure outlined in Section B above, OSHA separated exposures into high and low occupation/process exposure groups to facilitate the technological feasibility analysis. Data were divided at a breakpoint which maximized the difference between the mean values for the two separated data sets.

The data segregation resulted in the identification of a "high"

occupation/process exposure group which included sinter plant, blast furnace and yard area operations involving 60 workers. All other plant operations including zinc fuming, dross furnace, acid plant, lead refining, etc., were included in the "low" exposure group involving about 340 employees. Figure VIII-C22 graphically represents the segregated data. The vertical line within each box depicts the median value for the distribution.


  Mean exposure data for the two sets were as follows:
______________________________________________________________
                          |  High Group    |    Low Group
__________________________|________________|__________________
Number of observation.....|       21       |        21
Mean......................|       43       |         3.6
Standard deviation........|       27       |         3.2
__________________________|________________|__________________

To verify that the two groups within this industry were distinct, a t test was performed on the difference in the means. The null hypothesis that the means of the exposure data were equal was rejected, and the conclusion that they were drawn from separate statistical distributions, was accepted.

After the statistical difference between high and low exposure groups was verified, the data were analyzed separately. In Figures VIII-C23 and VIII-C24 process mean exposure values drawn from each available data source are presented. All process data were "fitted" to a straight line using ordinary least squares methodology.

For each group a model was developed to graphically depict the effect on the exposure distribution after current exposures were reduced using alternative engineering control efficiency factors from 80 down to 20 percent, in 20 percent increments.


    Figure VIII-C22  - LEAD SMELTING/REFINING

(For Figure VIII-C22, Click Here) Figure VIII-C23 - LEAD (HIGH EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C23, Click Here) Figure VIII-24 - LEAD (LOW EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C24, Click Here)

The lower the projected efficiency the smaller the exposure change from current levels. Figures VIII-C25 and VIII-C26 show the effect of such reductions and the shift in the distribution of exposures for the high and low groups in lead smelting operations.

It is very unlikely that requirements for additional engineering controls will have very much success in further reducing cadmium exposure levels, since most sites are already required to introduce engineering controls to the extent feasible in order to reduce lead and arsenic exposures. (OSHA enforcement experience suggests that some plants may not be in full compliance with existing standards.) Improved housekeeping and work practices could further reduce exposures at some of these plants.

Most exposure monitoring data indicated that exposures are generally at or below 5 ug/m(3) for employees in low exposure occupations. Data from PHB differ from the other sources and indicate higher exposures for some categories. The PHB data indicate that about 20 percent of all job categories have mean exposures above 30 ug/m(3). However, PHB acknowledged that exposures can be reduced for most workers.

In order to combine the different reduction expectations between the PHB submission and all other industry data, the 80 percent reduction level projected for the one PHB site was averaged with a zero reduction expectation for the remaining three plants making up this industry subsector. The resulting 20 percent reduction is acknowledged to be concentrated within only one plant in this subsector.


   Figure VIII-C25  - LEAD (HIGH EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C25, Click Here) Figure VIII-26 - LEAD (LOW EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C26, Click Here)

Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA concludes that a 50 ug/m(3) SECAL for 60 employees in high exposed occupations/processes is technologically feasible and the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is feasible for all other employees (340) in this industry. Selection of these levels was based on a 20 percent expected exposure reduction resulting from improved conditions within one affected plant. There were no economic feasibility concerns at this efficiency level.

Costs of compliance with a 50 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The evidence and comments in the record generally confirm OSHA's preliminary finding that lead smelters and refiners have already installed feasible controls to reduce cadmium exposures [1, 2, 3, 4]. Current exposure monitoring data demonstrate the feasibility of compliance with the revised standard for low exposure processes. On the basis of these data, OSHA believes that additional engineering controls will be installed in one plant in this industry to achieve compliance with the revised cadmium standard.

The engineering controls necessary to comply with a SECAL of 50 ug/m(3) would be less extensive than those listed in the PHB report, which was based on an attempt to meet a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) in all operations. Furthermore, some additional controls recommended by PHB may be required by existing OSHA standards, and thus the costs for these controls should not be attributable to this cadmium rulemaking.

According to the PHB data, current exposures in most of the job classifications in the high exposure areas are already below the SECAL, and current exposures in most low exposure job classifications are below the PEL. Engineering controls identified by PHB primarily involved enclosures and ventilation systems. Since PHB did not provide cost estimates, OSHA used standard unit cost figures for such systems from industries with similar operations (such as zinc refining and cadmium refining). A typical ventilation system would cost an estimated $80,000 in capital costs and $8,000 in annual costs, and enclosure of an operation would cost about $9,000 on average.

The costs of compliance with the final cadmium standard for engineering controls were approximated by calculating the cost of installing an additional enclosure and ventilation system (or other controls with equivalent cost) in each of the five production areas identified (material handling, sinter plant, blast furnace, dross plant, and refinery). The estimated capital cost would be $445,000, the annual cost would be $40,000, and the total annualized cost would be an estimated $112,000.

Employees in lead smelters and refiners use respiratory protection for lead and arsenic exposure, and cadmium exposure sources generally coincide with lead and arsenic exposure sources. Evidence from the industry confirmed that employees in lead plants are provided with respirators [2, p. 9], and the record does not demonstrate the existence of any sources of cadmium exposure independent of lead or arsenic exposure sources. Most employees exposed above the revised PEL for cadmium should already be using respiratory protection.

Based on a visit to a lead smelter and refiner and on other research in the industry, JACA concluded that all employees with significant exposure to cadmium in this industry were provided with respiratory protection [1, p. 6-17]. Comments from one company representing three lead smelters/refiners indicated that the revised PEL for cadmium would affect a total of 285 employees at these plants [2, p. 3]; however, the extent of current respirator usage among these employees was not specifically addressed.

OSHA recognizes that situations may arise for which compliance with the revised cadmium standard may involve costs that would not be required by standards for lead and arsenic. OSHA estimates that 200 employees in the industry would need to be provided with additional respiratory protection (assuming that about half of all affected employees are already protected). At a cost of $300 per employee per year the total estimated annual cost for the industry would be $60,000.

JACA concluded on the basis of site visit data and survey responses that exposure monitoring for cadmium was conducted in lead smelters every six months on average. Comments from the industry regarding three lead facilities indicated that exposure monitoring for cadmium was conducted quarterly for each job category and each shift affected by the lead and arsenic standards [2, p. 3]. Another section of these comments refers to "additional employees" affected by a revised cadmium PEL, but the table cited shows the number of employees potentially exposed to cadmium, including those exposed to arsenic and lead [2, p. 9].

Monitoring data submitted by the industry suggest that the exposure monitoring for cadmium already being done in some plants covers all job categories with potential cadmium exposure [2, Attachment I]. However, it seems likely that some additional monitoring may be necessary for the industry to achieve full compliance with the revised cadmium standard.

The extent of monitoring required by the standard depends in part on the number of job categories that are identified. JACA grouped workers into seven job categories; PHB distributed workers into over 45 classifications. OSHA believes the PHB data could be collapsed to conform with the JACA classifications. Assuming that current monitoring represents from 60 to 90 percent of that required under the new rule, OSHA estimates that, on average, additional monitoring will be required for three job categories per plant.

Monitoring would be conducted every six months for each of three shifts. A typical plant would have 18 additional samples analyzed for cadmium annually. These samples are already collected and analyzed for lead and/or arsenic, and thus no additional collection costs would be imposed by the cadmium standard. At a cost of $40 per sample for the lab analysis, the annual cost to the industry would be about $2,900.

Employees in this industry generally receive medical surveillance and quarterly biological monitoring [1, p. 6-26 and 2, p. 9]. Additional analyses would be needed for an estimated 400 exposed employees for cadmium in blood ($60 per sample), cadmium in urine ($60 per sample), and B(2)-microglobulin in urine ($80 per sample). About 500 of each of these analyses are estimated to be needed annually for full compliance (including more frequent testing of some employees), resulting in a total annual industry cost of $100,000.

Requirements for medical removal may involve compliance costs in addition to those for more frequent monitoring estimated above. The criteria for mandatory removal would affect employees with the most extreme biological monitoring levels. The criteria for removal also allow for considerable physician's discretion. An estimated 1.5 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed initially on the basis of these criteria and the discretion of physicians.

Compliance with the new PEL for cadmium and other requirements of the final cadmium standard should prevent a continuing need to remove employees. The number of employees with relatively high past exposures who would be more likely to be removed should also decline through attrition. However, as the criteria for removal become broader in future years (lower levels of cadmium in blood and urine triggering mandatory removal), additional employees may be subject to removal. The costs associated with the medical removal provisions are approximated by assuming that on average, 1.5 percent of the exposed workforce may be removed every 5 years.

The number of employees removed should be small enough to enable establishments to provide removed employees with alternative positions. Costs to the employer would include paying wage differentials over eighteen months and hiring and training new employees. The average cost per removed employee is estimated to be $5,000. An estimated 6 employees may be removed every five years, on average, in the lead refining industry, and the average annual cost for the industry would be $6,000.

The total annual cost for medical surveillance and medical removal provisions is estimated to be $106,000.

Employees at lead smelters and refiners are currently provided with "the full gambit of hygiene facilities, protective clothing," etc. for lead and/or arsenic exposure [2, p. 9]. This statement from industry generally confirms JACA's conclusion that additional costs would not be imposed by related provisions in the cadmium standard.

The revised cadmium standard may impose additional costs for recordkeeping. These costs are estimated to be $5 per employee per year or about $2,000 annually for the industry.

The estimated costs of compliance for the lead smelting and refining industry are presented in Table VIII-C36. The estimated total annual cost is $282,900, representing about $42,725 per plant for three plants and $154,725 for one plant in which additional engineering controls appear to be feasible.


TABLE VIII-C36. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
  WITH THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE LEAD
  SMELTING/REFINING INDUSTRY
_______________________________________________
                                | Annualized
          Provision             |    cost
                                | ($thousands)
________________________________|______________
                                |
Exposure control................|       112.0
Respirator use..................|        60.0
Exposure monitoring.............|         2.9
Medical surveillance............|       106.0
Hygiene provisions..............|         0.0
Recordkeeping and information...|         2.0
                                |______________
     Total......................|       282.9
________________________________|______________
  Note:  Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor.

Economic feasibility of a 50 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Compliance with the revised cadmium standard is considered economically feasible for the lead smelting and refining industry. The compliance cost imposed by the standard represents an incremental increase in exposure control costs and a marginal expansion of employee protection programs already instituted and widely applied in this industry. Many of the requirements of the revised cadmium standard overlap existing requirements and do not create new burdens.

JACA estimated that the average revenues of lead smelters and refiners were about $44 million, ranging from $30 million for a small facility to over $70 million for a large facility [1, p. 7-7]. Additional information was not provided to the record. The lead smelting and refining plants would typically have estimated compliance costs of less than 0.1 percent of revenues. For one plant in which additional controls may be feasible, the compliance costs would represent less than 0.4 percent of revenues. Costs impacts of this magnitude are consistent with the general conclusion of economic feasibility for this industry sector.

Lead prices are dictated by worldwide market factors. When prices are low, smelters and refiners will be unable to pass compliance costs on to customers. When price levels are high, large increases in profits are possible. JACA estimated that an increase in the price of lead of 6 cents per pound (as occurred recently within one year) should increase industry profits by $46.7 million annually. The estimated compliance cost would represent less than 0.6 percent of these profits.

Lead smelters and refiners should be able to absorb the estimated compliance costs into operating costs. The typical cost increase per plant approximates the labor costs for one additional employee, and the typical facility has over 100 employees. Costs of this magnitude should not have a significant effect on the viability of the operation or influence major production or investment decisions.

Finally, it may be the case that some engineering control costs identified in this rule should already have been put in place in order to comply with existing rules for lead and arsenic.

NOTES

1. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

2. Exhibit 19-32, "Comments of ASARCO Incorporated," ASARCO Inc., May 9, 1990.

3. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment J, "Technological Feasibility of a Workplace Standard for Airborne Cadmium at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter," Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., November 2, 1989.

4. Exhibit 105, "The Cost of Engineering Controls for Reducing Workplace Exposure to Cadmium at Primary Producers," Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, September 18, 1990.

Plating

Industry overview. Plating involves coating one material with another in order to impart the characteristics of the plating material. Surfaces commonly plated include parts made of steel, brass, aluminum, and iron; common plating materials include zinc, chromium, copper, nickel, and cadmium.

Plating is most often used to protect surfaces from corrosion, but can also increase electrical conductivity and improve appearance. Plated parts are used in many manufacturing industries; the heaviest use is in the automotive, electronics, industrial hardware, and aerospace industries. The military frequently specifies cadmium-plated parts because of their superior performance under extreme conditions.

The electronics industry uses cadmium to plate chassis hardware, connectors, and fasteners. Cadmium-plated parts possess high conductivity, excellent solderability, and are easily bonded.

The aerospace industry specifies cadmium for plating to reduce corrosion between high tensile steel fasteners and aluminum alloys. Plated parts include bolts, major structural members, and landing gear parts. Cadmium provides excellent lubricity and performs well under extreme temperatures and in salty environments.

Automotive applications include plating nuts and bolts for suspension bars, brass and steel springs, and brake line connectors. Cadmium properties of importance to auto makers include lubricity and adhesion. Cadmium can be applied in thin coats which makes it an excellent plating material for small parts.

Cadmium plating is done with one of two basic plating methods. Electroplating is the most common and involves coating materials through electrodeposition by submerging them in a liquid mixture with the plating compound. Mechanical plating is a dry operation in which parts are coated with a powder in a tumbling process.

Cadmium plating is performed at approximately 350 to 400 facilities in the United States [4, p. 1]. Electroplating is the most common method of plating with cadmium, and only about 20 facilities currently use mechanical plating [8, p. 5-122]. At mechanical plating facilities, less than 10 percent of the work involves cadmium [8, p. VI-134]. An estimated 1,200 employees are exposed to cadmium in plating establishments.

Cadmium plating can be done by independent plating companies and also by other companies as part of multi-faceted manufacturing operations. The analysis of the plating industry includes only those establishments engaged in plating as a primary business. Potential cadmium exposures and regulatory impacts at other establishments are analyzed in the sections for their respective industries.

Production processes. Electroplating with cadmium is usually conducted in a cyanide bath. The solution is prepared from cadmium oxide and sodium cyanide. Cadmium or cadmium oxide powder is weighed out and then dissolved in a salt solution which is added to the electroplating tank. As a current is passed through the solution, the positively charged cadmium metal ions are attracted to the part to be plated, thereby creating a cadmium coating.

Mechanical plating involves tumbling the parts to be plated in a barrel with a mixture of cadmium powder, glass beads, acid, and other chemicals. The cadmium powder is initially weighed out into paper bags, which are placed in the barrel intact and disintegrated by the acid. After the tumbling process is complete the parts are discharged onto a table provided with water sprays, where they are washed and separated.

Employee exposures. JACA identified two job categories with potential exposure to cadmium during electroplating operations, the operator and the maintenance technician. Based on exposure data representing over seven years of OSHA monitoring, JACA concluded that the geometric mean exposure for the workers was less than 0.2 ug/m(3) [1, p. 3-21].

An in-depth health hazard survey report of an electroplating facility was provided by NIOSH [2, Attachment 14]. Exposure monitoring results reported for cadmium did not include any quantifiable concentrations. A second in-depth health hazard survey report of another electroplating facility also failed to reveal any quantifiable concentrations of cadmium [2, Attachment 15]. NIOSH concluded in their testimony that sampling results in electroplating operations were generally at or below 2 ug/m(3) (the limit of analytical detection in the study) [3, p. 15].

The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) cited a NIOSH technical report which evaluated cadmium exposures during electroplating "using an absolute worst case method." Samples were taken inches above the plating solution on hand operated tanks. The highest potential concentrations of cadmium ranged from 2 ug/m(3) to 15 ug/m(3). Monitoring conducted by the New York State Department of Labor indicated concentrations of less than 2 ug/m(3) above the operating tanks. [4, p. 2]. These results refer to area samples and do not represent personal eight-hour time-weighted average exposure levels.

Exposures during mechanical plating are higher than electroplating. One plant conducting mechanical plating with cadmium reported that during the past three years exposure levels ranged from 8 ug/m(3) to 36 ug/m(3) [5, p. 9]. The result of a single eight-hour sample taken during mechanical plating with cadmium was submitted by another plant as 33 ug/m(3) [6, Exhibit A, p. 10]. However, this sample "does not represent the normal range of exposures" because the monitoring was done during a "worst possible case scenario" created specifically to evaluate the highest potential exposure to cadmium [6, Exhibit B, p. 1].

A study conducted by the Cadmium Council estimated exposures separately for different work stations during mechanical plating [7, Table A6-1]. Exposures during weighing were estimated to be 92 ug/m(3), exposures while operating the barrel were estimated to be 60 ug/m(3), and exposures during other operations were estimated to be 16 ug/m(3). The study conceded that "the entire cadmium plating process is frequently done by one person" [7, p. 6-1] but did not provide information on the number of samples taken, the duration of the sample(s), or what actual exposures might be based on personal monitoring over a full shift. Weighing and barrel operations involving cadmium represent short duration, infrequent activities at mechanical plating plants [5, p.4].

Existing and feasible additional controls. JACA described existing controls at electroplating facilities that included local exhaust ventilation and hoods over the material handling areas. JACA suggested that if further controls were needed, respirators should be used [1, p. 3-18 and 4-10]. Testimony from an electroplating facility confirmed that ventilation systems and glove boxes were already being used, and that other chemicals contribute to exposure problems during electroplating [8, p. VI-135 and p. VI-146].

NIOSH provided descriptions of two electroplating facilities. Ventilation systems were generally implemented as necessary, and NIOSH recommended some possible minor improvements [2, Attachments 14 and 15]. NIOSH concluded in their testimony that exposures for cadmium electroplating are "generally at or below 2 ug/m(3)" [3, p. 15] and are "controllable to 1 ug/m(3) using available engineering controls" [3, p. 26].

A consultation report developed by the Michigan Department of Public Health described controls at a mechanical plating facility [6, Exhibit A]. Ventilation systems were used for the weighing operation and for the mechanical plating area. The systems were considered adequate, but some changes in hood designs were recommended to improve their effectiveness.

Comments regarding existing controls were also provided by another mechanical plating facility [5, p. 9]. The company stated that local exhaust ventilation was provided at the plater barrel.

Technologically feasible limit for a SECAL. Data for mechanical plating operations were analyzed separately from electroplating since all available data indicated that mechanical operators were exposed to significantly higher levels of cadmium. Figure VIII-C27 graphically shows the different exposure profile for the 120 employees in the high exposure mechanical plating process versus the 1,080 employees in the low exposure electroplating category. Consistent with the methodology used for other industries, a t test was performed on the data and verified that the means of the two exposed populations were drawn from separate statistical distributions.

In Figures VIII-C28 and VIII-C29, all available exposure data for each data set were "fitted" to a straight line (OLS methodology). Currently, all exposures in the low exposure electroplating operations fall below 5 ug/m(3).

For each group, graphs were developed to model the effect of exposure reductions, based on engineering control solutions with efficiency ratings from a high of 80 down to 20 percent. Figures VIII-C30 and VIII-C31 show the projected reductions for both groups (the high efficiency 80 percent factor is closest to the "y" axis).


    Figure VIII-C27  - PLATING

(For Figure VIII-C27, Click Here) Figure VIII-28 - PLATING (HIGH EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C28, Click Here) Figure VIII-29 - PLATING (LOW EXP): CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C29, Click Here) Figure VIII-30 - PLATING (HIGH EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C30, Click Here) Figure VIII-31 - PLATING (LOW EXP): CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C31, Click Here)

The selection of an appropriate engineering control factor was based on evidence and testimony in the record and economic feasibility considerations.

PACE evaluated a typical mechanical plating facility and reported that a ventilated sandblast booth ("a simplified type of glove box") was used for weighing operations [7, p. 6-1]. PACE recommended that a "much higher quality glove box" should be used in conjunction with better work practices and housekeeping procedures. These improvements could reduce exposures by over 90 percent during this operation. PACE also recommended the installation of a ventilation system and partial enclosure to control sources of cadmium-bearing mist during the barrel operation. Exposures were projected to be reduced by 85 percent as a result. PACE concluded that exposures could be reduced by up to 75 percent in other operations. Exposures from handling finished mechanically plated parts are considered insignificant because a process change recently introduced removes potential sources of dust before the parts are washed and dried.

