Environmental

Crystalline Silica

OCMA and its members are national leaders in working with OSHA on the revised silica exposure standards. OCMA led the battle against OSHA efforts to promulgate a more restrictive crystalline silica standard during the Clinton Administration. OCMA attended the stakeholder meetings, spearheaded a fly-in to OSHA headquarters for the stakeholder meeting at DOL, and recruited leaders from Congress to warn OSHA about the potential devastating impact the proposed regulation would have on small, medium and large foundries and their suppliers. OSHA was considering lowering the Personal Exposure Limit (PEL) to one-half of its present level. A standard this low would have imposed monumental compliance costs on all foundries. The White House & OSHA decided to forego this punitive standard and foundries in Ohio at that time and foundries throughout the industry benefited from OCMA's leadership.

However, rumblings from the Obama-led OSHA suggest that they are intending to re-visit the crystalline silica issue again. With unemployment at more than 10% one would think this would be the last item on the "jobs creation agenda", however, the labor-backed Obama Administration has put the industry on notice that a more restrictive standard is forthcoming. According to the agency's semi-annual regulatory agenda released in early December, OSHA intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for silica in July 2010.

OCMA intends to join with the American Foundry Society (AFS) to again educate the OSHA staff about the drastic ramifications of a significant reduction in the Personal Exposure Limit (PEL). There was not scientific support for reducing this standard more than ten years ago and there is even less reason to reduce it today. The number of modern day workers contracting silicosis from working in a foundry has declined to modest levels and the cost of eradicating all possible threats of silicosis in the foundry environment would put both large and small foundries in America out of business.

Other Key Issues

Health Care Reform

The Obama Administration has made health reform legislation its number one priority in 2009. Despite the fact that the Nation is battling through the Great Recession, the sum of the parts of the Democratic proposals is higher demand for health services, hence higher prices, higher taxes on health services and/or health insurance premiums, and exploding federal costs adding to the deficit. Although the rhetoric claims that the reforms will actually bring down the cost of health care, the reality is exactly the opposite. Increasing costs on Ohio metal casters and their suppliers are the last thing they needed from the federal government.

Fortunately, the most repugnant proposal that calling for a "public option that would unfairly compete with private sector health insurance" appears to be dead based upon a recent compromise presented by moderate Democratic leaders. The public option is appropriately considered as a "stalking horse" for a government takeover of health care in America. At this point, at least that danger has been removed.

However, the proposals in the House and in the Senate call for additional taxes to finance the tremendous expansion of health insurance coverage and supplements to those individuals without the financial wherewithal to afford health insurance. The House version would impose a significant surcharge on upper income individuals and small businesses to raise more than one-half billion dollars. The Senate version would impose an excise tax on "excessive or too rich" health insurance plans. Both of these proposals will hurt small businesses and reduce their ability to compete in the global economy.

If the Senate reaches an agreement on their health reform legislation, the House & Senate will have to reconcile their differences. OCMA will be monitoring the situation and will alert our members if an opportunity arises for their input.

Climate Change Legislation

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), would set a cap on green house gases (GHG) and call for reduction in carbon emissions of 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. It would establish a "cap and trade" mechanism whereby facilities emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2008 would be required to reduce emissions or purchase emission allowances to meet the carbon cap. Finally, ACES would impose on retail electricity suppliers a requirement that 25% of their electricity sold must be generated from renewable resources such as wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal. The bill does not treat nuclear generation as renewable and provides no incentives to promote nuclear energy.

Most Ohio foundries would not be "covered facilities" however; all Ohio metal casters would be affected by the anticipated increase in both natural gas and electricity costs. The renewable energy requirement alone dictates that all manufacturers will be forced to pay more for electricity because renewable energy is so much more expensive than that generated using fossil fuel. Predictions about how high electricity and other energy costs could increase are "all over the map", but a study prepared by the American Council for Capital Formation estimated that the wholesale price of electricity could nearly double in Ohio by the year 2020. Increases of this magnitude would most certainly dramatically impact the competitiveness of Ohio castings and threaten the very viability of our industry.

