Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
History of Silica Regulation It’s been a concern for a long time
• Government has been concerned about silica since the 1930s.
• The current PEL has been in place since 1971.
• OSHA concluded that the private markets failed to protect workers
Health Effects of Silica Exposure OSHA determined that silica is a carcinogen
OSHA determined that numerous studies show respirable silica dust is toxic.
Silica exposure is linked to: silicosis, lung & other cancers, various respiratory diseases, and renal & auto-immune effects.
OSHA determined that workers exposed to respirable silica dust are at “significant risk” of adverse health effects.
Who is covered by “General Industry?”
Examples of businesses covered: -Ready-Mix Concrete -Foundries -Mineral Processing
-Railroads -Asphalt Paving Products -Hydraulic Fracturing
“This section applies to all occupational exposures to respirable
crystalline silica.” 29 CFR § 1910.1053(a)(1)
“General Industry” refers to all industries that aren’t included in:
• Agriculture; • Construction; or • Maritime
What does the final rule say? Bottom line: the PEL is cut in half
• This is a major reduction. Prior PEL is approximately 100 μg/m3
• New Action level is 25 μg/m3
• OSHA seriously considered an “alternate” PEL of 25 μg/m3
• Only thing that kept the new PEL at 50 μg/m3 is economic feasibility
“The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of
50 μg/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA.”
What does OSHA expect this to cost? OSHA’s economic study leaves major questions
• First year costs estimated at more than $577 million
• OSHA thinks it overestimated costs • Industry groups say yearly costs are
likely in the billions
• Cost for exposure assessment: –$2500 for initial –$1250 for periodic
• Costs of engineering controls vary by industry and equipment
“The estimated costs . . . represent the additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full
compliance.”
Exposure Assessment First step is to determine employee exposure
•Need to test exposure for all employees who “may reasonably be expected to be exposed” to action level (25 μg/m3)
•2 Options: –Performance Option –Scheduled Monitoring Option
•Must notify employees of results of testing
How do employers comply with the rule? OSHA breaks it down to 3 main actions
Regulated Areas
Areas where exposure is likely; Clearly marked with limited access
Methods of Compliance
Engineering and work practice controls; written exposure plan
Respirators
Last resort; only used if you can’t get below PEL
What are “regulated areas?”
•A regulated area is any are where an employee “is, or can reasonably be expected to be, in excess of the PEL.”
•3 main components: –Demarcation: clearly define the area –Access: limit access to only necessary personnel –Respirators: must be used by anyone going into the area
•Not necessary if you can lower the exposure below PEL
Purpose is awareness and to limit exposure
Methods of compliance Variety of methods available
•Engineering controls: –Substitution –Isolation –Ventilation –Dust suppression
•Work practice controls –Modify how employees perform certain functions
–Meant to enhance engineering controls
–Requires training
What is in the written exposure control plan? New rule has minimum requirements
•Description of each task that involves exposure •Description of engineering and work practice controls to limit exposure for each task
•Description of housekeeping measures to limit exposure •Must be reviewed and updated annually •Must be available to any employee or representative
When do companies need to comply? Final rule’s timelines for compliance vary by industry
•Final rule takes effect June 23, 2016 •Full compliance for General Industry/Maritime required beginning June 23, 2018
•Hydraulic Fracturing: –Compliance with most of rule starting June 23, 2018 –Engineering controls in place by June 23, 2021
What happens next?
Several industry groups, including the national organizations of WTBA, AGC, and ABC, have challenged the rule in federal court. However, the legal challenge can take years.
“[OSHA’s] final permissible exposure limit is beyond the capacity of existing
dust filtration and removal technology.” -Stephen Sandherr, CEO of AGC
Rule is being challenged in court