The use of pre-bagged cadmium was suggested as a possible control option [3, p. 17], but this approach does not appear to be feasible in this industry [5, p. 4 and 6, p. 5].

Based on this review, a 60-80 percent reduction in exposure levels should be achievable for mechanical plating facilities. This reduction factor translates into a SECAL of 15 ug/m(3) for the mechanical plating operations. The PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is technologically feasible for electroplating operations, and most exposure levels for this group are already below this level.

For mechanical plating operations there are no apparent economic feasible constraints preventing them from achieving the 15 ug/m(3) SECAL.

OSHA concludes that a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is technologically feasible for electroplating operations. Respiratory protection will be necessary during some mechanical cadmium plating operations.

Costs of compliance with a 15 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA believes that electroplating facilities consistently maintain employee exposures below 5 ug/m(3) and would generally not need to install additional engineering controls.

Establishments performing mechanical plating with cadmium would be required to install engineering controls to the extent feasible. Testimony from a mechanical plating facility indicated that all feasible controls have already been implemented [8, p. 5-134]. As described above, mechanical plating facilities already use glove boxes, local exhaust ventilation, and other controls to reduce cadmium exposures. Nevertheless, some establishments will find it necessary to improve engineering controls to achieve compliance with the revised standard.

A pass-through airlock glove box, providing "a much higher quality" than conventional glove boxes [7, p. 6-4], would cost about $5,000 [7, Table A6-4]. The installation and use of a vacuum system is estimated to cost $15,000 initially and $8,000 annually for operating costs. A complete ventilation system with two hoods, make-up air, and clean air islands could be provided at a barrel operation without existing controls for about $60,000 plus $6,000 in annual costs.

Some mechanical plating facilities may not require any additional controls, some may only require minor improvements, and a few may need new controls. OSHA estimates that about two thirds of the facilities would incur costs for engineering controls, and that on average these facilities would need half of the engineering controls listed above or the equivalent. About 14 of 20 mechanical plating establishments would have an average annualized cost for engineering controls of approximately $13,500, and the annualized cost for the industry would be $189,000.

Shower facilities with a double-sided locker room could be provided for employees in mechanical plating operations for $35,000 in capital costs and $9,000 in annual costs [7, Table A6-4]. All facilities performing mechanical plating with cadmium need shower and locker facilities for their employees to comply with the revised standard. The annualized cost would be $14,700 per plant or $294,000 for the industry.

The National Association of Metal Finishers stated that the "use of protective clothing and respirators where required is standard practice within the industry." [4, p. 4]. However, it is likely that additional respirator use would be required by the revised standard during some mechanical plating operations. Plating facilities are estimated to have an average of three employees per plant [1, p. D-4], and employees in mechanical plating spend less than 10 percent of the time working with cadmium [8, p. VI-134]. The cost of providing respiratory protection for an average of one full-time employee per plant would be $300 per plant annually, and the total annual cost for the industry would be $6,000.

Exposure monitoring and medical surveillance programs are generally not implemented at plating facilities. However, most electroplating facilities should be able to keep exposures below the action level and avoid most of these requirements.

OSHA estimates that the plating industry consists of 400 establishments with 1,200 employees and two job categories per plant [4, p. 1 and 1, p. D-4]. Regular exposure monitoring may be required at 100 plants. At a cost of $40 per sample and $1,500 annually for collection, each of the affected plants would have an annual cost of $1,660. The annual cost for the industry would be $166,000, of which about $33,000 would apply to mechanical platers.

Medical surveillance is estimated to cost $250 for a medical examination and $215 for the collection and analysis of the required biological monitoring samples. Compliance with the revised standard is expected to involve 150 medical examinations and 300 biological monitoring samples annually. Employees in this industry are not expected to be affected by the medical removal requirements since occupational exposures are relatively low and intermittent. The total annual cost for the industry for medical surveillance requirements would be $102,000, of which about $22,000 would apply to mechanical platers.

Information, training, and recordkeeping requirements may involve incremental costs for plating establishments. These requirements would include provisions for establishing regulated areas, using warning labels, developing a compliance program, and providing information to employees and physicians. Some of these costs would already be required by existing standards or be included in current practices; requirements may not apply to establishments with exposures consistently below the action level. Additional costs are estimated to average $100 per employee per year for about 25 percent of plating establishments. The total annual cost for the industry would be $30,000, of which about $6,000 may be borne by mechanical platers.

Compliance costs for the plating industry are summarized in Table VIII-C37. The total estimated cost is $787,000 annually, of which $237,000 is for electroplating and $550,000 is for mechanical plating.

Economic feasibility of a 15 ug/m(3) SECAL and 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The revised cadmium standard with a SECAL of 15 ug/m(3) is considered economically feasible for the cadmium plating industry.

Average annual revenues from cadmium plating are estimated to $500,000 per facility, and the average pre-tax profit margin is 4.4 percent, resulting in average estimated annual profits of $22,000 [9, p. VI-16]. Almost all facilities that plate with cadmium also plate with other materials [1, p. 7-10], and thus total revenues and profits per plant would be higher.


TABLE VIII-C37.  -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISED
        CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE CADMIUM PLATING INDUSTRY
__________________________________________________________________
                            |  Annualized cost ($thousands)
                            |_____________________________________
     Provision              | Electroplating | Mechanical | Total
                            |                |  plating   |
____________________________|________________|____________|_______
                            |                |            |
Exposure control............|             0  |     189.0  | 189.0
Respirator use..............|             0  |       6.0  |   6.0
Exposure monitoring.........|         133.0  |      33.0  | 166.0
Medical surveillance........|          80.0  |      22.0  | 102.0
Hygiene provisions..........|             0  |     294.0  | 294.0
Recordkeeping/information...|          24.0  |       6.0  |  30.0
                            |________________|____________|_______
    Total...................|         237.0  |     550.0  | 787.0
____________________________|________________|____________|_______
  Note:  Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department
of Labor.

Over 90 percent of the establishments in this industry are electroplaters. These establishments generally have sufficiently low exposures so that compliance with the standard can be achieved at minimal or no additional expense. If exposures at an electroplating facility are such that medical surveillance and exposure monitoring of employees would be required, the additional cost would typically be less than $3,000 per year. Electroplating facilities providing cadmium plating should be able to offset compliance costs with an average price increase of less than 0.5 percent.

Mechanical platers will face higher compliance costs than electroplaters. The total annual compliance cost may reach $30,000 at facilities that have not implemented adequate controls but would be less for establishments with existing controls. Mechanical platers would not be competitively disadvantaged in comparison to electroplaters. Mechanical plating costs more than electroplating, and customers do not use it unless they have to; the two methods of plating are not interchangeable [6, p. 4 and 8, p. VI-143].

A representative mechanical plater has "revenues of about $1 million ... Revenues from mechanical plating account for about 35 percent of the total, or about $350,000." [10, p. 4-4]. An increase in the price of mechanical cadmium plating of less than 10 percent would offset the estimated compliance costs for these establishments.

The cost of plating components generally comprises a small fraction of the cost of final products such as automobiles, and the estimated increase in plating costs would translate into negligible increases in prices for products with cadmium plated components. Where properties of cadmium plating are essential, such as in some military applications, the cost increase could be passed through to customers. The automobile industry and the military together account for over 80 percent of the demand for mechanically plated components [10, p. 4-4].

The costs associated with cadmium plating may be less than those estimated above to the extent that market forces lead to a more efficient solution for the industry. Some facilities may discontinue cadmium plating operations or make production schedule changes to take advantage of the 30 day exclusion provision in the rule. Other facilities may increase cadmium plating and be able to spread compliance costs over a greater percentage of production.

Such shifts in production would not constitute a major structural change in the industry. The percent of revenues derived from cadmium plating varies among plating establishments and for many firms only small adjustments would be necessary to eliminate or concentrate on cadmium related business. Recent environmental regulations, including water pollution standards, are already causing such a trend towards specialization throughout the industry [8, p. VI-147]. Also, "most platers appear sufficiently flexible to respond relatively easily to new specifications for plating different metals." [10, p. 4-5].

The average increase in prices associated with the estimated compliance costs would not threaten the viability of the industry or cause any significant contraction. Compliance costs for over 90 percent of the establishments would be minimal. Costs are primarily concentrated in mechanical plating; demand for this more expensive and specialized service is relatively inelastic and should not be significantly impacted.

The trade association for the plating industry emphasized that most of the affected establishments were small businesses for whom the implementation of the standard would cause "major problems." [4, p. 5]. The association recommended that the standard be coupled with a technical assistance program funded by the government for small businesses.

OSHA recognizes that some establishments may need assistance in complying with safety or health regulations. The Office of Compliance Assistance and representatives of regional and area offices are available for answering questions and offering advice to small businesses. In addition, small businesses may take advantage of OSHA's consultation program which conducts a comprehensive assessment of facilities, provides guidance, and makes recommendations.

NOTES

1. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

2. Exhibit 19-26, "Comments of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Proposed Rule on Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, May 7, 1990.

3. Submitted Testimony of NIOSH on OSHA's Proposed Cadmium Rule, Draft 2, July 6, 1990.

4. Exhibit 5, "NAMF Comments Occupational Exposure to Cadmium,"

National Association of Metal Finishers, May 1, 1990.

5. Exhibit 99, "Additional Comments Filed on Behalf of the Cadmium Council," Prather, Seeger, Doolittle & Farmer, September 18, 1990.

6. Exhibit 100, "NAMF Amended Comments Regarding Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," Reilly Plating Company, September 14, 1990.

7. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE Incorporated, April 30, 1990.

8. Hearing Transcript, June 11 and 12, 1990. 9. Exhibit 15A, "Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Proposed 5 ug/m(3) Cadmium Standard," Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, January 22, 1990.

10. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment I, "Economic and Technological Feasibility of a 5 Microgram per Cubic Meter Workplace Standard for Airborne Cadmium," Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., April 30, 1990.

Dry Color Formulators

Industry Overview. Cadmium pigments are purchased by companies in several industries for applications in the manufacture of plastics, ceramics, specialty coatings, and other products. Some companies purchase cadmium pigments directly from the manufacturers; many companies rely on intermediate compounders to formulate custom color concentrates and resin concentrates. The compounders are referred to by the industry as dry color formulators.

The Dry Color Manufacturers' Association (DCMA) estimates that the market of pigment users consists of "hundreds of companies and thousands of employees" [1, p.5], and that formulators of plastic resins constitute "a very large market" for cadmium pigments [3, p. 44]. The Society of the Plastics Industry stated in its comments that over 100 member companies are involved in the compounding business (including concentrate producers and resin producers) [4, p. 7]. A representative of the Cadmium Pigments Committee of DCMA testified during the hearings that 1,000 direct customers of manufacturing members were identified (including formulators and firms in other industries), and that the firms involved in compounding "are by and large very, very small companies" [5]. OSHA estimates that there are approximately 700 separate dry color formulators using cadmium pigments and that these plants employ on average, 10 workers each. These estimates are consistent with the numbers used in the preliminary analysis (which were not directly challenged or refuted by interested parties), with other evidence in the record, including data from JACA [2, p. C-4] and trade associations [4, p.1 and p.7; 1, p.5], and with information presented at the public hearings [5].

Production processes. Dry color formulators compound cadmium pigment material into colored concentrates. The products are considered to be "very customized" [5], virtually made to order in a batch production process. The formulators purchase pigments in dry bulk form. The raw pigment is measured and mixed into a matrix with other materials. The matrix may contain as much as 50 percent cadmium pigment.

The pigment mixture is blended and then compounded, extruded, or dispersed into a shape suitable for further processing. Often the colored resin concentrates must be ground to a powder for further blending or made into pellets. Plastic resin pellets are packaged and sold as the final product.

The pellets in turn are used by molders in making plastic products and by other firms using cadmium pigment concentrates. Subsequent employee exposures to cadmium during the production of plastics and during other manufacturing processes using products made by formulators are likely to be minimal or nonexistent because the cadmium pigment has in effect been encapsulated or made part of a solution [6].

Employee exposures. Formulators create specific color formulations that span the full spectrum of colors. As many as 4,000 different variations of colors may be produced from the relatively limited color palette provided by the pigment manufacturers. The quantity of each blend produced can range from five pounds to five thousand pounds, depending on the customer order [7].

Cadmium pigments are not used to produce all color combinations and may not be used at all on some days [7]. Operators "in the pigment using sector may only be exposed to cadmium pigments in one batch operation for a short period of time .... these short term exposures may only last a few minutes a week" [3, p. 75]. Occupational exposure to cadmium in the dry color formulator sector of the pigments industry is thus considered to be intermittent.

The airborne concentrations of cadmium created during the production of a batch of concentrate involving cadmium pigments are characterized by several sources in the record. JACA Corporation developed a preliminary occupational exposure profile for cadmium which categorized employees into cross-industry occupations [2]. This approach reflected the belief that exposures were more likely to be similar for certain types of work across industries. The JACA report included a full breakdown by industry of the employees in each occupational category; employees of formulators were included in the occupational category of chemical mixing and milling.

The exposure data presented by JACA for formulators are based on over 200 samples. The data have a range of 0.05 ug/m(3) to 710 ug/m(3), a geometric mean of 3 ug/m(3), and a median of 5 ug/m(3).

Well-documented exposure data on pigment users was submitted to the record by NIOSH in two health hazard evaluations [8]. At one facility, all exposures were less than 10 ug/m(3) on an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA8) basis. Exposures occurred during short term material handling operations. NIOSH noted that better industrial hygiene practices could be implemented at the plant, such as vacuuming or damp mopping instead of dry sweeping. The second study found exposures ranging from 5 ug/m(3) to 25 ug/m(3) while adding pigments and during color changes.

Exposure data were also submitted to the record by a company with two plants using cadmium pigments to formulate custom colored plastics [9]. At one plant the weighted mean exposure level for the job categories with cadmium exposure was 4.4 ug/m(3). Of the 101 employees exposed, the highest mean exposure level occurred among sixteen blending operators at 7.5 ug/m(3). Data from the second plant indicate that there were approximately 80 employees exposed at an average of 10 ug/m(3) TWA8.

The higher exposures occurred during cleaning and other periodic tasks, which occur whenever a color blend has been completed and the next blend must be prepared. These activities cause intermittent exposure, and the duration and frequency of the exposure are not predictable [9]. "The variability of exposure is very large, with individual handling styles affecting exposure levels greatly." [12].

Current employee exposures in this industry appear to be generally below 20 ug/m(3).

Existing and feasible additional controls. The operations involving employee exposures to cadmium in pigment-using establishments can be controlled in a variety of ways. Standard technologies for controlling exposures in such operations have been developed and implemented in this and other industries. Feasible controls include local exhaust ventilation, general ventilation, and good housekeeping practices such as vacuuming and damp mopping. Appropriate work practices can also help reduce exposures by minimizing airborne dust.

The batch operations involved in the process cause intermittent, variable exposures and require frequent clean-outs. With a PEL of 5 ug/m(3), respiratory protection would probably be necessary during these activities even after the implementation of feasible engineering controls. Comments provided by one pigment user indicate that exposures above 5 ug/m(3) occur with local exhaust ventilation present at all points of exposure [9]. Some commenters claimed that achieving levels below 5 ug/m(3) with engineering controls and work practices was infeasible [1,3,4,10,11].

Comments regarding operations at two formulating facilities included details on the feasibility of additional controls. At one facility exposures could be reduced by installing ventilated work stations with downdraft airflow, adding a dust collection system for the pigment blender, making improvements in the blender to prevent dust from escaping, and modifying material handling systems to reduce the amount of handling. Exposure reduction at the other facility would involve the installation of dust collectors and ventilation systems in two major areas, the replacement of pigment blenders, the installation of a masterbatch feeder, and the use of portable HEPA vacuums [12].

A PEL of 5 ug/m(3) was asserted to be technologically feasible at these facilities [9, p.3], but would "threaten the viability" of the custom-colored plastics business [9, p.1]. Exposures above 5 ug/m(3) tend to occur during cleaning and maintenance activities and other intermittent activities such as weighing out pigments, even when conducted under a dust collecting hood. Respirators would provide an appropriate form of protection during such activities after engineering controls have been implemented to the extent feasible.

Technologically feasible limit for a SECAL or PEL. OSHA could not distinguish high and low exposure groups for this industry segment. All available data indicated that current exposure levels were below 20 ug/m(3) with means near 10 ug/m(3). Figures VIII-C32 and VIII-C33 graphically present the available exposure data and Figure VIII-C34 shows projected exposures with 80, 60, 40, and 20 percent efficiency factors.

Evidence on the availability and effectiveness of engineering controls to lower exposure levels in this industry was referenced above.


    Figure VIII-C32  - DRY COLOR FORMULATORS

(For Figure VIII-C32, Click Here) Figure VIII-33 - FORMULATORS: CURRENT

(For Figure VIII-C33, Click Here) Figure VIII-34 - FORMULATORS: CONTROLLED 80%-20%

(For Figure VIII-C34, Click Here)

Technology found to be successful includes standard control solutions such as local exhaust ventilation, general ventilation, and dust collection systems.

Based on the record evidence, it appears that more can be done within many plants to further reduce cadmium exposure levels, but that the targeted level of 5 ug/m(3) will be difficult to achieve for many plants in this sector. Other data in the record confirm that some firms are already below the PEL level.

On balance, OSHA believes that the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is technologically feasible for this industry.

This determination reflects several considerations:

  *  A minority of plants in this sector have already achieved the PEL
level for 8 hour TWA exposures.
  *  The thirty day exclusion provides the option for many formulators to
regulate their intermittent use of cadmium, such that workers are exposed
no more than 30 days per year.  If successful, such firms will have no
obligation to introduce additional engineering controls.
  * The record supports the finding that additional engineering control
technology and improved work practices can further reduce exposure levels
in this subsector.

These controls are moderate in price and can reduce exposures by 60 - 80 percent. OSHA estimates that 20 percent of all firms in this industry could lower existing exposure levels through the introduction of additional engineering controls; in addition, improved housekeeping in all affected firms are expected to further reduce exposure levels.

Figure VIII-C34 illustrates that at the 60 percent efficiency level about 80 percent of employees in this sector would be at or below the PEL level of 5 ug/m(3).

Compliance with the PEL of 5 ug/m(3) may require the use of respirators during operations where cadmium pigments are used. Such respirator use would be intermittent following the introduction of feasible engineering controls and improved work practices.

Costs of compliance with a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The costs of compliance include costs for additional engineering controls, increased respirator use, more comprehensive exposure monitoring programs, medical surveillance requirements, hygiene provisions, information and training, and recordkeeping requirements. The estimated compliance costs represent the incremental costs necessary for achieving compliance with the final rule from a baseline of current practices; these costs do not include current or past expenditures.

JACA provided estimates of the costs of installing new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems. In current dollars, the costs of these systems range from $51,000 to $112,000. Annual operating and maintenance costs were estimated to be 10 percent of the capital cost. [2, Table 6-1]. JACA projected that new or improved ventilation systems could be installed for most employees in the occupational category of chemical mixer.

PACE provided cost estimates for several types of controls in its analysis of other industries that would be applicable to reducing exposures for formulators [10]. Controls included enclosure and back-draft exhaust ventilation, with a capital cost of about $30,000 and an annual cost of about $1,500. Controls at another operation included improved ventilation and increased wash down of surfaces to prevent contaminant accumulation; the capital cost would be $25,000 and the annual cost would be $4,000.

Details of an exposure reduction program recently completed by a formulator were submitted to the record by a trade association representing the industry [4, p.8]. The program included improved ventilation systems with dust pick-up booths or dust pick-up systems at six locations, ranging in cost from $1,200 to $7,000, and a central vacuum system costing $18,000. The cost of the program also included new batch mixing vessels costing $500,000. While no evidence was provided indicating the effectiveness of such vessels in reducing exposures, it was noted that "virtually all the plant workers would have to be placed in respirators" after new batch mixing vessels were installed in order to achieve compliance with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) [4, p. 8]. Since new mixing vessels only provide a marginal reduction in exposures and may produce significant economic impacts for many firms, this measure was judged to be impractical and not vital to controlling the problem.

Estimated costs of controls for two other formulator establishments were provided to the record in public comments. At one establishment, the installation of ventilated work stations incorporating downdraft airflow was estimated to cost $50,000; the cost of a pigment blender dust collection system was estimated to be $11,000; improvements to prevent dust escaping while blending would cost an estimated $2,000; a new pigment storage/retrieval system would cost $100,000; and the installation of a feeder on an extruder would cost $18,000. At the second establishment, the installation of dust collector and ventilation systems in two major areas would cost an estimated $1 million; the replacement of pigment blenders would cost $1.2 million; a masterbatch feeder would cost $125,000; pressurization of the control rooms would cost $50,000; and ventilation of the color lab would cost $50,000 [12].

