Tensions influencing the risk management of hexavalent chromium exposure at Swedish workplaces: evidence from the SafeChrom project

• Hexavalent chromium was in most cases not the primary exposure of concern. • Practically possible exposure reduction is a vague and unclear target. • OELs are perceived as a clear line for unacceptable exposure. • Socio-economic trade-offs in OELs for non-threshold carcinogens not well known. In this study we investigate risk management trade-offs by evaluating how key persons at workplaces with a potential for exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) reason about what is practically possible in terms of exposure reduction. While the included companies (N = 14) represented different types of processes and work-tasks, interviewees all identified that many types of hazards compete for attention at the workplaces, making systematic work environment management a complex undertaking. Risk management efforts are directed by internal and external demands, and the hazard of Cr(VI) was in these cases often overshadowed by other workplace hazards. Interviewees described the overarching aim of continuous improvement, however, zero exposure was not feasible given that the production yielding the Cr(VI) exposure was found a fixed prerequisite or to have other beneficial values (for instance promoting environmental sustainability). What constitutes an exposure at a level that is as low as reasonably practicable was not easily identifiable by interviewees. There were various sources of demands on risk management, legal and corporate but also more personal or moral. Interviewees perceived Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) as a clear line for unacceptable exposures, however, variability and how it influences compliance were challenging concepts. The socio-economic aspect of Swedish OELs was generally not raised. We conclude that reasonably practicable is a difficult concept, likely leading to wide variability in health risk across workplaces. We recommend explicit policies on acceptable risk levels for OELs for non-threshold carcinogens as they clarify the socio-economic compromise underlying such OELs.