Although the potential devastation brought forth by the climate change legislation has not won over the Democratic zealots in the U.S. House, at this point in time, it appears as if calmer heads will prevail in the U.S. Senate. According to a presentation given at the recent AFS GAC by William Kovacs, VP of Environmental, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are now sixteen (16) Senate Democrats including Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who are not prepared to support the ACES in its present form. Since in the Senate at least sixty (60) votes are needed to overcome a cloture vote, it is most likely that any bill making it through the U.S. Senate will look a lot different than the one likely to be voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The OCMA delegation at the AFS GAC took a strong position in opposition to ACES in their meeting with Joe Schultz, Senator Brown's point person on ACES who is working with several large, energy-intensive companies to mold a compromise that would make the bill more acceptable. However, the interests of the companies involved in the negotiations are not the same as the OCMA membership. A vast majority of Ohio metal casters are going to be affected by exorbitant energy price increases, not by mandated purchases of carbon credits. The OCMA delegation told Schultz that unless the energy costs could be mitigated for manufacturers of all sizes, the bill should be defeated. In the meeting with Senator George Voinovich, he encouraged the delegation to maintain its opposition to the bill and to monitor the proceedings in the Senate where the opposition to ACES would have much more leverage to negotiate a better bill or defeat the bill.

Several OCMA members have participated in the development of AFS's position on ACES. OCMA Vice President Ryan Burke, OSCO Industries, Inc., Kim Myers, Griffin Wheel Company, and Craig Schmeisser, RMT, Inc., assisted the AFS 10-E Committee in its deliberations and decision to oppose climate change legislation. OCMA Executive Director Russ Murray, as a member of the AFS Government Affairs Committee, has played an instrumental role in the development of the committee's position on ACES.

This battle has just begun. Please prepare to assist us in efforts to combat this potentially devastating legislation. We will be sending communications concerning important developments and we are likely to request that you contact your Senator and/or Representative to voice your concerns. If you have any questions about ACES, please do not hesitate to call (614) 876-5100 or email ohiocastmetals@midohio.twcbc.com.

Family Medical/Sick Leave

If there is one area of legislative oversight that perfectly reflects the complete absence of understanding among members of Congress of the difficulties of running a profitable manufacturing company, it is in the area of federally mandated family and/or medical leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) created this entitlement, but members of the 111th Congress have introduced legislation that would take these benefits to new extremes.

The Healthy Families Act would provide for seven (7) days of sick leave for all employees. Part-time employees would receive pro-rated leave. The apogee of this madness is demonstrated by a provision in the proposed legislation that would allow the leave to be taken in one-minute increments! Additionally, an employee would not be required to provide proof of illness such as a Doctor's note unless the absence is for three or more consecutive days. The leave must be made available for employees to care for sick family members or those "with a family-like connection". The legislation would restrict or prohibit "paid time-off banks and present benefits would be locked in and the seven sick days would be in addition to current benefits. Frankly, this proposed legislation is so preposterous that we probably don't need to worry about it much, but it certainly indicates the level of ignorance in Congress today.

There are also two bills that have been introduced to expand or enhance the present FMLA. HR 824 the "FMLA Enhancement Act of 2009" would extend coverage to employers with 25 or more employees (it is presently 50 or more). The proposed legislation would also expand the leave entitlement to include family and personal needs such as "participation in school activities" and "routine family medical care".

HR 1723, the "Family Leave Insurance Act" would provide for twelve weeks of paid leave. The benefits would be paid from a federal trust fund to which both employers and employees would contribute. The bill would also expand FMLA coverage to include domestic partners, grandparents, and siblings.

It is difficult to imagine that these federal leave mandates will be taken seriously in the current economic situation, but the proposals certainly indicate to what extent congressional representatives are prepared to stoop to engender support from the average working person. There are apparently few concerns about how these proposals may ultimately eliminate the jobs of those persons promised these new benefits. We will monitor any developments in this area and communicate what action, if any, is needed to stop this madness.

| State Issues |

| Home | Accomplishments | Background | Foundry Industry | Issues | Links | Objectives | Projects |