OSHA believes that compliance with the 5 ug/m(3) PEL can be achieved without the significant capital expenditures for engineering controls, noted above by the second establishment.

Descriptive information on existing controls for formulators using cadmium pigments was available for three facilities. Each of the facilities relied on local exhaust ventilation to reduce exposure levels [4, p.9 and 9, p. 5]. Personal protective equipment and other elements of a comprehensive industrial hygiene program were also utilized. On the basis of these comments it is apparent that dry color formulators can implement engineering controls. No other comments to the record indicated the extent to which formulators have implemented engineering controls.

OSHA believes that opportunities for implementing additional feasible controls exist at many establishments. The preliminary analysis included an assessment of existing and feasible additional controls for workers in this industry. Commenters expressed concern about the impact of the rule in this industry. They did not challenge the cost estimates presented in the preliminary analysis, but emphasized that the costs should be isolated and carefully evaluated for this industry [3,4,13].

The total potential cost of additional engineering controls for the industry is based on an estimate that 20 percent of the firms lack appropriate controls. These plants will need new or improved ventilation systems, more sophisticated enclosures, or better dust control programs including vacuums. The prices for these controls would be comparable to those estimated for other industries [4,12].

On average, a complete local exhaust ventilation system will cost an estimated $80,000 plus $8,000 in annual costs; a central vacuum system will cost an estimated $15,000 plus $8,000 in annual operating costs; and process enclosures or material handling modifications are estimated to cost $9,000. The actual controls implemented would vary depending on the particular circumstances in each plant; these estimates are intended to provide a general gauge of the costs involved.

Since plants in this sector are typically small, one of each type of control referenced above, will be needed. The annualized cost for the combination would be approximately $33,000. Assuming 80 percent of existing plants currently have this combination in place, controls are costed only for the balance. The annualized cost of additional controls for the industry is estimated to be $4.62 million. For all plants in this sector, work practice changes involving more care when handling cadmium can be made at no cost.

According to comments provided by one company for two formulating facilities, employees are currently provided with respiratory protection when working in areas with cadmium exposure [9, p.5]. As discussed above, some of the workers in this industry would probably need to wear respirators to comply with the 5 ug/m(3) PEL. In order to estimate the cost of compliance with the revised standard, OSHA assumes that 25 percent of the employees do not wear respirators and would need to be provided with one. Using a cost of $300 per employee per year [14, Attachment III, p. 1], the total annual cost for the industry would be $525,000.

Establishments in this industry would be required to conduct exposure monitoring for every job category semi-annually. A large facility with over 100 employees identified three job categories affected [9, p.5]; smaller plants also have three job categories. Comments about exposure levels in this industry indicate that some monitoring is currently being done [9, p.5 and 4, p.9], but not to the extent required by the revised standard. OSHA estimates that about 25 percent of the required monitoring is currently being conducted.

The costs of exposure monitoring are estimated to be $40 per sample taken and $1,500 annually per plant for the services of an industrial hygienist or other competent person. The total cost of the additional monitoring required by the standard is estimated to be $913,500 [($1500+$40*3*2) * 700 * 0.75].

Compliance with the medical surveillance requirements would require additional costs. In the preliminary analysis, it was estimated that workers in this industry are being provided with annual medical exams, and the evidence in the record does not dispute this conclusion. Since medical exams would only be required every two years by the revised standard, this requirement should not involve added costs.

Employers would also have to provide biological monitoring at least annually for exposed employees. The lab analyses for cadmium in blood and urine samples are estimated to cost $60 per sample; lab analyses would cost about $80 per sample for B(2)-microglobulin tests; and the estimated costs of collection are $5 per sample. Such monitoring may be necessary for an estimated 75 percent of the employees. The cost of providing the basic biological monitoring was increased by 10 percent to include additional medical surveillance that may be required for some employees. The total annual cost of biological monitoring would thus be about $1.242 million [($65+$65+$85)*7000*0.75*1.1].

Provisions for medical removal are not expected to have significant compliance costs in this industry. Occupational exposures in this industry are relatively low and intermittent, and no employees are expected to meet the criteria for mandatory removal. To allow for the possibility that some employees may be removed on the basis of a physician's determination, OSHA assumed that on average 0.1 percent of the exposed employees would be removed annually. With an average cost per removal of $5,000 associated with removal benefits and hiring and training costs, the total annual cost to the industry would be about $35,000.

The total annual cost of compliance with the medical surveillance provisions for this industry is estimated at $1.277 million.

The revised provisions for hygiene facilities, work clothing, and information and training appear to be complied with in this industry [9, p.5]. Additional recordkeeping requirements are estimated to cost about $5 per employee or $35,000 for the industry.

Table VIII-C38 summarizes the costs of compliance for the dry color formulator industry. The total annualized cost is an estimated $7.371 million.

Economic feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Compliance with the revised cadmium standard is economically feasible for this industry. The analyses of technological feasibility and costs presented above show that the changes required by the revised rule would not involve significant adverse impacts for most establishments.

The total estimated cost of compliance represents a small percent of industry revenues. One company estimated that revenues associated with the color business at two formulating facilities with a combined workforce of over 180 employees were $25 million [9, p.13]. In order to compare revenues with costs on an industry-wide basis, the revenues per employee at this company were applied to the total estimated number of workers in the industry.


TABLE VIII-C38. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
  WITH  THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE DRY
  COLOR FORMULATOR INDUSTRY
________________________________________________
                                | Annualized
         Provision              |    cost
                                | ($thousands)
________________________________|_______________
                                |
Exposure Control................|    4,620.0
Respirator Use..................|      525.0
Exposure Monitoring.............|      913.5
Medical Surveillance............|    1,277.0
Recordkeeping and information...|       35.0
                                |_______________
     Total......................|    7,370.5
________________________________|_______________
  Note:  Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor

Total revenues are thus estimated to be over $900 million, and the estimated compliance costs would represent less than 0.82 percent of revenues.

Cadmium pigments are essential in many applications. Where substitution is possible, a reduction in quality is likely to result. Purchasers of custom formulated colors are likely to value the proximity of suppliers. The cost of pigment products generally constitutes a minor fraction of the cost of final products. Under these circumstances, the formulator industry should be able to recoup compliance costs through very small increases in prices.

The slight increase in prices required to offset compliance costs should not threaten the viability of the formulator industry or produce any significant adverse impacts in other industries. Costs of compliance will vary among establishments; effects on individual firms will depend on the type of technology used and the extent of existing exposure controls.

As in most industries, competition may limit the ability of some producers to raise prices to fully offset increases in production costs. As a result, some firms may experience a reduction in profits. Since the compliance costs are relatively modest on average, the standard is not expected to result in plant closures.

Establishments for which information is available in the record [4, 8, 9, 12] appear to need only minimal changes to achieve compliance with the revised standard. Some additional ventilation can be provided at emission sources, dust containment and collection equipment can be introduced or upgraded, and workers can be provided with personal protective equipment including respirators with HEPA filters, rubber gloves, and laundered uniforms. OSHA concludes that workers in this industry can feasibly be protected from exposure to 5 ug/m(3) levels of cadmium with an appropriate industrial hygiene program that includes the intermittent use of respirators.

SOURCES

1. Exhibit 19-40, Dry Color Manufacturers' Association, Comments "Re: Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," May 11, 1990.

2. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

3. Exhibit 120, Dry Color Manufacturers' Association, "Post-Hearing Comments," October 18, 1990.

4. Exhibit 19-41, Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., "Comments of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.," May 11, 1990.

5. Hearing transcript, p. 5-45, 5-46, and 5-47, June 11, 1990. 6. Hearing transcript, p. 5-41 and 5-46, June 11, 1990. 7. Hearing transcript, p. 5-42 to 5-44, June 11, 1990. 8. Exhibit 19-26, Attachments to NIOSH Comments, HETA 84-230-1528 (1984), and HETA 82-223-1340 (1983).

9. Exhibit 19-24, Comments from Hoechst Celanese Corporation, May 7, 1990.

10. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE Incorporated, April 30, 1990.

11. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment I, "Economic and Technological Feasibility of a 5 Microgram per Cubic Meter Workplace Standard for Airborne Cadmium," Putnam, Hayes, & Bartlett, Inc., April 30, 1990.

12. Exhibit 118, Comments from Hoechst Celanese Corporation, October 5, 1990.

13. Exhibit 19-50, Comments of the United States Department of Commerce, May 22, 1990.

14. Exhibit 19-30, Big River Zinc Corporation, "Comments on OSHA Proposed Cadmium Regulation," May 10, 1990.

Electric Utilities

Industry overview. Electric utilities generate and distribute electricity throughout the United States. About 4,000 establishments produce over 2.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. Over half of the energy is produced from coal; most of the remainder is produced from nuclear power, hydropower, gas, and oil.

Production processes. Electric utilities convert energy sources into electricity by creating mechanical energy which then drives electric generators. Mechanical energy is produced by an engine, turbine, water wheel or similar machine, depending on the fuel or energy source used. Conventional steam systems produce over half of the nations electricity; nuclear steam, gas turbines, hydropower, and internal combustion engines are also used.

Employee exposures. Potential worker exposure to cadmium at an electric utility has two principal sources. First, repair and maintenance activities often involve welding, soldering, grinding, and cutting metals. Small quantities of cadmium may be released during these activities from cadmium-bearing base metals, cadmium-bearing surface deposits, welding rods, or solders. The second source is fly ash, a residue of burned coal, which may be present in and around negative pressure boilers. [1, p. 3].

Employee exposures do not normally occur during ordinary operating conditions in a utility plant. Exposures generally occur during intermittent inspection or maintenance activities associated with electrostatic precipitators, fly ash conveyance, and boiler outages. [1, p.3].

According to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the "most comprehensive available exposure data pertaining to workers at electric utilities appear to be those compiled by the Tennessee Valley Authority representing cadmium fume exposures recorded between 1976 and 1985" [1, p. 4]. These data show that 45 percent of the workers sampled had exposures of 1 ug/m(3) or less as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA8) and that 92 percent had exposures of 5 ug/m(3) TWA8 or less. [1, p. 13]. There are approximately 25,000 to 50,000 workers potentially exposed to cadmium in this industry sector.

Occupational titles among employees with potential cadmium exposure include welder, boilermaker, steamfitter, and electrician [3, p. 2], but "it is correct to say that all jobs involved welding of some sort." [2, p. 4]. Comments from an electric utility confirmed that employees exposed to cadmium were "primarily welders and solderers" [3, p. 1].

A health hazard evaluation report conducted by NIOSH at a power plant in Columbus, Ohio also showed that exposures to cadmium are generally low and intermittent. Of the 37 samples analyzed, 32 did not have any detectable quantities of cadmium. Only one sample indicated an exposure above 7 ug/m(3), and it represented work on electrostatic precipitators. [4, Table VI].

Existing and feasible additional controls. The final cadmium standard requires the use of feasible engineering and work practice controls as primary methods of compliance with the PEL. In addition, OSHA recognizes that respirators may be a necessary means of control in maintenance and repair activities and during brief or intermittent operations.

Activities with potential cadmium exposure in the electric utility industry may be amenable to engineering and work practice controls in some situations. For example, fly ash can be washed down prior to boiler maintenance activities, and fans or other ventilation systems can be used during maintenance operations. [1, p. 5].

Employees with potential exposure to cadmium would also have potential exposure to lead and arsenic [1, p. 9]. Existing occupational exposure standards for lead and arsenic already require feasible engineering controls to be used. Due to the nature of the activities with potential exposure and the unpredictability of exposure levels, the use of respiratory protection may be a necessary and appropriate means of controlling exposures in addition to feasible controls.

Employees performing welding, soldering, cutting, and maintenance and repair operations in this industry currently wear respirators to comply with the arsenic standards [5, p. 10-54]. In such circumstances, the use of respirators would also be an acceptable method of protection from cadmium exposure.

Technological feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The revised cadmium standard is technologically feasible in the electric utility industry. Exposure monitoring data demonstrate that current exposures are below the PEL for almost all employees. A representative of the industry trade association testified that the technological feasibility of the standard was not contested [5, p. 10-30].

Costs of compliance with a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Compliance with the revised cadmium standard would not require additional costs for engineering controls or respiratory protection in this industry. Employees are protected from exposures to arsenic and lead in activities with potential cadmium exposure; no activities were identified for which protection from cadmium exposure would require protection in addition to that necessary for exposure to lead or arsenic. Because of the unpredictability of the work, "in most instances 100 percent of those workers ... would be required to wear respiratory protection" at some point in time [5, p. 10-54].

Electric utilities currently conduct exposure monitoring for lead and arsenic as required by the existing standards. Employees with potential exposure to cadmium would be covered by this monitoring, but the samples may not be routinely analyzed for cadmium. Each plant may have five job categories or general types of work for which representative monitoring would be required on average. At a cost of $40 per sample, the required monitoring would cost $400 per plant and $1.6 million annually for the industry.

Medical surveillance is required by existing standards for employees with exposure to lead and arsenic. Unlike the proposed cadmium rule, these standards require medical surveillance if an employee is exposed above the action level more than 30 days in a year. The revised cadmium rule includes a similar provision, requiring medical surveillance for employees exposed above the action level on 30 or more days per year. This change to the proposed cadmium rule should make the medical surveillance requirements more consistent with those in the lead and arsenic standards.

Employees receiving medical surveillance under the lead or arsenic standards are given annual physical exams [5, p. 10-55]. These exams could also satisfy the corresponding requirements of the revised cadmium standard. The cadmium standard also requires some additional tests that may not be currently provided. Biological monitoring for cadmium in blood, cadmium in urine, and B(2)-microglobulin in urine would be required at least annually for employees qualifying for medical surveillance. The estimated cost for one set of these tests is $200.

Of the 500,000 employees comprising the entire work force in the electric utility industry, approximately 25,000 to 50,000 have potential cadmium exposure at some time during the year [5, p. 10-23]. Under an exclusion from medical surveillance of employees with less than 30 days of exposure above the action level, about 90 to 95 percent of those employees would be exempt from the biological monitoring requirements [5, p. 10-32].

OSHA estimates that the equivalent of about 3,000 employees would be given biological monitoring annually as required by the revised cadmium standard (this figure includes more frequent tests for some employees). The total annual cost to the industry would be $600,000. Provisions for medical removal are not expected to affect employees in this industry since exposures are relatively low and intermittent.

Existing requirements for arsenic and lead exposure include provisions for adequate hygiene facilities, regulated areas, protective clothing, information, and training. The requirements of the revised cadmium standard should not add any significant burden in these areas. Incremental costs and additional recordkeeping costs would be an estimated $5 per exposed employee annually. The estimated annual cost for the industry would be $188,000.

The estimated compliance costs for the electric utility industry are summarized in Table VIII-C39. Total annual costs of compliance are an estimated $2.388 million.

Economic feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The revised cadmium standard with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is economically feasible for the electric utility industry. Testimony from the industry confirmed that the economic feasibility of the standard was not contested [5, p. 10-30].


TABLE VIII-C39. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
  WITH THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE
  ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY
__________________________________________________
                                  | Annualized
          Provision               |    cost
                                  | ($thousands)
__________________________________|_______________
                                  |
Exposure control..................|        0.0
Exposure monitoring...............|    1,600.0
Medical surveillance..............|      600.0
Hygiene provisions................|        0.0
Recordkeeping and information.....|      188.0
                                  |______________
  Total...........................|    2,388.0
__________________________________|______________
  Note:  Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor.

Operating revenues for electric utilities total over $140 billion; total operating income exceeds $20 billion. The estimated compliance cost represents less than one five-hundredth of one percent of the revenues and about one hundredth of one percent of operating income. Compliance with the cadmium standard is not expected to have any significant impact on the demand for electricity, on prices, on production, or on installed generating capacity.

The implementation of the cadmium standard would not involve new programs or large changes in procedures. The employees affected by the cadmium standard are already covered by the standards for lead and arsenic. An electric utility company commented that the standard "is quite similar to many recent standards (arsenic, asbestos, etc.) in the requirements imposed on the employer if certain exposure limits are exceeded." [3, p. 1]. Compliance with the revised cadmium standard would generally involve a minor expansion of established programs for exposure monitoring and medical surveillance.

NOTES

1. Exhibit 9, Attachment A, "Testimony of James B. Lancour for the Edison Electric Institute," Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, July 10, 1990.

2. Exhibit 101, "Edison Electric Institute Post-Hearing Comments Occupational Exposure to Cadmium Proposed Rule," Edison Electric Institute, September 18, 1990.

3. Exhibit 19-5, "Tennessee Valley Authority Comments Applicable to Proposed Rule on Safety Standard 29 CFR 1910 Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," Tennessee Valley Authority, March 30, 1990.

4. Exhibit 19-26, Attachment 17, "Health Hazard Evaluation Report, City of Columbus Refuse Derived Fuel Power Plant, Columbus, Ohio," National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HETA 85-041-1709, July 1986.

5. Hearing Transcript, Thursday, July 19, 1990.

Iron and Steel

Industry overview. The U.S. iron and steel industry consists of about 80 companies operating over 120 facilities throughout the country [1, Attachment 2a, p. 1]. These plants produce about 100 million net tons of raw steel annually [1, Attachment 4, p. 1] and employ over 190,000 workers [1, Attachment 1, p. 1]. Steel is produced from molten iron, of which a small amount is also cast into solid forms to produce pig iron [1, Attachment 3, p. 13].

Over 90 percent of steel mill products are carbon steel; about 5 percent are alloys and the remainder are primarily stainless steel products. Over half of the products by weight are sheets and strip steel; bars, shapes, plates, piling, and tool steel make up about a third of steel shipments; and other products include pipe and tubing, tin mill products, and wire products. [1, Attachment 4, p. 1].

Production processes. The production of iron and steel begins with three basic raw materials: iron ore, limestone, and coal. Each of these materials is processed separately before being combined in a blast furnace.

Iron ore is crushed and further improved in one of several different process combinations that may involve mills, spiral concentrators, magnetic separators, sintering machines, or filters. Iron ore can also be prepared for steelmaking directly in some cases (by-passing the need for a blast furnace) through direct reduction.

Limestone is crushed and converted into lime by driving off carbon dioxide in either vertical or rotary lime kilns. Lime is primarily used as a flux in blast furnaces and steelmaking furnaces; it also has applications in drawing steel wire, in water treatment, and in acid neutralization.

Coal is crushed, sorted, and cleaned through the use of crushing machines, cyclones, washer jigs, and dryers. The cleaned coal is fed into coke ovens where high temperatures drive off gases, oils, and tar, which are made into various by-products. The coke ovens convert coal into coke which is porous, burns uniformly, and retains its strength under other materials in a blast furnace.

Iron ore, lime, and coke are charged into the top of a blast furnace. Super-heated air is blown upward from the bottom of the furnace, burning the coke. The interaction of the heat and gases removes oxygen from the iron ore; the lime acts as a cleansing agent. Molten iron collects in the bottom of the furnace and is drawn off as a white-hot stream of liquid iron. Most of the liquid iron is transferred to steelmaking furnaces, but it can also be cast into solid forms and sold.

Steel can be produced in different types of furnaces. In the United States approximately 60 percent of the steel is produced by basic oxygen furnaces; over 35 percent is produced in electric arc furnaces, and about 5 percent is produced in open hearth furnaces. In an oxygen furnace, high purity oxygen is blown into the top of the furnace at supersonic speed (in some modified oxygen furnaces, oxygen and other gases are blown in from the bottom). Electric arc furnaces use electrodes and open hearth furnaces use traditional open hearths to heat and burn the raw materials.

Steelmaking furnaces are charged with liquid iron from blast furnaces, iron ore from direct reduction, scrap material, lime and other fluxes. Impurities rise into a floating layer of slag which can be poured off. Alloys can be added to the furnace or combined with the steel as it is poured from the furnace into a ladle. The molten steel is then poured into molds to produce ingots or cast into slabs. Ingots and slabs are made into finished products through a variety of operations that shape the steel into strips, bars, plates, rods, beams, or rails. [1, Attachments 3 and 4].

Employee exposures. Cadmium is present only as a trace contaminant in the raw materials used for steelmaking and is not used in the manufacture of steel products. Cadmium has a boiling point one thousand degrees below the temperature needed to make iron and steel, and is volatized from the raw materials as they are melted. Potential exposures to cadmium may occur during furnace operations, welding operations, and other activities involving dust or fume such as maintenance work on pollution control equipment.

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) submitted exposure monitoring data for steelmaking operations [1, p. 4-9]. These data include eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA8) personal samples and area samples and are summarized in Table VIII-C40. The ranges of exposures "are representative of the steel industry data and reflect current worker exposures." [1, p. 10].


TABLE VIII-C40. --CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR
  STEELMAKING OPERATIONS BASED ON AISI
_____________________________________________________
                                  | Exposure range
   Operation and occupation/area  |   (ug/m(3))
__________________________________|__________________
                                  |
Blast furnaces:                   |
  Keeper..........................|    0.01 -  0.04
  Keeper helper...................|    0.02 -  0.03
  Trough repairman................|            0.03
  General laborer.................|            0.01
  Mech. shop......................|            0.00
  Welder..........................|            0.30
  Operator........................|            0.50
  Maintenance.....................|            3.00
Open hearth furnaces:             |
  Equipment operator..............|            0.03
  Third helper....................|    0.01 -  0.44
  Team leader.....................|            0.01
  Third steel pourer..............|            0.01
Basic oxygen furnaces:            |
  Craneman........................|            0.23
  First steel pourer..............|    0.00 -  0.51
  Material handler................|            0.05
  Floor above vessel..............|    0.90 -  1.00
  Behind furnace..................|            2.80
  Lance change platform...........|    1.30 -  2.90
  Furnace charging aisle..........|    1.30 -  6.90
  Nozzle setter...................|            0.20
  Ladle liner and helper..........|    0.20 -  0.30
  Vesselman.......................|            0.20
  Vessel operator.................|            0.20
  Binstocker......................|    0.00 -  6.00
  Millwright......................|    0.09 -  1.73
  Motor inspector.................|    0.00 - 19.00
  Desulfurizer....................|            0.20
  Laborer.........................|    0.20 -  5.70
  Crane operator..................|    0.00 -  0.20
  Hot metal attendant.............|            0.20
  Melter..........................|            0.20
  Lance changer...................|            2.25
  Elect. millwright...............|            0.60
  Equipment operator..............|    0.14 -  0.40
  Welder..........................|    0.04 -  0.40
  Pipefitter......................|    0.20 -  0.40
  Metalographist..................|            3.00
  Pourman.........................|    0.00 -  0.01
  Fabricator......................|    0.12 -  0.50
  Insulator.......................|    0.13 -  0.20
  Scrap Burner....................|    0.00 -  0.07
Casting:                          |
  Repairman.......................|            1.00
  Runout operator.................|    0.00 -  2.00
  Helpers.........................|            2.00
  Material handler................|            2.00
  Caster operator.................|            1.90
  Tundish mason...................|            0.08
  Mech. and maintenance...........|            0.76
  Mold operator...................|            2.00
  Tundish repair..................|            2.00
  Ladleman and helper.............|            0.90
  Billet stocker..................|            2.00
  Runout helper...................|    0.60 -  2.00
  Millwright......................|            2.00
  Caster helper...................|            2.00
Electric arc furnaces:            |
  Brickmason and attendants.......|    0.02 -  2.00
  Melt shop-mechanical............|    1.13 -  4.00
  Motor inspector.................|            1.06
  Furnaceman and attendants.......|    0.20 -  2.00
  Helpers.........................|    0.40 -  1.04
  Pourer..........................|    0.20 -  2.00
  Melter..........................|    0.20 -  2.00
  Laborer.........................|    0.20 - 22.00
  Furnace pulpit operator.........|    1.00 -  2.00
  Caster operator and helper......|    1.00 -  2.00
  Crane operator and chaser.......|    0.20 - 42.00
  Utility man.....................|    0.30 -  2.08
  Electrician.....................|    0.20 -  0.90
  Pitman and helper...............|            0.20
  Mobile equipment operator.......|    0.20 -  1.10
  Welder..........................|            0.90
  Ingot stripper and shopper......|            0.20
  Boilermaker.....................|            2.40
  Salvageman......................|    0.60 -  0.90
Air pollution control operations: |
  Electric furnace................|           86.00
  BOF - Millwright................|            1.00
  BOF - Laborer...................| 370.00 - 510.00
  Truck loader....................|            9.24
  Motor inspector.................|           10.08
  Millwright......................|           12.25
Leaded steelmaking:               |
  Charging helper.................|           11.34
  3rd steel pourer................|            1.56
  1st steel pourer................|            5.50
  Welder..........................|            2.07
  Scrap burner....................|   8.70 -  11.60
  Burner..........................|            2.60
  Merchant mill operator..........|            0.00
  Looper..........................|            0.50
Galvanizing:                      |
  Welder..........................|            1.19
  Layout welder...................|     1.19 - 1.50
  Zinc pot tender.................|            0.02
  Miscellaneous...................|     0.00 - 0.02
  Utility man.....................|            0.20
  Line inspector..................|            0.20
  Exit U-man......................|            0.20
  Line operator...................|     0.05 - 0.20
  Laborer.........................|            0.20
  Assistant operator..............|            0.20
  Coil feeder.....................|            0.05
  Elect. wireman..................|            0.52
  Millwright......................|     0.02 - 0.03
  Iron worker.....................|            0.21
  Galvalume.......................|            0.50
  Electroplating line.............|            0.20
  Potman..........................|            0.50
  Craneman........................|            0.50
  Hot nail galvanizing operator...|            2.00
Sinter plants:                    |
  Operator........................|            0.50
  Mechanic........................|            1.30
  Ore loader......................|            0.30
  Laborer.........................|     0.72 - 1.10
  Baghouse attendant..............|            0.60
  Feederman.......................|            0.58
Mild steel cutting:               |
  Welder..........................|            1.60
  Computer panel..................|            1.60
  Chalk tray......................|            1.60
Terne operations:                 |
  U-Man...........................|            0.00
  Tract. operator.................|            0.01
  Line operator...................|            0.06
  Assistant operator..............|            0.00
  Line coiler.....................|            0.04
  Equipment tender................|            0.00
  Plate mill burner...............|            1.94
  Bar mill........................|     0.00 - 0.15
__________________________________|_____________________
  Source: Exhibit 126, AISI, p. 4-9.

Exposure levels during open hearth furnace and blast furnace operations were less than 0.6 ug/m(3) for all workers except for maintenance workers who had a level of 3.0 ug/m(3). In basic oxygen furnace and casting operations, only four of the 43 job categories or areas listed had any TWA8 exposure levels above 3 ug/m(3); two of these peaks involved area samples taken near the furnace. In electric arc furnace operations the highest reported exposures for 17 of the 19 job categories are 4 ug/m(3) or less. During galvanizing operations, mild steel cutting, terne operations, and in sinter plants and mill operations, peak exposure levels did not exceed 2 ug/m(3) TWA8 in any of the 36 job categories and areas. Exposures above 5 ug/m(3) were reported for a few workers during leaded steelmaking and work on air pollution control systems.

Employee exposures in the steel industry were evaluated by JACA based on exposure monitoring data from NIOSH and OSHA. JACA characterized exposures for several occupations in the steel industry, including furnace operators; molding, casting, and forging operators; electroplaters; mechanics and maintenance employees; and millwrights. Employees in these occupations in the steel industry were considered to have exposures consistently below 5 ug/m(3). [2, p. 3-28 through 3-31, Table 3-10, and Appendix C].

AISI claimed that the NIOSH and JACA data were "not representative" of current exposures and expressed concern that OSHA's preliminary conclusions were not based on the best available information [1, p. 3]. The exposure data submitted by AISI appear to be consistent with the data used for the preliminary analysis and provide greater detail for specific types of operations in the steel industry. These data provide the basis for OSHA's revised analysis.

Existing and feasible additional controls. Steelmaking operations involve potential exposures to many hazardous substances and generate many emissions regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Steelmaking facilities have implemented and improved engineering controls constantly over the years to protect workers, comply with environmental regulations, and improve efficiency. The "best adequately demonstrated technological systems of continuous emission reduction controls are currently in place in steel making operations" [1, p. 2].

The OSHA lead standard requires all feasible engineering controls to be implemented to reduce lead exposures, and "[d]ue to the association of cadmium with lead" [1, p. 8] any engineering controls required by the revised cadmium standard should already be implemented. Requirements for engineering controls also apply to exposures to many other regulated substances found in the atmosphere of steelmaking plants. Since respirator use is common in the steelmaking industry, OSHA assumed that engineering controls have been implemented to the extent feasible.

AISI confirmed this conclusion and stated that "any further controls must be considered technically and/or economically infeasible." [1, p. 10]. Recent EPA regulations for both primary and secondary emissions for steelmaking operations "required the installation and use of the best demonstrated technological system of continuous emission reduction in new, modified, or reconstructed facilities. Virtually all steelmaking facilities are subject to these requirements." [1, p. 10]. AISI cited and included as part of its comments several studies of major steel operations conducted by EPA which describe feasible engineering controls extensively and document the above conclusion [1, p. 11 and Attachments 5 & 6].

Technological feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The revised cadmium standard with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is technologically feasible for the iron and steel industry. Current data submitted by industry demonstrate that employee exposures are consistently less than 5 ug/m(3) in almost all job categories.

Exposures may exceed the PEL in some operations, such as during leaded steelmaking or work on pollution control equipment. Five of 43 domestic member companies of AISI produce leaded steel [1, p. 12], and exposed employees wear respirators to comply with the current lead standard [1, p. 8]. To the extent that the requirements of the lead standard are being met, these employees are currently protected as required by the relevant provisions of the final cadmium standard. Respiratory protection may also be appropriate during other intermittent activities in which engineering controls are insufficient or infeasible, such as maintenance activities or work on dust collection systems.

Costs of compliance with a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. As discussed above, the implementation of additional engineering controls would generally be infeasible in steelmaking operations. Respiratory protection is used to reduce employee exposures to many other hazardous substances, including arsenic, lead, chromium, mercury, chlorine, and dozens of other elements or compounds [1, Attachment 5a, p. 3-40 and Attachment 6, p. 3-35]. Since cadmium is only present as a trace contaminant, exposures to cadmium would occur concomitantly with exposures to other regulated substances.

Based on the exposure monitoring data in the record, existing engineering controls should be able to keep cadmium exposures below 5 ug/m(3) for almost all employees. In addition, many or all of the remaining employees, such as those involved in leaded steel production and maintenance activities, are already provided with respiratory protection in accordance with the requirements of the revised cadmium standard [1, p. 3 and p. 8].

The record does not identify any situations for which it is demonstrated that protection from cadmium exposure would require measures beyond those already provided. Nevertheless, OSHA recognizes the possibility that the cadmium standard may require the use of respiratory protection for some employees for whom respirators would otherwise not be necessary.

The preliminary analysis accompanying the proposed cadmium standard, based on estimates provided by JACA, identified about 40,000 employees in the iron and steel industry potentially exposed to cadmium. This estimate included furnace operators, molders, casters, electroplaters, welders, maintenance and repair workers, and millwrights [2, p. 3-29 through 3-31 and Appendix C].

AISI emphasized that the data relied upon by OSHA were relevant to steel operations in the early 1980s and were "not representative of current operations" because since then "[t]he number of employees and job classifications have been reduced by more than 57 percent." [1, p. 3]. AISI also submitted data from the U.S. Department of Commerce indicating that the total number of production workers in 1990 was 194,000 [1, Attachment 1, p. 1] and testified that "[v]irtually all employees in the steel making operations are potentially exposed." [3, p. 9-284].

For purposes of estimating compliance costs, OSHA concluded that 190,000 employees may be potentially exposed to cadmium and that for all but 40,000 of these employees the exposure would be negligible. The exposure profile for the preliminary analysis indicated that about 10,000 employees in the iron and steel industry would potentially have exposures above 5 ug/m(3) [4, p. 4092-4093]. The exposure data from AISI indicate that less than 5 percent of the workforce would be potentially exposed above 5 ug/m(3). An estimated 90 percent of these workers would already be provided with respiratory protection due to the nature of the work and requirements of other standards [1, p. 3]. Thus, an additional 1,000 workers may need to wear respirators to comply with the cadmium rule. The estimated annual incremental cost to the industry would be $300,000.

Employees exposed to cadmium in the iron and steel industry are also exposed " to other substances that are currently regulated by OSHA substance-specific standards, such as arsenic and lead [and] a number of others." [3, p. 9-287]. As a result, "companies have in place medical surveillance programs for workers that are covered by these substances" [3, p. 9-287], and would also be conducting exposure monitoring for these substances. The incremental costs of compliance with the revised cadmium standard would involve costs for analyses of cadmium-specific biological and exposure monitoring samples.

The monitoring data submitted by AISI suggests that employees exposed below the PEL would generally have exposures below the action level as well. In addition, many employees would only be intermittently exposed above the action level and may fall outside of the coverage of the medical surveillance provisions [3, p. 9-288]. The number of employees for whom annual monitoring may be required is estimated to be less than 5,000; however, more frequent monitoring may be required for a few of these employees. An estimated 5,000 sets of biological monitoring tests would be necessary each year for full compliance.

The analysis of one set of samples for cadmium in urine, cadmium in blood, and B(2)-microglobulin in urine would cost an estimated $200. The total annual cost for the industry would be $1 million. Employees in this industry are not expected to be affected by the requirements for medical removal since occupational exposures are relatively low and intermittent.

Analyses for cadmium of exposure monitoring samples may be necessary on a regular basis for an average of ten job categories per facility. Samples would be analyzed for each of three shifts every six months at about 120 facilities, and each analysis would cost about $40. The total annual cost for the industry would be $288,000. This estimate may include some current expenditures for cadmium monitoring; the potential overestimate may be offset by potential costs for collecting additional samples.

Hygiene facilities and related practices required by the cadmium standard (including work clothing) and provisions concerning information and training in the cadmium standard are similar to corresponding requirements in existing standards for lead and arsenic. Employees exposed to cadmium are also potentially exposed to lead or arsenic [3, p. 9-288]. According to AISI, appropriate hygiene facilities "are provided in all leaded steel production areas." [1, p. 12]. Exposures above the PELs for lead or arsenic may also occur during some activities in any steel plant (e.g., maintenance, cleaning, or repair of baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, waste gas systems, etc.); hygiene facilities and practices are already required for these employees.

Estimated additional costs for recordkeeping are $5 per employee annually. The total estimated industry cost for the 10,000 affected employees would be $50,000 annually.

Estimated compliance costs for the iron and steel industry are summarized in Table VIII-C41. The total estimated cost is $1.64 million annually.

Economic feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The revised cadmium standard with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is economically feasible for the iron and steel industry.


TABLE VIII-C41. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
  WITH THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE IRON
  AND STEEL INDUSTRY
______________________________________________
                               |  Annualized
        Provision              |     Cost
                               | ($thousands)
_______________________________|______________
                               |
Exposure control...............|     0.0
Respirator use.................|   300.0
Exposure monitoring............|   288.0
Medical surveillance...........| 1,000.0
Hygiene provisions.............|     0.0
Recordkeeping and information..|    50.0
                               |_______________
    Total......................| 1,638.0
_______________________________|_______________
  Note: Costs do not include current expenditures.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor.

Compliance with the rule does not threaten the dislocation of firms or the competitive structure of the industry.

The U.S. Department of Commerce reported that in 1989 the value of blast furnace and basic steel industry shipments exceeded $64 billion [5, p. 1-20]. The ratio of the estimated compliance cost to the value of shipments is less than 0.00003. Compliance with the revised cadmium standard should not have any significant effect on total revenues, shipments, or employment.

New capital expenditures for the blast furnace and basic steel industry were over $3 billion in 1989, an increase of about 33 percent over 1988 [5, p. 1-51]. Strong prospects for continuing future profitability are expected for this industry. Expectations of profits would hardly be affected by the cadmium standard: labor costs are about $12.4 billion annually [5, p. 1-33], and the estimated compliance cost represents an increase in labor costs of less than 0.014 percent.

The iron and steel industry is subject to environmental and other regulations that impose costs far greater than the cadmium standard. EPA estimated that annualized costs of compliance for the steel industry for a new emissions standard were over $34 million (1981 dollars) [1, p. 11 and 1, Attachment 5a, p. 8-17]. Additional expenses are incurred for compliance with other regulations, including occupational exposure to lead and arsenic. The cadmium standard represents a minimal increase in total regulatory burden and involves provisions consistent with requirements imposed by existing regulations.

The costs of compliance have not and will not threaten the existence of the industry, reduce its competitiveness, or cause its contraction. From 1984 through 1989 (the latest year for which data are available), the percentage of imports of steel mill products purchased in the United States decreased steadily from 26.4 percent to 17.9 percent. In the same period, exports of steel mill products from the United States increased by 470 percent from less than one million tons to 4.6 million tons. Revenues from exports were over $2.7 billion in 1989. [1, Attachment 4, p. 1]. The cadmium standard is not expected to affect the competitive position of the industry.


Notes

1. Exhibit 126, "RE: Cadmium in Steelmaking - OSHA Docket No. H-057a,"
     American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C., October 17, 1990.
2. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the
     Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.
3. Hearing Transcript, Wednesday, July 18, 1990.
4. Occupational Exposure to Cadmium, Proposed Rule, Occupational Safety
     and Health Administration, Federal Register Volume 55, Number 25,
     February 6, 1990.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989 Annual Survey
     of Manufacturers, Economics and Statistics Administration, June, 1991.

General Industry, Except Establishments Included Above

Industry overview. Potential exposures to cadmium may occur in many different industries which use cadmium or products containing cadmium as part of their operations. Activities which produce concentrations of dust or fume may cause employee exposures if cadmium is a component of the materials involved.

JACA Corporation reviewed occupations in each industry and compiled a list of industries and occupations which involve relevant activities and potential exposure to cadmium [1, p. C-4 through C-10]. JACA identified occupations in industries with specific uses for cadmium or cadmium compounds in production processes, and occupations in industries that are not directly associated with cadmium but may involve incidental exposure in the use of products containing cadmium.

The chemical properties of cadmium lead to its usefulness in several diverse areas. JACA described a variety of industrial applications for cadmium, including the use of cadmium in alloys [1, p. 2-57]. The principal alloys which use cadmium are zinc, lead, and copper alloys; cadmium may also be used for silver and tin alloys.

Copper-cadmium alloys typically contain 0.8 to 1.2 percent cadmium. This small amount of cadmium doubles the strength of the alloy and reduces its electrical conductivity by only 10 percent, making the alloy ideal for overhead conductors for trains and for use in multi-strand conductors. The mechanical properties of rolled, drawn, and extruded zinc can be improved with 0.05 to 0.10 percent cadmium in the alloy. Lead alloys and solders may contain cadmium for its strengthening properties and low melting temperature. Cadmium may also be added to silver and gold alloys for the production of jewelry.

New materials used in the production of photovoltaic cells include copper indium diselenide, gallium arsenide, and cadmium telluride. Electrical contacts made with cadmium compounds have high tensile strength and are corrosion resistant; they are used in heavy duty applications such as relays, switches, and thermostats. Cadmium also has applications in the production phosphors in television picture tubes, photographic equipment, and lighting, and in catalysts for the production of esters. Cadmium-based control elements are used in some nuclear reactors. Cadmium compounds may be used in the production of phosphatic fertilizers, fungicides, and other chemicals. JACA identified many other industries, ranging from semiconductors to refuse systems, where materials containing cadmium may be present. [1, p. 2-11, 2-58, 3-28, and C-4 through C-10].

The U.S. Department of Commerce provided a consumption analysis of cadmium that showed how much cadmium was used for the output of each industry [2, Attachment A]. An accompanying input-output matrix showed how much cadmium each industry supplied to other industries as inputs for the production of final goods [2, Attachment B]. The industries identified in these tables generally parallel the JACA exposure profile, except that JACA identified a wider range of potentially affected industries. The Department of Commerce consumption analysis may not accurately portray employee exposures because products can be assembled with cadmium-containing parts without resulting in cadmium exposure. Alternatively, as recognized by JACA and discussed above, cadmium exposures are possible in industries not listed on the input-output tables. In order to ensure a complete and full analysis of the impact of the revised cadmium standard, OSHA considered all industries identified by JACA and the Department of Commerce as potentially affected by the new requirements and included each in the revised analysis.

NIOSH provided data to the record from the National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) [3, Attachment 1]. The NOES data was collected during the period 1981 to 1983 from a sample of 4,490 businesses and was designed to characterize employee exposures to chemicals by occupation and industry. The list of industries with potential cadmium exposures identified by NIOSH is generally consistent with that compiled by JACA and also includes some additional sectors. OSHA added the industries identified by NIOSH to those identified by JACA and the Department of Commerce to create a combined and complete list of potentially affected industries.

Several commenters criticized JACA and the preliminary analysis for not including all affected industries. However, OSHA found that often the industries listed to support such claims had been previously identified by JACA and were covered by the preliminary analysis. For example, one commenter stated that the "analysis of the proposed regulation is incomplete. Not included in your analysis are industries such as specialty alloy foundries, cadmium use in brazing, babbitt metal production, cadmium vapor lighting, photoelectric cell production, and the production of cadmium-based chemicals." [4, p. 1]. Many employees in these industries were included in the exposure profile developed by JACA and used for the preliminary analysis [1, p. 2-57 through 2-59, p. 3-28 through 3-32, and p. C-4 through C-10]. The revised analysis includes all industries identified in the record as potentially affected.

Table VIII-C42 presents a complete list of the industries potentially affected by the revised standard. The table also shows which industries were identified by JACA, the Department of Commerce, and NIOSH.

Production processes. JACA evaluated the specific activities involving cadmium in each industry and determined which processes and occupations would be potentially affected. JACA also assessed the nature of exposures in each case and categorized occupations by the type of work performed and by the degree of exposure. [1].

Comments and evidence submitted to the record in response to the proposed rule confirmed the potential for cadmium exposures in many processes identified preliminarily. As discussed above, information was also provided by some commenters which enabled a more detailed and comprehensive analysis to be developed for the final rule.


TABLE VIII-C42, -- INDUSTRIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE REVISED
                   CADMIUM STANDARD
__________________________________________________________________
                                  |      Identified by
__________________________________|_______________________________
 SIC  |                           |          |         |
Code  | Industry title            | JACA (1) | DOC (2) | NIOSH (3)
______|___________________________|__________|_________|__________
      |                           |          |         |
16....| Heavy construction........|      x   |.........|     x
17....| Construction trades.......|      x   |.........|     x
22....| Textile mill products.....|      x   |.........|     x
23....| Apparel...................|..........|.........|     x
25....| Furniture.................|      x   |.........|     x
26....| Paper & allied products...|      x   |.........|     x
27....| Printing & publishing.....|..........|.........|     x
28....| Chemicals.................|      x   |     x   |     x
29....| Petroleum refining........|..........|.........|     x
30....| Rubber & plastics.........|      x   |.........|     x
31....| Leather products..........|..........|.........|     x
32....| Stone, clay, glass........|      x   |.........|     x
33....| Primary metals............|      x   |     x   |     x
34....| Fabricated metal prod.....|      x   |     x   |     x
35....| Machinery & equipment.....|      x   |     x   |     x
36....| Electrical equipment......|      x   |     x   |     x
37....| Transportation equip......|      x   |     x   |     x
38....| Measuring instruments.....|      x   |     x   |     x
39....| Miscellaneous manufac.....|      x   |.........|     x
40....| Railroad transportation...|      x   |.........|..........
42....| Motor Trans. & warehsing..|..........|.........|     x
45....| Air transportation........|      x   |.........|     x
48....| Communications............|..........|.........|     x
49....| Utilities.................|      x   |.........|     x
50....| Wholesale durables........|      x   |.........|..........
51....| Wholesale nondurables.....|..........|.........|     x
55....| Automotive dealers........|..........|.........|     x
73....| Business services.........|..........|.........|     x
75....| Automotive services.......|      x   |.........|..........
76....| Misc. repair services.....|      x   |.........|..........
80....| Health services...........|      x   |.........|     x
______|___________________________|__________|_________|___________
  Footnote(1) Exhibit 13, JACA Corporation, p. C-4 through C-10.
  Footnote(2) Exhibit 19-50, U.S. Department of Commerce, Attachment B.
  Footnote(3) Exhibit 106, NIOSH, Attachment 1.

Employees in each industry were classified into different occupational categories depending on their job and on their exposure profile. A sufficient number of occupational categories was defined to ensure that occupations in each industry were provided with a representative exposure profile. The classification of occupations was consistent with the standard concepts and descriptions presented in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) [5].

In addition to the occupations included in the industry sectors analyzed in the preceding sections, employees in general industry were classified into the ten occupational categories described below.

Chemical mixers may be exposed to dust generated when adding compounds to a chemical or mechanical mixing operation, tending mixing equipment, or operating machines to crush, grind, polish, and blend a variety of materials. Employees may be exposed to cadmium-based plastic stabilizers, cadmium-based pigments, compounds used for metallic coatings, compounds used in the production of fungicides, and other cadmium compounds. [1, p. 3-28]. Applicable titles listed in the DOT include chemical mixer, chemical operator, chemical compounder, chemical milling processor, and chemical preparer.

Electroplaters are employed in several industries that perform electroplating as part of their manufacturing operations. These employees include plating and coating machine setters, operators, and tenders who provide protective or decorative surfaces for metals and other materials. Because electroplating is a wet process, employees are generally only exposed for short periods while measuring and adding dry cadmium-bearing powder to the plating tank. [1, p. 3-28].

Furnace operators and molders may be exposed to cadmium fumes released by molten metal during smelting, refining, molding, casting, and forging operations. Employees engaged in these activities include forging machine operators; metal molding, coremaking, and casting machine operators; operators of melting and refining furnaces; and metal pourers and casters. [1, p. 3-29]. Specific job titles listed in the DOT include furnace operator, charger, helper, loader, tender, and worker; molder, molder machine tender, molder operator; and mold checker, clamper, closer, dresser, maker, setter, stamper, worker, filler, and finisher.

Kiln or kettle operators may be exposed to cadmium compounds in chemical conversions, or while heating materials with glazes, paints, or other coatings which may contain cadmium. Employees in this category operate kilns, kettles, ovens, or furnaces for annealing, roasting, or converting processes. Employees may have occupational titles such as kiln operator, burner, feeder, firer, loader, helper, or worker; oven tender; and kettle operator, tender, or worker.

Heat treaters may be exposed to cadmium fumes when heating metals coated with or containing cadmium. These employees set up, operate, and tend flame-hardening machines, electronic induction machines, furnaces, and baths to harden, anneal, and heat treat metal products or metal parts.

Equipment cleaners may be exposed to cadmium when cleaning equipment contaminated with dusts containing cadmium or cadmium compounds. Industrial cleaners and cleaner operators would also be included in this category. Exposures may occur while cleaning baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, process equipment, and process areas.

Metal machine operators may be exposed to cadmium generated while grinding or forming metals bearing cadmium as a component or as part of a coating. Employees engaged in these activities include machinists; grinders; filers; sharpeners; lapping and buffing machine tool operators; operators of machines that roll steel or plastic material to form bends, beads, knurls, or plate, or to flatten, temper, or reduce the gauge of material; workers who set up and operate magnetic or other controlled machine tools that automatically mill, drill, broach, or ream metal parts; and general metal machining or metal working occupations.

Painters may be exposed to cadmium contained in paints or metal sprays during spray painting or nonelectrolytic metal coating. Activities included in this category are coating machine operation; painting and spraying machine operation; operation of nonelectrolytic plating and coating machines such as hot dip lines and metal spraying machines to coat metal, plastic, and other materials with metal; and painting, coating, and decorating a wide variety of manufactured items using hand tools or hand held power tools.

Repair and utility workers may be exposed to cadmium during repair or maintenance activities and work on industrial equipment. These employees would include millwrights who dismantle, move, and install machinery and heavy equipment; general utility repairers performing a variety of maintenance tasks; automotive and motorcycle mechanics; automotive body repairers; aircraft mechanics and engine specialists; farm equipment mechanics; mechanics who repair mobile heavy equipment such as cranes, bulldozers, graders, and conveyors; rail car repairers; electricians; plumbers; pipefitters; steamfitters; and boilermakers who construct, assemble, maintain, and repair steam boilers and boilerhouse auxiliaries.

Welders, brazers, and solderers may be exposed to cadmium fumes released from cadmium-bearing base metals, brazing rods, or solders. This category includes employees operating welding, brazing, or soldering machines and employees performing such work with hand tools. Workers engaged in this type of work include structural steel workers who raise, place, and unite girders, columns, and other components; metal pattern makers who lay out, machine, assemble, and fit pattern parts; metal fabricators who make and assemble sheet metal products and equipment or other metal products such as frameworks or shells for machinery, ovens, tanks, stacks, buildings, and bridges; precision assemblers of products such as machinery, aircraft, electrical, or electronic equipment; other machine, electrical, or electronic assemblers; employees who use welding and flamecutting equipment such as arc welders, gas welders, and gas torches to join, cut, trim, and scarf metal components; and solderers and brazers who join metal parts or fill holes, indentations, and seams of fabricated metal products.

Table VIII-C43 shows the estimated number of employees in each occupational category for each industry. This table summarizes the best available information regarding production processes, occupations, and numbers of employees potentially affected, as provided by the record.

The compilation of the data in Table VIII-C43 from evidence in the record did not involve significant conflicts of information. Industries, occupations, or processes identified by any source were included. Those included in the preliminary analysis and receiving no comments were also included in the final analysis. None of the comments in response to the proposed rule or other comments argued that a previously identified industry, process, or occupation should be excluded.

Employee exposures. Estimated employee exposures in the occupational categories described above were presented in the preliminary analysis [6, p. II-37; and 7, p. 4092]. These data, compiled by JACA Corporation [1], were based on NIOSH and OSHA exposure monitoring results from over 2,400 samples analyzed for cadmium. Table VIII-C44 summarizes these data, showing the geometric mean, the median, and the range of exposures for each occupational category.


TABLE VIII-C43. -- EMPLOYEES POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO CADMIUM IN GENERAL
                   INDUSTRY BY OCCUPATION

(For Figure VIII-C43, Click Here)

(For Figure VIII-C43 cont, Click Here) TABLE VIII-C44, -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS BASED ON JACA ____________________________________________________________________ | Concentration in ug/m(3) Job Category |_________________________________________ | Geometric Mean | Median | Range __________________________|________________|________|_______________ | | | Chemical mixer............| 2.7 | 5.0 | 0.1 - 710.0 Electroplater.............| 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 - 29.0 Furnace operator..........| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 - 530.0 Kiln/kettle operator......| 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 - 10.0 Heat treater..............| 2.6 | 6.5 | 0.1 - 100.0 Equipment cleaner.........| 2.0 | 3.0 | 0.1 - 34.5 Metal machining...........| 1.3 | 2.0 | 0.1 - 470.0 Painter...................| 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 -1,700.0 Repair/utility............| 2.0 | 3.0 | 0.1 - 271.0 Welder, brazer, solderer..| 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 -3,400.0 __________________________|________________|________|_______________ Source: Exhibit 13, JACA, Table 3-10. TABLE VIII-C45, -- FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OBSERVATIONS [In percent] ___________________________________________________________________________ | Range of Exposure Observations (ug/m(3)) Occupation |_________________________________________________ | 0-5 | 6-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-49 | 50-99 | 100+ _________________________|_____|_____|_______|_______|_______|_______|_____ | | | | | | | Chemical mixers..........| 51 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 9 Electroplaters...........| 86 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 Furnace operators........| 91 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 Kiln/kettle operators....| 87 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 Heat treaters............| 50 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 Equipment cleaners.......| 83 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 Metal machine operators..| 63 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 Painters.................| 77 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 10 Repair/utility workers...| 57 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 9 Welders, brazers, | | | | | | | solders.................| 88 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 _________________________|_____|_____|_______|_______|_______|_______|_____ Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA; based on JACA [1].

Table VIII-C45 presents the estimated frequency distribution of exposures for each of the occupational categories.

Comments and evidence submitted to the record in response to the proposed rule were generally consistent with the characterization of exposures presented for the occupational categories. Some industry representatives argued that due to unique circumstances specific to their industry it was inappropriate to include employees from their industry in the occupational categories. In response to these concerns, employee exposures in the dry color formulator industry, the electric utility industry, the iron and steel industry, and the construction industry are excluded from the occupational categories in the revised analysis and are analyzed separately.

Evidence specific to the remaining industries was generally consistent with and confirmed the representativeness of the preliminary exposure profiles for the relevant occupational categories. Employee exposures are generally similar within occupations across all industry groups.

Several commenters emphasized that employees in certain occupational categories have potential exposures to cadmium in specific circumstances that should not be overlooked. For example, the brass mill industry, the copper refining industry, copper and brass fabricators, silver alloying facilities, and aluminum casting operations may involve metal machining and furnace activities with cadmium exposures [8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

Exposure levels can be expected to vary among establishments as well as across shifts for individual operations. Variation in exposures and the possibility of higher exposures in certain activities were included in the frequency distribution of cadmium exposure observations for the occupational categories. The preliminary analysis showed that of the 83,000 metal machine operators and furnace operators potentially exposed to cadmium, over 16,000 may be exposed to levels above 20 ug/m(3) [7, Table VIII-B].

OSHA believes that the exposure profiles in the revised analysis adequately reflect the extent of cadmium exposures in the occupations and include circumstances identified by commenters across industry.

Existing and feasible additional controls. Occupational exposures to cadmium can be controlled with a number of conventional technologies that are commonly known, readily available, and currently used in many industries. OSHA does not specify which controls must be implemented. Rather, OSHA allows the employer to choose a combination of control methods that is best suited to the particular characteristics of the work place. Industry may also devise additional ways to successfully control exposure levels.

JACA described several controls applicable for reducing cadmium exposures [1, p. 4-3 et seq.]. Local exhaust ventilation systems can be applied at a wide variety of emissions sources by designing hoods for the close capture of dusts or fumes. Such systems can be highly effective in reducing employee exposures because potential contaminants may be captured at the point of generation.

Another basic type of engineering control is process enclosure. Enclosure may consist of sealed paneling or covers for equipment, or may involve more sophisticated strategies. For example, an enclosed screw conveyor may be an effective alternative to manually transferring material in some operations. In addition to enclosure, or in operations for which enclosure is not an amenable strategy, separation and isolation of the process may provide an effective solution for reducing cadmium exposures among employees.

Improvements in work practices may aid in significantly reducing the generation of airborne cadmium and in ensuring that employees are not unnecessarily exposed to elevated concentrations. Cadmium exposures for maintenance workers may be reduced through additional cleanup of equipment and surrounding areas prior to maintenance and repair operations.

Principles of controlling occupational exposure to cadmium were described by NIOSH [13, p. 11 et seq.]. The system of control measures outlined by NIOSH provides a flexible and reliable approach applicable to establishments in all industries. NIOSH recommends the selection of a control strategy as a critically important first step. A careful application of a system of controls is usually required to adequately control cadmium exposures. This would include measures applied to the hazard source, to the general work environment, at or near the employees potentially exposed, and other measures for hazard control.

Specific measures listed by NIOSH that should be considered include substitution of materials, process modification or substitution, equipment selection and modification for containment, wet processing, isolation of the source and automation of operations, local exhaust ventilation, work practices to maintain containment and control effectiveness, dilution ventilation, room air cleaning devices, housekeeping and other work practices, personal hygiene, isolation of workers in booths or cabs, personal protective equipment, management commitment to controlling exposures, work place and process monitoring systems with feedback, training for workers and supervisors, and preventive maintenance of equipment and controls.

Descriptions of controls were also provided for the record by other commenters [9, 10, 12, 16, and others]. Different controls are available for many diverse operations and generally provide examples of achieving exposure reductions according to the basic principles outlined by NIOSH. Controls with applications in a wide variety of industries include clean air islands, glove boxes, and equipment for handling, dumping, and packaging materials.

Technological feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Compliance with the final cadmium standard is considered technologically feasible in each of the affected industries. This determination is based on and is consistent with the evidence in the record, the criteria established by the courts in applicable case law, and the understanding of technological feasibility developed through OSHA policy (see, for example, OSHA's statement of reasons made in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding the final rule on occupational exposure to lead [14]).

OSHA recognizes that in some operations employee exposures may not be consistently controllable to below 5 ug/m(3) with engineering and work practice controls alone. Respirators are permitted to supplement feasible engineering and work practice controls and are capable of providing sufficient protection for all employees as required by the revised standard.

The typical firm in each of the industries considered in this section should be able to achieve levels below 5 ug/m(3) for most employees most of the time. As shown in Table VIII-C44, geometric mean exposures in all of the occupations are less than 3 ug/m(3). Furthermore, as shown in Table VIII-C46, the total number of potentially affected employees in each industry is less than 13% of the work force in each industry. In all but four industries the proportion of affected workers was less than 8%. The record did not contain evidence demonstrating that any establishment would not be able to achieve the PEL for most of its employees.

Compliance with the revised cadmium standard is technologically feasible. The standard requires engineering and work practice controls to be implemented to the extent feasible. Respirators can be used to provide necessary protection as required by the standard.


TABLE VIII-C46. -- RATIO OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES TO TOTAL
                   EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
__________________________________________________________________________
                                    | Potentially |   Total    | Ratio
      Industry                      |   exposed   |  industry  |  of
                                    | employees   |  employees | A / B
                                    |     (A)     |    (B)     |
____________________________________|_____________|____________|_________
                                    |             |            |
2200 Textile mill products..........|         411 |    675,000 | 0.001
2300 Apparel........................|         201 |  1,039,800 | 0.000
2500 Furniture......................|       1,232 |    483,600 | 0.003
2600 Paper products.................|         195 |    693,000 | 0.000
2700 Printing and publishing........|       1,600 |  1,523,600 | 0.001
2810 Inorganic chemicals............|         195 |    137,800 | 0.001
2820 Plastics and synthetics........|         870 |    178,100 | 0.005
2830 Drugs..........................|          50 |    247,900 | 0.000
2851 Paints & allied products.......|       4,724 |     59,100 | 0.080
2860 Organic chemicals..............|       2,533 |    153,500 | 0.017
2870 Agricultural chemicals.........|       2,507 |     55,800 | 0.045
2890 Miscellaneous chemicals........|       1,024 |     98,600 | 0.010
2900 Petroleum refining.............|         807 |    161,200 | 0.005
3000 Rubber & plastic prod..........|      11,133 |    866,000 | 0.013
3100 Leather products...............|         902 |    122,500 | 0.007
3211 Flat glass.....................|         666 |     15,700 | 0.042
3220 Glassware......................|       2,929 |     81,800 | 0.036
3250 Structural clay products.......|       2,423 |     32,500 | 0.075
3260 Pottery products...............|         174 |     36,500 | 0.005
3270 Concrete products..............|         624 |    198,200 | 0.003
3280 Stone products.................|         200 |     34,000 | 0.006
3290 Mineral products...............|         899 |     76,300 | 0.012
3313 Alloy products.................|         488 |     14,100 | 0.035
3315 Steel wiredrawing..............|         500 |     11,300 | 0.044
3316 Cold-rolled steel..............|          37 |     14,900 | 0.002
3317 Steel pipe and tubes...........|         400 |     24,200 | 0.017
3320 Iron and steel foundries.......|      10,808 |    125,200 | 0.086
3330 Primary nonferrous metals......|       1,800 |     44,800 | 0.040
3340 Secondary nonferrous metals....|         750 |     17,000 | 0.044
3350 Nonferrous rolling, etc........|       3,135 |    167,600 | 0.019
3360 Nonferrous foundries...........|      10,022 |     81,000 | 0.124
3390 Miscellaneous primary metals...|         285 |     25,000 | 0.011
3410 Metal shipping containers......|         140 |     48,700 | 0.003
3420 Hand tools & hardware..........|       2,781 |    122,600 | 0.023
3430 Heating & plumbing equipment...|       1,186 |     58,300 | 0.020
3440 Fabricated structures - metal..|      17,065 |    412,000 | 0.041
3450 Screws, etc....................|         868 |     90,500 | 0.010
3460 Forgings & stampings...........|         612 |    218,600 | 0.003
3470 Coating and engraving..........|         200 |    116,600 | 0.002
3480 Ordnance.......................|         265 |     69,700 | 0.004
3490 Miscellaneous fabricated metal |             |            |
      products......................|       9,071 |    229,200 | 0.040
3510 Engines and turbines...........|       3,036 |     88,900 | 0.034
3520 Farm and garden machinery......|         199 |     97,600 | 0.002
3530 Construction machinery.........|      10,453 |    212,400 | 0.049
3540 Metalworking machinery.........|      16,127 |    308,600 | 0.052
3550 Special machinery..............|       6,533 |    146,800 | 0.045
3560 General machinery..............|      11,633 |    238,700 | 0.049
3570 Computer & office equipment....|       1,600 |    414,500 | 0.004
3580 Refrigeration and service      |             |            |
      machinery.....................|      14,180 |    166,700 | 0.085
3590 Miscellaneous machinery........|      19,615 |    297,900 | 0.066
3610 Electrical transmission        |             |            |
      equipment.....................|       6,388 |     91,300 | 0.070
3620 Electrical apparatus...........|      12,460 |    159,500 | 0.078
3630 Household appliances...........|       7,586 |    121,800 | 0.062
3640 Lighting and wiring............|      13,266 |    177,100 | 0.075
3650 Audio & video equipment........|       3,021 |     80,100 | 0.038
3660 Communications equipment.......|      17,886 |    246,200 | 0.073
3670 Electronic components..........|      15,412 |    542,900 | 0.028
3690 Miscellaneous electrical       |             |            |
      equipment.....................|         350 |    164,400 | 0.002
3710 Motor vehicles.................|      18,032 |    807,400 | 0.022
3720 Aircraft.......................|       2,776 |    641,500 | 0.004
3730 Ship building..................|       7,907 |    174,600 | 0.045
3743 Railroad equipment.............|       1,458 |     30,600 | 0.048
3760 Missiles & space vehicles......|         359 |    165,200 | 0.002
3790 Miscellaneous transmission     |             |            |
      equipment.....................|         119 |     40,900 | 0.003
3812 Detection equipment, etc.......|          67 |    257,100 | 0.000
3820 Measurement and construction   |             |            |
      instrument....................|         216 |    305,500 | 0.001
3840 Medical instruments............|         337 |    254,200 | 0.001
3860 Photographic equipment.........|         669 |    100,000 | 0.007
3870 Watches & clockwork............|         173 |      9,900 | 0.017
3910 Jewelry & plated ware..........|          79 |     52,900 | 0.001
3930 Musical instruments............|          16 |     12,100 | 0.001
3940 Toys and sporting goods........|       1,004 |    105,500 | 0.010
3950 Artists' materials.............|          50 |     32,100 | 0.002
3960 Costume jewelry & notions......|          29 |     31,600 | 0.001
3990 Miscellaneous manufacturing....|       2,749 |    136,800 | 0.020
4011 Railroads......................|          23 |    230,500 | 0.000
4200 Motor freight & warehousing....|         586 |  1,667,000 | 0.000
4500 Air transportation.............|      52,147 |    750,900 | 0.069
4810 Telephone communications.......|       2,474 |    887,800 | 0.003
4830 Radio & TV broadcasting........|         149 |    231,200 | 0.001
4920 Gas production & distribution..|       1,213 |    165,300 | 0.007
4950 Sanitary services..............|       5,204 |    130,300 | 0.040
5000 Wholesale trade, durables......|         690 |  3,493,000 | 0.000
5100 Wholesale nondurables..........|       3,080 |  2,572,000 | 0.001
5500 Service stations...............|         538 |  2,054,000 | 0.000
7530 Automotive repair shops........|       3,194 |    526,400 | 0.006
7600 Miscellaneous repair services..|       3,494 |    382,800 | 0.009
8060 Hospitals......................|         277 |  3,676,100 | 0.000
                                    |_____________|____________|________
   Totals...........................|     365,566 | 32,342,400 | 0.011
____________________________________|_____________|____________|________
  Source: Table VIII-C43 and Employment and Earnings, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, November 1991.

Several comments submitted to the record expressed concern about the technological feasibility of the standard. Often the concern was based on the misconception that OSHA had assumed the PEL could be achieved with engineering controls for all employees in all circumstances. The revised standard requires controls to be implemented to the extent feasible but is not based on the assumption that the PEL will be achieved through engineering controls in all operations.

Based on evidence and comments in the record, OSHA concluded that respirator use would probably be necessary in some situations. These may occur in the production of cadmium alloys, in processes using powdered cadmium-bearing materials, and in activities producing fumes from substances containing cadmium.

Costs of compliance with a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Costs of compliance for establishments affected by the revised cadmium standard include costs for engineering controls, respiratory protection, protective clothing, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, hygiene facilities, information and training, and recordkeeping. Costs for each of these elements are estimated by industry.

In evaluating compliance costs for each industry, OSHA considered the number of employees potentially exposed in each industry, the respective occupations represented, and the nature of exposures in the industry. The extent and degree of exposure among the affected employees was determined based on information in the record for specific industries.

In response to concerns of several commenters, the revised analysis presents estimated compliance costs for each industry affected. Variations in compliance costs between industries were primarily due to the numbers of affected employees and the mix of occupations represented.

Engineering controls are available for reducing most of the exposures in the affected occupations. In some applications, employers may be able to eliminate cadmium exposure through substitution of products. Such alternatives may be feasible for some uses of cadmium pigments, cadmium stabilizers, cadmium plating, and cadmium alloys [1, 17, 18]. Improved work practices can significantly reduce exposures by preventing the unnecessary generation or inhalation of airborne cadmium and by increasing employees' awareness of potential hazards. General dilution ventilation and local exhaust ventilation are effective means of reducing exposures and are adaptable to a wide variety of circumstances.

The installation of a new ventilation system would have an estimated capital cost of $80,000 and an annual operating cost of $8,000. Controls such as enclosures and glove boxes may have estimated capital costs of about $9,000. Some establishments may also install other feasible controls instead of those specified depending on the circumstances involved. The estimated costs of compliance would be expected to be similar. [1, 16].

Exposures for most chemical mixers may be controlled with local exhaust ventilation systems. Such systems would be applicable in about 75 percent of the situations in which exposures need to be reduced [19]. New controls would be necessary for reducing exposures for an estimated 40 percent of the total number of chemical mixers, and on average one control would be sufficient for every 10 employees [6, p. V-13]. Additional engineering controls would not be required for employees with exposures below the action level, in operations for which engineering controls are infeasible, or in operations for which feasible controls have already been implemented. After the implementation of feasible additional controls, exposures for an estimated 30 percent of the chemical mixers may exceed the action level, and 20 percent would exceed the PEL. For these latter employees respirators would be required.

The number of engineering controls required for chemical mixers in each industry was thus calculated as N*0.40/10, where N is the number of chemical mixers potentially exposed in the industry. The annualized cost of engineering controls for the chemical mixers in each industry would be (N*0.40/10)*$21,020.

Electroplater exposures may be reduced with ventilation systems and use of a glove box. Electroplating facilities are generally provided with adequate ventilation systems, but some may require new or improved glove boxes to better control exposures. A new glove box would have an estimated capital cost of $9,000, an annualized cost of about $1,465, and would be sufficient for about 10 affected employees on average. The exposure data indicate that the additional protection would be necessary for about 20 percent of the electroplaters. The annualized cost of engineering controls for electroplaters in each industry would thus be (N*0.20/10)*$1,465, where N represents the number of electroplaters in each industry. After the implementation of feasible controls, an estimated 10 percent of the electroplaters may have exposures above the action level. Five percent may have exposures above the PEL and would be required to wear respirators.

Feasible engineering controls for furnace operators include local exhaust ventilation systems and furnace enclosures. It is expected that furnace operations already utilize feasible ventilation systems. Use of additional enclosures or furnace covers may be feasible to reduce exposures for about 30 percent of the furnace operators. (The percent of employees and establishments requiring additional controls is greater than that indicated by the full-time equivalent percentage of employees exposed above the PEL because controls may be required regardless of intermittency of exposure.) Each control would reduce exposures for about ten employees on average. The annualized cost of engineering controls for furnace operators in each industry would be (N*0.30/10)*$1,465.

Exposures for furnace operators should generally be below the action level after the implementation of feasible controls. However, some furnace operations may involve melts that contain a significant percentage of cadmium. As a result, employees may be exposed to concentrations in excess of the PEL [10]. OSHA estimates that after the implementation of additional controls up to 15 percent of the affected furnace operators would have exposures above the action level. About 10 percent of the employees may also have exposures above the PEL and would be required to wear respirators.

Kiln and kettle operators affected by the revised standard would need to be protected with feasible controls that may include local exhaust ventilation systems and enclosures. This set of additional controls would need to be provided for about 30 percent of these employees, with one set of controls sufficient for 10 employees on average. (The percent of employees and establishments requiring additional controls is greater than that indicated by the full-time equivalent percentage of employees exposed above the PEL because controls may be required regardless of intermittency of exposure.) The capital cost for the combination of controls would be $89,000, and the annual costs would be $8,000. The annualized cost for each industry would be (N*0.30/10)*$22,485. Resulting exposures should be below the action level for almost all employees. About 5 percent of the kiln and kettle operators may face unique circumstances or work with relatively high concentrations of cadmium; exposures for these employees may exceed both the action level and the PEL.

Exposures for heat treaters may not be reducible with additional feasible controls. OSHA estimates that about 70 percent of the affected employees would be exposed above the action level, and that about 50 percent of the affected employees would be required to wear respirators.

Equipment cleaners may have exposures for which engineering controls are often not feasible. It is estimated that about 50 percent of the affected employees would be exposed above the action level; approximately 20 percent of the employees may also be required to use respiratory protection.

Feasible additional engineering controls consisting of new or improved local exhaust ventilation systems may reduce exposures associated with metal machining. Such controls would be applicable in about 60 percent of the situations in which exposures need to be reduced [19]. Additional controls would be necessary for about 30 percent of the total number of metal machinists potentially exposed. The controls should be sufficient for an average of ten employees each. The annualized cost would be (N*0.30/10)*21,020. Resulting exposures should be below the action level for 85 percent of the affected employees. Approximately 15 percent of the employees may be engaged in metal machining activities that involve elevated concentrations of cadmium and produce exposures which require the use of respiratory protection.

Painters affected by the revised standard are expected to be protected by feasible engineering controls already due to the presence of other potentially hazardous substances. Most painters with significant exposure would also already be provided with respiratory protection. OSHA estimates that about 30 percent of the affected painters would be exposed above the action level. Compliance with the cadmium standard may require additional respirator use for about 10 percent of the affected employees.

Exposures for repair and utility workers may not be amenable to additional feasible controls in most situations. However, some activities conducted routinely and continually in one location may be controlled with local exhaust ventilation systems. New or improved ventilation systems may be necessary for an estimated 5 percent of the affected employees, and on average each system would be sufficient for ten employees. Additional controls would not be required for employees with exposures below the action level, in operations for which engineering controls are infeasible, or in operations for which feasible controls have already been implemented. The engineering controls would have an estimated capital cost of $80,000 and an annual cost of $8,000. The annualized cost of engineering controls for these employees would be (N*0.05/10)*$21,020.

Employees engaged in repair and utility operations would be exposed to cadmium for an average of one fifth of the work days [7, p. 4096, Table VIII-D], and exposures for most of these employees would be below the action level. In addition, the intermittency and relatively low levels of exposure may exempt many employees from medical surveillance and other provisions. After the implementation of feasible controls, and with the necessary adjustment to reflect the nature of the exposures, an estimated 20 percent of the affected employees would be considered exposed above the action level, and additional respirator use may be required for about 7 percent of the affected employees.

For welders, brazers, and solderers exposures are generally below the action level, but exposures above the PEL may occur if the materials involved contain significant concentrations of cadmium. Some employers may choose to substitute materials that do not contain cadmium, and some employees may already be adequately protected. The implementation of additional engineering controls, beyond those already used, is not expected to be feasible. An estimated 10 percent of the affected employees may have exposures above the action level. These employees may also be required to wear respiratory protection to avoid potential exposures above the PEL.

The estimated cost of additional respiratory protection in each industry was based on the estimated number and percent of employees in each occupation for which respirators would be required. Providing respiratory protection was estimated to cost about $300 per employee per year [20, Attachment III].

The revised standard would also require protective clothing to be provided for employees exposed above the PEL. The cost of such clothing would be an estimated $104 per employee annually [20, Attachment III]. The estimated total annual cost for each industry was calculated by multiplying the annual unit cost by the total number of employees exposed above the PEL in each industry.

Exposure monitoring would be required at least twice each year for each shift of each job category. On average, each exposure monitoring sample would be representative of an estimated ten employees [1, p. 6-23]. It is assumed that representative monitoring would be conducted semi-annually for all employees exposed above the action level.

The costs of exposure monitoring involve the collection and the analysis of the samples. The estimated cost of analyzing the samples is $40 per sample, and the cost of collection would be approximately $200 per sample [1, p. 6-23].

Compliance with the medical surveillance provisions of the revised standard would require medical exams to be provided every two years and biological monitoring to be provided annually for qualifying employees. More frequent exams and testing may be required for some employees.

JACA found that employees in the occupations were generally already provided with annual medical exams [1, p. 6-26], and the evidence in the record does not contradict this conclusion. Additional medical exams may be necessary for employees in some nonmanufacturing industries.

For establishments in industries with an SIC code of 50 or higher, the estimated compliance costs include the cost of biennial medical exams for employees exposed above the action level. The estimated cost of the exams is $250 each, and the estimated number of biennial exams required is increased by 5 percent. This overall increase reflects a combination of factors such as more frequent exams for some employees as necessary, medical surveillance for some previously exposed employees, and exclusions from medical surveillance for intermittently exposed employees. The total annual cost of medical exams for these industries is thus calculated as M*$250*0.5*1.05, where M is the number of employees exposed above the action level.

Biological monitoring is generally not provided for the affected employees. The costs of the required tests for cadmium in urine and cadmium in blood would be about $60 each [1, p. 6-27], and the cost of a test for B(2)-microglobulin in urine would be about $80 [21, p. 4]. In addition, the estimated average cost of collection would be about $5 for each sample. Thus, one set of biological monitoring tests would cost an estimated $215.

The total number of each of these tests that would be required annually in each industry is estimated at 1.05 times the number of employees exposed above the action level. This figure would include more frequent testing for some employees as required by the revised standard, tests for previously exposed employees as necessary, and exclusions from medical surveillance for intermittently exposed employees.

Provisions for medical removal are not expected to affect many employees. However, it may be possible for some employees to meet the criteria for mandatory removal or to be removed on the basis of a physician's determination. On average, an estimated 0.1 percent of the employees exposed above the action level may be removed each year. The number of employees removed should be small enough to enable establishments to provide removed employees with alternative positions. Costs to the employer would include paying wage subsidies for removed employees and hiring and training new employees. The average cost per removed employee would be an estimated $5,000.

The revised standard requires employers to provide change rooms and showers for employees exposed above the PEL. Based on an estimate from industry the capital cost of installing the required facilities would be an estimated $35,000 per affected establishment [16, Table A6-4]. This amount would be annualized at $5,700 per year, and the facilities should be sufficient for 20 employees. Estimated annual costs associated with providing showers would be approximately $900 per employee [20, Attachment III]. Thus, the annualized cost of providing hygiene facilities for twenty employees would be an estimated $23,700.

Requirements regarding information, training, and recordkeeping would involve additional compliance costs for affected employers. These may include costs for establishing regulated areas, notifying employees of monitoring results, and preparing and updating written compliance programs. The incremental costs imposed by the revised standard should be relatively small as compliance may be achieved by expanding existing programs and efforts in some or all of these areas. An estimated average of $100 annually per employee exposed above the action level should provide sufficient resources to achieve compliance with the relevant elements of the standard.

Table VIII-C47 summarizes the breakdown of employee exposures in each industry after the implementation of feasible engineering controls. Of the 365,566 employees potentially exposed in these industries, an estimated 57,374 employees would be exposed above the action level, and an estimated 39,517 employees would be exposed above the PEL and require respiratory protection.

Table VIII-C48 presents the estimated costs of compliance for each industry and each provision. The total estimated annualized cost of compliance for the industries is about $160 million. Almost half of the compliance costs are attributable to engineering controls ($75 million); most of the remaining costs are associated with hygiene facilities / protective clothing ($51 million), medical surveillance ($14 million), and respiratory protection ($12 million). The compliance costs are spread over a large number of industries. Four industries would have annualized costs over $10 million, rubber and plastic products, metalworking machinery, miscellaneous machinery manufacturing, and air transportation.

Economic feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA has determined that compliance with the final cadmium standard is economically feasible in each of the affected industries. For the industries considered in this section, the standard generally affects a small part of the workforce and a limited number of activities. As shown in Table VIII-C49, the costs of compliance represent less than 1 percent of the revenues of the affected establishments for each of the affected industries, and less than 0.06 percent of revenues of affected establishments across all affected industries.


TABLE VIII-C47.  -- EMPLOYEE EXPOSURES AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
                    FEASIBLE ENGINEERING CONTROLS
___________________________________________________________________________
                                 |             | Employees   |
                                 | Potentially |  exposed    |  Employees
        Industry                 |   exposed   |   above     |  requiring
                                 |  employees  |action level | respirators
_________________________________|_____________|_____________|_____________
                                 |             |             |
2200 Textile mill products.......|        411  |         87  |      35
2300 Apparel.....................|        201  |         60  |      40
2500 Furniture...................|      1,232  |        278  |     123
2600 Paper products..............|        195  |         59  |      39
2700 Printing and publishing.....|      1,600  |        490  |     307
2810 Inorganic chemicals.........|        195  |         30  |      20
2820 Plastics and synthetics.....|        870  |        261  |     174
2830 Drugs.......................|         50  |         15  |      10
2851 Paints & allied products....|      4,724  |      1,417  |     945
2860 Organic chemicals...........|      2,533  |        621  |     435
2870 Agricultural chemicals......|      2,507  |        655  |     375
2890 Miscellaneous chemicals.....|      1,024  |        307  |     205
2900 Petroleum refining..........|        807  |        161  |      56
3000 Rubber & plastic products...|     11,133  |      3,013  |   1,985
3100 Leather products............|        902  |        271  |     180
3211 Flat glass..................|        666  |        114  |      81
3220 Glassware...................|      2,929  |        643  |     252
3250 Structural clay products....|      2,423  |        300  |     192
3260 Pottery products............|        174  |         40  |      21
3270 Concrete products...........|        624  |         62  |      62
3280 Stone products..............|        200  |         20  |      20
3290 Mineral products............|        899  |         60  |      60
3313 Alloy products..............|        488  |         85  |      41
3315 Steel wiredrawing...........|        500  |         63  |      50
3316 Cold-rolled steel...........|         37  |          4  |       2
3317 Steel pipe and tubes........|        400  |         50  |      37
3320 Iron and steel foundries....|     10,808  |      1,886  |     917
3330 Primary nonferrous metals...|      1,800  |        290  |     168
3340 Secondary nonferrous metals.|        750  |        120  |      71
3350 Nonferrous rolling, etc.....|      3,135  |        492  |     440
3360 Nonferrous foundries........|     10,022  |      1,552  |   1,090
3390 Miscellaneous primary metal.|        285  |        154  |     109
3410 Metal shipping containers...|        140  |         18  |      18
3420 Hand tools & hardware.......|      2,781  |        412  |     412
3430 Heating & plumbing          |             |             |
      equipment..................|      1,186  |        226  |     110
3440 Fabricated structural metal.|     17,065  |      2,235  |   2,054
3450 Screws, etc.................|        868  |         87  |      43
3460 Forgings & stampings........|        612  |         92  |      92
3470 Coating and engraving.......|        200  |         30  |      30
3480 Ordnance....................|        265  |         27  |      27
3490 Miscellaneous fabricated    |             |             |
      metal products.............|      9,071  |      1,070  |     997
3510 Engines and turbines........|      3,036  |        380  |     380
3520 Farm and garden machinery...|        199  |         60  |      20
3530 Construction machinery......|     10,453  |      1,103  |   1,045
3540 Metalworking machinery......|     16,127  |      2,379  |   2,379
3550 Special machinery...........|      6,533  |        763  |     703
3560 General machinery...........|     11,633  |      1,277  |   1,247
3570 Computer & office equipment.|      1,600  |        160  |     140
3580 Refrigeration and service   |             |             |
      machinery..................|     14,180  |      1,832  |   1,475
3590 Miscellaneous machinery.....|     19,615  |      2,678  |   2,678
3610 Electrical transmission     |             |             |
      equipment..................|      6,388  |        639  |     625
3620 Electrical apparatus........|     12,460  |      1,259  |   1,206
3630 Household appliances........|      7,586  |        759  |     734
3640 Lighting and wiring.........|     13,266  |      1,327  |   1,317
3650 Audio & video equipment.....|      3,021  |        302  |     302
3660 Communications equipment....|     17,886  |      2,245  |   1,729
3670 Electronic components.......|     15,412  |      2,044  |   1,724
3690 Miscellaneous electric      |             |             |
      equipment..................|        350  |         35  |      33
3710 Motor vehicles..............|     18,032  |      2,949  |   1,459
3720 Aircraft....................|      2,776  |        278  |     238
3730 Ship building...............|      7,907  |      1,319  |   1,100
3743 Railroad equipment..........|      1,458  |        198  |     198
3760 Missiles & space vehicles ..|        359  |         36  |      34
3790 Miscellaneous transportation|             |             |
      equipment..................|        119  |         12  |      12
3812 Detection equipment, etc....|         67  |          7  |       7
3820 Measurement and contractor  |             |             |
      instruments................|        216  |         22  |      22
3840 Medical instruments.........|        337  |         34  |      34
3860 Photographic equipment......|        669  |        201  |      67
3870 Watches & clockwork.........|        173  |         17  |      17
3910 Jewelry & plated ware.......|         79  |          8  |       8
3930 Musical instruments.........|         16  |          2  |       2
3940 Toys and sporting goods.....|      1,004  |        100  |     100
3950 Artists' materials..........|         50  |         15  |      10
3960 Costume jewelry & notions...|         29  |          3  |       3
3990 Miscellaneous manufacturing.|      2,749  |        825  |     275
4011 Railroads...................|         23  |          4  |       2
4200 Motor freight & warehousing.|        586  |         59  |      59
4500 Air transportation..........|     52,147  |     10,438  |   3,653
4810 Telephone communications....|      2,474  |        495  |     173
4830 Radio & TV broadcasting.....|        149  |         15  |      15
4920 Gas production &            |             |             |
      distribution...............|      1,213  |        121  |     121
4950 Sanitary services...........|      5,204  |      1,041  |     364
5000 Wholesale trade, durables...|        690  |         73  |      73
5100 Wholesale nondurables.......|      3,080  |        924  |     616
5500 Service stations............|        538  |         54  |      54
7530 Automotive repair shops.....|      3,194  |        391  |     319
7600 Miscellaneous Repair        |             |             |
      services...................|      3,494  |        599  |     378
8060 Hospitals...................|        277  |         42  |      42
                                 |_____________|_____________|____________
   Totals........................|    365,566  |     57,374  |  39,517
_________________________________|_____________|_____________|____________
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.


TABLE VIII-C48  - ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS OF COMPLIANCE BY INDUSTRY
                  AND BY PROVISION

(For Figure VIII-C48, Click Here)

(For Figure VIII-C48 cont, Click Here)

(For Figure VIII-C48 cont, Click Here) TABLE VIII-C49 - COMPLIANCE COSTS PER EMPLOYEE AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUES AND PROFITS BY INDUSTRY

(For Figure VIII-C49, Click Here)

(For Figure VIII-C49 cont, Click Here)

(For Figure VIII-C49 cont, Click Here)

Establishments in each of the affected industries would either need to raise prices or reduce profits (or a combination of these) to compensate for compliance costs. A significant increase in prices can usually be expected to result in a loss of sales; the relationship between these variables is determined by the price elasticity of demand (the ratio of the percent change in quantity demanded associated with a percent change in price). A reduction in profits may enable an individual firm to maintain sales volume, but would be likely to result in lower production or slower growth if applied to an industry as a whole; lower profits reduce the value of the industry's capital and firms operating on the margin may exit the market.

The impact of the revised cadmium standard would probably be a combination of increased prices and reduced profits in the affected industries. To the extent that profits are reduced to mitigate the effects of price increases, smaller potential changes in output and employment can be expected. However, reductions in profits may also affect employment and output indirectly. Lower profits tend to depress the value of capital which reduces the incentive for additional investment in the affected industries.

Although a significant reduction in profits for an industry may cause some contraction as marginal firms exit the market, compliance with the cadmium standard is not expected to be a determining factor for such occurrences. Even under the extreme assumption that compliance costs would be wholly absorbed from profits (preventing any effects from price increases), the maximum effect in any industry would be an average reduction in profits among the affected establishments of less than 7 percent, and the overall reduction among affected establishments would be about 1 percent. Changes of this magnitude would not substantially affect the viability of continuing operations.

Ultimately, compliance with the cadmium standard causes production resources to be shifted from the affected industries and from other sectors of the economy to compliance-related activities. The proportion of resources diverted from the affected industries is determined by the extent to which reductions in profits are taken and the extent to which reductions in output are caused by price increases. The proportion of resources diverted from other sectors of the economy is represented by increases in prices paid for the output of the affected industries. The small relative size of compliance costs in relation to revenues, profits, and other influences in the business environment makes the overall potential impact of the cadmium standard virtually undetectable.

NOTES

1. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

2. Exhibit 19-50, "Comments of the United States Department of Commerce," U.S. Department of Commerce, May 21, 1990.

3. Exhibit 106, "Post-Hearing Comments of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Proposed Rule on Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH, September 18, 1990.

4. Exhibit 19-9, "Duriron Comments on Proposed Cadmium Exposure Rule,"

Duriron Company, Inc., April 19, 1990.

5. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Fourth Edition, Revised 1991.

6. Exhibit 15A, "Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Proposed 5 ug/m(3) Cadmium Standard," U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis, January 22, 1990.

7. Federal Register, Volume 55, Number 25, "Occupational Exposure to Cadmium; Proposed Rule," U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, February 6, 1990.

8. Exhibit 19-34, Comments of the Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc., May 11, 1990.

9. Exhibit 19-32, "Comments of ASARCO Incorporated," ASARCO, May 9, 1990.

10. Exhibit 19-44, Comments of Texas Instruments Incorporated, May 11, 1990.

11. Exhibit 105, "Economic Impacts of the Proposed Permissible Exposure Limits for Cadmium," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, September 18, 1990.

12. Exhibit 42, Testimony of Michael A. Coffman, June 11, 1990. 13. Exhibit 57, "Testimony of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Proposed Rule on Occupational Exposure to Cadmium, Draft 2," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH, July 6, 1990.
14. "Occupational Exposure to Lead; Final Rule; Statement of Reasons,"

Federal Register, Volume 54, Number 131, pp. 29142 et seq., July 11, 1989.

15. United Steel Workers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d. (D.C. Cir. 1980).

16. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment L, "Feasibility and Cost Study of Engineering Controls for Cadmium Exposure Standard," PACE Incorporated, April 30, 1990.

17. Exhibit 19-43, Attachment I, "Economic and Technological Feasibility of a 5 Microgram per Cubic Meter Workplace Standard for Airborne Cadmium," Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc., April 30, 1990.

18. Exhibit 144-2, Comments from AIM Products, Incorporated, October 7, 1991.

19. Exhibit 15B, "Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Proposed 1 ug/m(3) Cadmium Standard," U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis, January 22, 1990.

20. Exhibit 19-30, "Comments on OSHA Proposed Cadmium Regulation," Big River Zinc Corporation, May 10, 1990.

21. Exhibit 123, "Comments of Public Citizen Health Research Group and the International Chemical Workers Union on OSHA's Proposed Standard Governing Occupational Exposure to Cadmium," Public Citizen, October 17, 1990.

Construction

Industry overview. The construction industry includes establishments engaged in building construction (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and heavy construction (streets, bridges, pipelines, power plants, etc.). The term construction may include new work, additions, alterations, reconstruction, installations, and repairs. General contractors usually assume responsibility for an entire construction project and often subcontract substantial amounts of work to special trade contractors. Over half of the five million employees in the construction industry work for special trade contractors specializing in plumbing, painting, electrical, carpentry, roofing, or other construction activities.

Production processes. Construction employees are potentially exposed to cadmium when welding, soldering, brazing, cutting, or burning steel and other metals in which cadmium may be present. Most metals, such as steel, only contain trace amounts of cadmium; some specialty alloys may include greater concentrations of cadmium; some objects may be coated with cadmium; and cadmium may be present in furnace dust accumulated on the surface of some equipment.

Activities potentially generating airborne concentrations of cadmium fume or dust occur during several types of construction work. These may include boiler installation and repair, steam fitting, furnace repair, installation of machinery and other equipment, electrical work, structural steel and iron work, dismantling of machinery, and general welding operations. Establishments involved in these activities include plumbing, heating and air conditioning contractors; electrical work contractors; sheet metal contractors; structural steel erection contractors; wrecking and demolition contractors; miscellaneous contractors engaged in the installation or erection of building equipment; and welding contractors.

Employee exposures. Cadmium exposures experienced by construction workers were researched by JACA Corporation. Estimated exposure levels were determined separately for different types of work. Exposures for electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, steamfitters, boilermakers, workers who install or dismantle machinery and heavy equipment, and other repair or maintenance workers employed in the construction industry were represented by the exposure profile for the occupational group of repair and utility workers. [1, p. 3-30 and Table 3-10]. Exposures for construction workers welding, brazing, or soldering during structural steel erection, heavy construction, demolition, and other jobs done by special trade contractors were represented by the exposure profile for the occupational group of welders, brazers, and solderers. [1, p. 3-31 and Table 3-10]. The exposure profiles developed by JACA are presented in Table VIII-C50. These data were derived from OSHA inspection data and from relevant NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations [1, p. 3-32]. Estimated mean and median exposures for each type of construction work are 3 ug/m(3) or less.


TABLE VIII-C50. -- CADMIUM EXPOSURE DATA FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BASED
                   ON JACA
____________________________________________________________________
                                    | Concentration in ug/m(3)
    Job Category                    |_______________________________
                                    | Geometric | Median |  Range
                                    |   mean    |        |
____________________________________|___________|________|___________
                                    |           |        |
Repair and utility workers(1).......|     2.0   |   3.0  | 0.1-271.0
Welders, Brazers, and Solderers(2)..|     0.2   |   0.1  | 0.1-163.0
____________________________________|___________|________|___________
  Footnote(1)  Includes pipefitters, steamfitters, boilermakers,
electricians, plumbers, and maintenance and repair employees in the
construction industry.
  Footnote(2)  Includes all construction workers welding, cutting,
soldering, or brazing, except those included above.
  Note: Exposure data reflect 8-hour time-weighted average exposures.
  Source: Exhibit 13, JACA, Table 3-10.

The data also indicate that significantly higher exposures may be possible under relatively infrequent circumstances.

An estimated 70,000 employees in the construction industry are potentially exposed to cadmium throughout the year. For most of these workers, exposure to cadmium would occur on one out of ten working days on average.

The proposed rule and preliminary analysis did not elicit many comments from construction employers or employees or their representatives. OSHA believes that the proposed rule was regarded as having little impact in the construction industry. The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) reviewed the proposed regulation with the accompanying analysis and did not question the characterization of exposures for the construction industry.

Existing and feasible additional controls. Construction workers with potential exposure to cadmium would also have potential exposure to other hazardous substances. Depending on the material worked with, activities with potential cadmium exposure may involve exposure to aluminum, antimony, arsenic, copper, iron oxide, lead, magnesium oxide, manganese, molybdenum, silver, tin oxide, and zinc oxide. Many construction employees may be generally protected from exposure to these substances, and this protection would also be effective for reducing cadmium exposures.

OSHA requested information regarding the need for additional controls for cadmium exposure. Construction employers did not identify any conditions in which controls beyond those currently provided for concomitant exposures would be necessary for cadmium exposure.

In some applications, cadmium exposure may be eliminated through substitution of products without cadmium. At least one firm offers a range of cadmium-free products designed to replace alloys made with cadmium in several applications. [3].

Feasible engineering controls and work practices for reducing cadmium exposure should be implemented when possible. In construction these may include portable hoods, exhaust ventilation, fans, enclosures, and tools and work practices designed for minimizing employee exposures.

Although some construction activities affected by the revised regulation would be amenable to engineering controls, respirators would be an acceptable method of protection in situations where engineering controls are infeasible. Construction activities are often intermittent and of short duration with unpredictable exposures. The activities may not involve a fixed work place and frequently occur in circumstances where engineering controls are not feasible. Respirators capable of providing the necessary protection are currently available and widely used in the construction industry.

Technological feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The revised cadmium standard with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) is technologically feasible for the construction industry. The potential impact would affect a small fraction of the work force; the cadmium exposures experienced by these workers are intermittent and generally below the PEL. Feasible engineering controls and/or appropriate use of respirators are capable of providing the required protection and currently do so for many of the affected workers in this industry.

The ACCSH reviewed the proposed cadmium regulation and suggested several relatively minor changes to provisions involving exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and recordkeeping, but did not oppose the proposed PEL or question its feasibility. No comments from the industry in response to the proposed rule raised any concerns about the feasibility of achieving the PEL.

Costs of compliance with a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. Potential employee exposures to cadmium in the construction industry generally occur with exposures to other hazardous substances, and employers should already be using feasible engineering controls for these exposures. Employees are often provided with respirators in such situations as an appropriate form of protection when engineering controls need to be supplemented or are infeasible. The revised cadmium standard would not require the implementation of additional engineering controls for these employees. In addition, engineering controls would not be required by the cadmium standard for employees exposed less than thirty days per year.

Respiratory protection should already be provided to many employees with potential cadmium exposure under requirements of existing standards. However, achieving full compliance with the revised cadmium standard with a PEL of 5 ug/m(3) may require some additional respirator use.

OSHA estimates that 70,000 employees in the construction industry are potentially exposed to cadmium for an average of one out of ten working days. Most of these employees would be exposed below the PEL or would be adequately protected from cadmium exposure. Additional respirator use may be necessary on an intermittent basis for about 5 percent of the employees with potential exposure. An estimated 3,500 workers would need to be provided with respirators to achieve compliance with the revised standard. At a cost of $100 per employee per year for the intermittent use of respirators, the total annual cost for the construction industry would be $0.35 million.

In addition to adequately controlling cadmium exposures, compliance with the revised cadmium standard would require construction establishments with employees potentially exposed to cadmium to establish exposure monitoring and medical surveillance programs and to provide appropriate hygiene facilities.

Exposure monitoring would probably not be necessary for most construction employees for whom exposures are consistently below the action level. Exposure monitoring would be necessary when higher cadmium exposures can be anticipated, and an estimated 10 percent of the employees potentially exposed (7,000 employees) may work in such circumstances at least once per year. On average, representative exposure monitoring may be conducted semi-annually with each sample representing three employees. At an estimated average cost of $240 per sample for collection and analysis, the total annual cost would be about $1.12 million.

In addition, employers would be required to conduct and maintain a written record of a determination of potential cadmium exposures for each employee. The cost of such a determination may average $25 annually for each employee potentially exposed. The total annual cost would be an estimated $1.75 million.

Requirements to provide medical surveillance depend on the nature of exposures experienced by employees. Exposures in construction are generally intermittent, and medical surveillance may need to be provided for some employees. As provided in the final standard, medical surveillance includes initial, periodic, and termination exams; employees with intermittent exposures may be excluded from medical surveillance, and some previously exposed employees may be included. Medical exams and biological monitoring would be necessary for all employees required to wear respirators. An estimated 7,000 employees (including employees performing tasks, operations, or jobs as specified by the standard) encountering exposures above the action level at some time each year may require medical surveillance. The estimated annual cost per employee would be $340 ($215 per year for annual biological monitoring and $125 per year for biennial medical exams), and the total annual cost for the construction industry would be $2.38 million. Provisions for medical removal are not expected to involve additional compliance costs since exposures for construction employees are relatively low and intermittent.

Additional hygiene facilities may be necessary at some operations with cadmium exposures above the PEL. A mobile trailer with the necessary facilities including a water supply, showers and lockers could be rented for about $100 per day. On average, an estimated 700 employees may need to be provided with such facilities daily. Assuming one trailer would be rented for every five employees exposed above the PEL, then on average 140 such trailers would each be rented for 250 days each year. The total annual cost for the trailers would be $3.5 million. The estimated cost of showering on work time is $900 per full-time equivalent employee annually (based on fifteen minutes per day for 240 days per year at $15 an hour). This cost would apply to an estimated 700 employees daily, and the total annual cost would be $630,000. The total annual cost associated with requirements for hygiene facilities would be $4.13 million.

In addition, employees exposed above the PEL would be required to be provided with protective clothing. The estimated cost per employee would be $104 per year, and the total cost for the industry would be about $73,000 annually. The total annual cost for hygiene facilities and protective clothing for the construction industry would be an estimated $4.203 million.

Provisions in the final cadmium standard for information (including warning signs, labels, and other information-related provisions), training, and recordkeeping may impose additional costs of compliance on construction employers with employees exposed to cadmium. For operations where exposures may exceed the PEL, regulated areas would need to be established. Employers would be required to train employees and to develop written compliance programs. These requirements would apply infrequently and only for work that involves potential cadmium exposure.

These requirements should not involve substantial burdens for construction employers. Regulated areas can be established at construction sites with inexpensive barricade tape; training is required by existing standards, and incremental training required by this standard can be incorporated into current training programs; a written compliance program would describe the use of respirators or other measures used to limit employee exposures. The compliance costs for these provisions may average about $100 for each employee exposed above the PEL at some time during the year; the total annual cost for the industry would be an estimated $700,000.

The annual costs of compliance for the construction industry are summarized Table VIII-C51. The total estimated annual cost is $10.503 million.

Economic feasibility of a 5 ug/m(3) PEL. The final cadmium standard for the construction industry is economically feasible. The total annual costs of compliance would be about $10.5 million and would not threaten the competitive stability or the existence of the construction industry. The value of construction work done by these employees is estimated to be $490 million, or an average of about $70,000 for the 7,000 full-time equivalent employees potentially exposed annually.


TABLE VIII-C51. -- ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
  WITH THE REVISED CADMIUM STANDARD FOR THE
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
______________________________________________
                               | Annualized
       Provision               |   cost
                               | ($thousands)
_______________________________|______________
                               |
Exposure Control...............|      0.0
Respirator Use.................|    350.0
Exposure Monitoring............|  2,870.0
Medical Surveillance...........|  2,380.0
Hygiene Provisions.............|  4,203.0
Recordkeeping and Information..|    700.0
                               |______________
  Total........................| 10,503.0
_______________________________|______________
  Note: Costs do not include current
expenditures.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor.

The compliance costs represent less than 2.2 percent of the revenues associated with the activities affected by the requirements of the cadmium standard.

Costs incurred by construction employers would probably be passed through to customers, and prices would generally increase for work involving employee exposures to cadmium. Employers should be able to anticipate cost increases and include compliance costs in their price estimates. Compliance with the cadmium standard would not require large capital expenditures. The costs would primarily be incurred on a per-project basis and would vary according to the size of the project.

In response to OSHA's requests for information and comments from the public, no construction employers questioned the economic feasibility of the proposed cadmium standard or OSHA's estimated costs of compliance for the construction industry. The ACCSH recommended modifications to the proposed rule that generally would increase its stringency and cost [4 and 5]. A representative of the Committee testified that the cost of these requirements would be bearable and that the resulting standard would be "one that [construction employers] can implement and comply with" [6, p. VII-15].

NOTES

1. Exhibit 13, "Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revision to the Cadmium Standard," Final Report, JACA Corporation, March 15, 1988.

2. Occupational Exposure to Cadmium, Proposed Rule, OSHA, F.R. Vol. 55, No. 25, Tuesday, February 6, 1990.

3. Exhibit 144-2, "Comments of Aim Products, Inc.," Aim Products, Inc., October 7, 1991.

4. Exhibit 14-5, "Modifications to Regulatory Text of Cadmium Proposal Submitted by the Construction Advisory Committee for Development of Separate Cadmium Standard for the Construction Industry," Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, November 20, 1989.

5. Exhibit 14-5, "Testimony in Support of a Construction Specific Standard," Ronald R. Amerson, Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, June 13, 1990.

6. Hearing Transcript, June 13, 1990.

D. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

Economic Impacts

Based on the evidence in the record, OSHA has determined that compliance with the final cadmium standard is economically feasible in each of the affected industries.

Table VIII-D1 summarizes the economic impacts for the industries affected by this rulemaking. For most industries, the standard affects a limited number of activities and the costs of compliance represent less than 0.1 percent of revenues. The compliance costs are generally expected to result in slight increases in prices for goods and services associated with occupational cadmium exposures.

In some industries price increases needed to recoup compliance costs may decrease sales volume. For these establishments the standard may result in some reduction in profits. OSHA does not expect the standard to significantly affect the viability of continuing operations in any industry or to result in any plant closures. However, to the extent that compliance costs contribute marginally to increased production costs, prospects for economic expansion and employment growth in industries with cadmium exposure may be diminished. Additional details of the economic analysis for each industry can be found in the preceding sections in which the specific industries are analyzed.

Basically, the regulation tends to trade some of the societal benefits of producing and using products containing cadmium for greater protection among exposed employees.


TABLE VIII-D1. -- SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY INDUSTRY (THOUSANDS
                  OF DOLLARS)
____________________________________________________________________________
         |      |       |Average|            |        |            |
         |Number|       |annual |            |        |            |Ratio
         |  of  | Total | cost  |            |Ratio of|            |  of
         |affec-|annual |  per  |   Total    | comp-  |   Total    |compli-
Industry | ted  | costs |affect-|   annual   | liance |   annual   | ance
         |estab-|of com-|  ed   |  revenues  |costs to|   profits  | costs
         |lish--|pliance|estab- |            |revenues|            |  to
         |ments |       | lish- |            |        |            |profits
         |      |       | ment  |            |        |            |
_________|______|_______|_______|____________|________|____________|________
         |      |       |       |            |        |            |
Batteries|     6|  1,947|  324.5|     185,000|   0.011|       7,400| 0.263
Zinc/    |      |       |       |            |        |            |
 cadmium |     5|  1,723|  344.6|     230,000|   0.007|          NA|    NA
Pigments |     4|    473|  118.4|      30,000|   0.016|       1,500| 0.316
Formula- |      |       |       |            |        |            |
 tors    |   700|  7,370|   10.5|     900,000|   0.008|      45,000| 0.164
Stabili- |      |       |       |            |        |            |
 zers    |     5|    935|  187.1|      92,000|   0.010|       8,300| 0.113
Lead     |     4|    283|   70.7|     176,000|   0.002|          NA|    NA
Plating  |   400|    787|    2.0|     200,000|   0.004|       8,800| 0.089
Utilities| 4,000|  2,388|    0.6| 140,000,000|   0.000|   7,000,000| 0.000
Iron/    |      |       |       |            |        |            |
 steel   |   120|  1,638|   13.7|  64,000,000|   0.000|          NA|    NA
Subtotal | 5,244| 17,545|    3.3| 205,813,000|   0.000|   7,071,000| 0.002
Other    |      |       |       |            |        |            |
 general |      |       |       |            |        |            |
 industry|50,000|159,615|    3.2| 290,820,000|   0.001|  14,731,000| 0.011
Construc-|      |       |       |            |        |            |
 tion    |10,000| 10,503|    1.1|     490,000|   0.021|          NA|    NA
         |______|_______|_______|____________|________|____________|______
  Total  |65,244|187,663|    2.9| 497,123,000|   0.000|  21,802,000| 0.009
_________|______|_______|_______|____________|________|____________|______
  Note: (1) Costs do not include current expenditures. (2) Where sales or
profit data provided to the record for specific companies or industries
were used, the information was verified through publicly available sources
such as Dun & Bradstreet, DIALOGUE, Dow Jones News Retrieval, and Nexis.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

Compliance with the standard ultimately causes production resources to be shifted from the regulated industries and from other sectors of the economy to compliance-related activities. Although the overall effect on the economy will probably be undetectable, a very slight increase in prices may result from the improvement in the protection of the health of employees exposed to cadmium.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (PL 96-353, 94 Stat. 1164 [5 U.S.C. 601]), OSHA has evaluated the potential impact of the revised standard on small establishments. As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that the revised standard would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small establishments.

Establishments with employees exposed to cadmium may incur compliance costs to protect the health of their employees. The cost of providing adequate protection would depend on the existing exposure levels, the extent of current protective measures, and on the nature of the operation. As demonstrated above, the estimated compliance costs would be feasible for establishments in each affected industry.

The affected establishments in each industry may include some small establishments. Smaller establishments would have fewer employees and correspondingly lower compliance costs. Since the impacts would generally be proportionally lower for smaller establishments, the revised standard would not create any significant competitive disadvantage based on firm size. Table VIII-D2 shows the estimated average annual costs of compliance for small and large establishments.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) objected to the proposed standard because the proposed PEL "is not warranted by health risks nor is it technically feasible" [1]. The health risks are discussed extensively in other sections of the preamble, and OSHA believes that the potential benefits of the final standard are real and substantial, as supported by the record. The regulatory impact analysis has also shown that the final standard is both technologically and economically feasible.

OSHA has included provisions in the final standard to minimize the burden for small establishments. In response to one of the primary concerns of the SBA, OSHA relaxed requirements for firms with employees with intermittent exposures by changing the trigger mechanism for medical surveillance. OSHA also reviewed other non-engineering requirements to ensure that only those necessary to protect the health of employees would be included in the final standard.

The final standard may impose compliance costs on some small establishments, but the ability of small establishments to compete effectively, remain in business, and retain market share would not be inhibited. Small establishments may find themselves at an advantage in some cases with the flexibility to adapt or specialize in markets involving cadmium products. Whether an industry is dominated by small businesses or by large companies, the final cadmium standard would not impose a greater relative burden on small establishments.


TABLE VIII-D2. -- COMPARISON OF IMPACTS ON SMALL AND LARGE
                  ESTABLISHMENTS
______________________________________________________________________
                                       |  Small  | Large    | Total
_______________________________________|_________|__________|_________
                                       |         |          |
Number of affected establishments......|  45,580 |   19,664 |   65,244
Number of affected employees...........|  73,000 |  452,000 |  525,000
Annual compliance cost (in thousands)..| $27,410 | $160,323 | $187,733
Average annual cost per affected       |         |          |
  establishment........................|    $601 |   $8,153 |   $2,877
Average annual cost per affected       |         |          |
  employee.............................|    $375 |     $355 |     $358
_______________________________________|_________|__________|__________
  Note:  Small establishments are defined as having fewer than 20
employees.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor.

OSHA recognizes that some establishments may need assistance in complying with safety or health regulations. The OSHA Office of Compliance Assistance and representatives of regional and area OSHA offices are available for answering questions and offering advice to small businesses. In addition, small businesses may take advantage of OSHA's consultation program which conducts a comprehensive assessment of facilities, provides guidance, and makes recommendations. The final cadmium rule also incorporates extended compliance dates for small businesses.

OSHA recognizes the importance of avoiding unnecessary burdens on small (and also larger) establishments and has taken steps to ensure that the revised cadmium standard would not involve such consequences. Small establishments should be able to continue to profitably provide goods and services demanded in the economy without endangering the health of their employees.

NOTES

1. United States Small Business Administration, "Comments of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the United States Small Business Administration," Mark S. Hayward, Acting Chief Counsel, October 18, 1990.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1517), and OSHA's DOL NEPA procedures (29 CFR Part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that the promulgation of this rule would have no significant environmental impact. Any changes that would result from compliance with this rule would tend to reduce emissions of cadmium from the work place.

F. BENEFITS

Introduction

The health risks associated with exposure to cadmium are discussed at length in other sections of the preamble. Potential health effects include increased risks of lung cancer and of kidney dysfunction. The excess risks attributable to cumulative exposures were estimated and quantified. The estimated incremental increase in risk corresponding to various levels of exposure was expressed as a dose-response relationship.

In this section the dose-response formula is applied to the existing exposure levels of the exposed employees to determine the excess risk faced by the employees and the total number of fatalities and illnesses that may result from the exposures. In addition, the dose-response formula is applied to the projected exposure levels that would result from full compliance with the final cadmium standard, and the expected reduction in the incidence rates and in the total number of fatalities and illnesses is calculated.

The resulting numbers representing expected benefits from this regulation should be viewed in context. First, the numbers are derived through the complex process of quantitative risk assessment which involves a series of assumptions in evaluating epidemiological evidence and animal studies. Second, additional benefits may not be included in these numbers, such as reduced exposure resulting from restricted access to exposure areas, increased awareness of hazards, improved hygiene practices, and early detection of potential problems. Third, the estimates of lifetime excess risk are based on full-time exposure over 45 years; to the extent that employees are not so exposed, the total excess risk may be spread over a larger population and the actual risk may vary.

Cancer Risk.

Table VIII-F1 shows the estimated number of exposed employees in the affected industries and the current average exposure level among the exposed employees. For purposes of estimating benefits, the current average exposure level reflects the estimated mean concentration of cadmium in the air inhaled by the employees. For employees currently wearing respirators exposure levels were adjusted down to one tenth of the ambient concentration.

Quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) for lung cancer were applied to the number of employees and the exposure level in each job category to determine the number of excess cases attributable to current exposures. The calculation was repeated using the projected exposure levels estimated to be achieved under compliance with the final standard; the difference determined the number of cases potentially preventable by the standard.

Based on four risk models developed by OSHA Health Standards, compliance with the reduced exposure limit is expected to prevent from 9 to 27 cancer fatalities each year out of 13 to 40 excess cancer fatalities currently taking place. Within this range, OSHA's Multistage Model predicts 17 to 18 cancers avoided annually out of 25 excess cancer fatalities (see Table VIII-F1).


TABLE VIII-F1. -- EXPECTED REDUCTION IN EXCESS CANCER CASES USING
                  THE MULTISTAGE MODEL
_________________________________________________________________________
            |           |           |      |Average|           |
            |   Number  |  Current  | Total| annual| Projected | Average
            |     of    |  average  |excess| excess|  average  |  annual
  Industry  |  exposed  |exposure(1)| cases| number|exposure(1)|  excess
            | employees |  ug/m(3)  | after|  of   |  ug/m(3)  |  cancer
            |           |           |  45  | cancer|           |  cases
            |           |           | years| cases |           |prevented
____________|___________|___________|______|_______|___________|_________
            |           |           |      |       |           |
Nickel-     |           |           |      |       |           |
 cadmium    |           |           |      |       |           |
 batteries..|     1,500 |      20   |   33 |  0.74 |      3.0  |   0.66
Zinc/cadmium|           |           |      |       |           |
 production.|     1,350 |      14   |   21 |  0.46 |      3.0  |   0.38
Cadmium     |           |           |      |       |           |
 pigments...|       100 |      28   |    3 |  0.07 |      3.0  |   0.06
Dry color   |           |           |      |       |           |
 formulators|     7,000 |       5   |   38 |  0.85 |      2.0  |   0.54
Cadmium     |           |           |      |       |           |
 stabilizers|       200 |      24   |    5 |  0.12 |      3.0  |   0.11
Lead        |           |           |      |       |           |
 smelting/  |           |           |      |       |           |
 refining...|       400 |       5   |    2 |  0.05 |      2.0  |   0.03
Cadmium     |           |           |      |       |           |
 plating....|     1,200 |       2   |    3 |  0.06 |      1.0  |   0.03
Electric    |           |           |      |       |           |
 utilities..|    37,500 |       1   |   41 |  0.91 |      1.0  |   0.00
Iron and    |           |           |      |       |           |
 steel......|    40,000 |       2   |   88 |  1.95 |      1.0  |   1.02
General     |           |           |      |       |           |
 industry,  |           |           |      |       |           |
 nec:       |           |           |      |       |           |
  Chemical  |           |           |      |       |           |
   mixers...|    26,436 |       6.0 |  174 |  3.87 |      1.0  |   3.37
  Electro-  |           |           |      |       |           |
   platers..|     6,648 |       3.0 |   22 |  0.49 |      1.0  |   0.34
  Furnace   |           |           |      |       |           |
   oper.....|    17,202 |       1.0 |   19 |  0.42 |      0.8  |   0.09
  Kiln/     |           |           |      |       |           |
   kettle   |           |           |      |       |           |
   oper.....|     2,524 |       1.0 |    3 |  0.06 |      0.6  |   0.03
  Heat      |           |           |      |       |           |
   treaters.|       519 |       6.0 |    3 |  0.08 |      1.0  |   0.07
  Equip.    |           |           |      |       |           |
   cleaners.|       233 |       2.0 |    1 |  0.01 |      1.0  |   0.01
  Metal     |           |           |      |       |           |
   machining|    64,344 |       5.0 |  353 |  7.85 |      1.5  |   5.74
  Painters..|    11,323 |       0.4 |    5 |  0.11 |      0.3  |   0.03
  Repair/   |           |           |      |       |           |
   utility..|    89,098 |       1.0 |   98 |  2.17 |      0.3  |   1.58
  Welder/   |           |           |      |       |           |
   solderer.|   147,239 |       1.0 |  161 |  3.58 |      0.2  |   2.99
Construction|    70,000 |       0.5 |   38 |  0.85 |      0.3  |   0.36
            |___________|___________|______|_______|___________|__________
    Total...|   524,816 |...........| 1,112| 24.70 |...........|  17.40
____________|___________|___________|______|_______|___________|__________
  Footnote(1) Estimates of exposures include reductions for respirator use
as applicable.
  Source:  Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

The reductions would apply to risks associated with cumulative exposures over working lifetime, and thus the annual benefits would be phased in over 45 years. Employee turnover in occupations with exposure would result in a greater number of individuals at risk with a lower excess risk for each individual. The total excess risk is assumed to remain unchanged.

Based on the Multistage Model quantitative risk assessment, about 1,112 cases of lung cancer would be attributable to cadmium exposure among the equivalent of 525,000 employees with a working lifetime of exposure at current levels. Compliance with the revised cadmium standard should prevent 783 of these cases.

The estimated annual number of excess and prevented cancer cases associated with each of the QRAs for lung cancer are shown in Table VIII-F2.

Kidney Dysfunction Risk.

As discussed in the health effects section of the preamble, exposure to cadmium may result in damage to the kidneys. Levels of urinary proteins can be used as indicators of kidney damage. These levels may vary depending on a variety of temporary and permanent conditions, and will usually increase with age as the capacity of the kidneys naturally deteriorates. In addition to other causes of kidney damage, most people absorb small amounts of cadmium as part of their diet. Cadmium is collected in the kidneys, and its low excretion rate causes the effects to be largely cumulative.

For purposes of estimating the benefits associated with compliance with this standard, an elevated level of urinary proteins was considered an illness (kidney dysfunction).


TABLE VIII-F2. -- ESTIMATED BENEFITS BASED ON VARIOUS RISK MODELS
_____________________________________________________________________
                      | Annual Cancer Cases   | Annual kidney cases
                      |    with a PEL of      |   with a PEL of
     Model            | 5 ug/m(3) (prevented/ | 5 ug/m(3) (prevented/
                      |    total excess)      |    total excess)
______________________|_______________________|______________________
                      |                       |
Poisson...............|         27.3 / 40.4   |....................
Cox...................|         13.1 / 17.5   |....................
Multistage............|         17.4 / 24.7   |....................
Relative Risk.........|          9.0 / 13.4   |....................
Ellinder..............|.......................|         1.1 /   1.6
Ellis.................|.......................|       273.0 / 391.6
Jarup 1...............|.......................|        77.8 / 111.2
Jarup 2...............|.......................|        46.1 /  65.9
Mason 1...............|.......................|        69.1 /  98.9
Mason 2...............|.......................|       112.0 / 160.8
______________________|_______________________|______________________
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

Persons with kidney dysfunction would be at an increased risk of developing more serious kidney-related problems. The quantitative risk assessment developed by OSHA (explained in detail in the preamble) indicates the average excess risk of kidney dysfunction faced by individuals with a given cumulative level of occupational exposure.

The total excess risk addressed by this standard was calculated by assuming that cumulative exposure levels of employees would be represented by 45 years of exposure at current levels. To the extent that the total amount of exposure may involve a larger number of employees with lower cumulative exposures, individual risks may vary but the aggregate risk should not change significantly.

Table VIII-F3 shows the estimated number of exposed employees in the affected industries and the current average exposure level among the exposed employees. For purposes of estimating benefits, the current average exposure level reflects the estimated mean concentration of cadmium in the air inhaled by the employees. For employees currently wearing respirators exposure levels were adjusted down to one tenth of the ambient concentration.

Quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) for kidney dysfunction were applied to the number of employees and the exposure level in each job category to determine the number of excess cases attributable to current exposures. The calculation was repeated using the projected exposure levels estimated to be achieved under compliance with the final standard; the difference determined the number of cases potentially preventable by the standard.


TABLE VIII-F3. -- EXPECTED REDUCTION IN EXCESS KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION CASES
                  USING THE JARUP-1 MODEL
___________________________________________________________________________
              |         |           | Total  |Average|           |
              | Number  |  Current  | excess |annual | Projected | Average
   Industry   |   of    |  average  | cases  |excess |  average  | annual
              | exposed |exposure(1)| after  |number |exposure(1)| excess
              |employees|  ug/m(3)  |  45    |  of   | (ug/m(3)  | cases
              |         |           | years  | cases |           |prevented
______________|_________|___________|________|_______|___________|_________
              |         |           |        |       |           |
Nickel-cadmium|         |           |        |       |           |
 batteries....|   1,500 |       20  |    192 |  4.27 |      3.0  |   3.79
Zinc/cadmium  |         |           |        |       |           |
 production...|   1,350 |       14  |    116 |  2.57 |      3.0  |   2.13
Cadmium       |         |           |        |       |           |
 pigments.....|     100 |       28  |     18 |  0.40 |      3.0  |   0.36
Dry color     |         |           |        |       |           |
 formulators..|   7,000 |        5  |    189 |  4.20 |       2.0 |   2.75
Cadmium       |         |           |        |       |           |
 stabilizers..|     200 |       24  |     31 |  0.69 |       3.0 |   0.62
Lead smelting/|         |           |        |       |           |
 refining.....|     400 |        5  |     11 |  0.24 |       2.0 |   0.16
Cadmium       |         |           |        |       |           |
 plating......|   1,200 |        2  |     11 |  0.25 |       1.0 |   0.14
Electric      |         |           |        |       |           |
 utilities....|  37,500 |        1  |    153 |  3.39 |       1.0 |   0.00
Iron and steel|  40,000 |        2  |    374 |  8.32 |       1.0 |   4.72
General       |         |           |        |       |           |
 industry,    |         |           |        |       |           |
 nec:         |         |           |        |       |           |
  Chemical    |         |           |        |       |           |
   mixers.....|  26,436 |      6.0  |    875 | 19.45 |       1.0 |  16.26
  Electro-    |         |           |        |       |           |
   platers....|   6,648 |      3.0  |    100 |  2.22 |       1.0 |   1.49
  Furnace     |         |           |        |       |           |
   oper.......|  17,202 |      1.0  |     70 |  1.56 |       0.8 |   0.31
  Kiln/kettle |         |           |        |       |           |
   oper.......|   2,524 |      1.0  |     10 |  0.23 |       0.6 |   0.09
  Heat        |         |           |        |       |           |
   treaters...|     519 |      6.0  |     17 |  0.38 |       1.0 |   0.32
  Equip.      |         |           |        |       |           |
   cleaners...|     233 |      2.0  |      2 |  0.05 |       1.0 |   0.03
  Metal       |         |           |        |       |           |
   machining..|  64,344 |      5.0  |  1,736 | 38.59 |       1.5 |  27.11
  Painters....|  11,323 |      0.4  |     15 |  0.33 |       0.3 |   0.08
  Repair/     |         |           |        |       |           |
   utility....|  89,098 |      1.0  |    363 |  8.06 |       0.3 |   5.66
  Welder/     |         |           |        |       |           |
   solderer...| 147,239 |      1.0  |    599 | 13.31 |       0.2 |  10.69
Construction..|  70,000 |      0.5  |    122 |  2.71 |       0.3 |   1.09
              |_________|___________|________|_______|___________|_________
    Total.....| 524,816 |...........|  5,005 |111.22 |...........|  77.79
______________|_________|___________|________|_______|___________|_________
  Footnote(1) Estimates of exposures include reductions for respirator use
as applicable.
  Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor.

Based on OSHA's best estimate of kidney dysfunction risks (as described in the quantitative risk assessment section), from 68 to 112 cases are expected to be prevented out of a total of 97 to 160 cases. Within this range, OSHA's Jarup-1 Model predicts 78 kidney dysfunctions avoided annually out of 111 kidney dysfunction cases (see Table VIII-F3). The reductions would apply to risks associated with cumulative exposures over working lifetime, and thus the annual benefits would be phased in over 45 years. Employee turnover in occupations with exposure would result in a greater number of individuals at risk with a lower excess risk for each individual. The estimated total excess risk is assumed to remain unchanged.

Based on the Jarup-1 Model quantitative risk assessment, about 5,005 cases of kidney dysfunction would be attributable to cadmium exposure among the equivalent of 525,000 employees with a working lifetime of exposure at current levels. Compliance with the revised cadmium standard should prevent 3,510 of these cases.

The estimated annual number of excess and prevented kidney dysfunction cases associated with each of the QRAs for kidney dysfunction are shown in Table VIII-F2.

[57 FR 42102, Sept. 14, 1992; 58 FR 21778, April 23, 1993]

Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents