Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

OSHA Enacts Sweeping Silica Rule

By Megan Baroni on April 26, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

 

Thank you to my colleague Bob Melvin for his contributions to the post below. Bob is a partner in the Environmental & Utilities Practice Group whose practice focuses on representing manufacturers with enforcement, compliance, and permitting issues.

On March 25, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued its final rule cutting in half the Permissible Exposure Limit (“PEL”) for respirable crystalline silica down to 50 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, averaged over an 8-hour shift. If upheld, the rule will require Construction and General Industry and Maritime employers to:

  • Perform exposure assessments and inform employees or post the results;
  • Repeat air sampling and commence worker medical surveillance if the assessment identifies levels above either the new Action Level of 25 μg/m3 or the revised PEL of 50 μg/m3;
  • Use engineering controls and work practices (such as special equipment and methods utilizing water or ventilation) to limit worker exposure to concentrations above the PEL;
  • Provide respirators when such measures can’t achieve those exposure levels;
  • Designate and limit worker access to high exposure areas;
  • Develop and update written exposure control plans;
  • Train workers on silica risks and exposure limitation methods;
  • Provide more highly exposed workers with medical exams, monitoring and lung health information; and
  • Make changes to hazard communication programs and recordkeeping systems.

OSHA developed its new crystalline silica rule following a series of studies, proposals, and debate, resulting in 14 days of public hearings and 34,000 pages of comments. OSHA estimates that the total annualized cost of the new rule will be more than $1 billion. Despite this high cost, OSHA asserts that, because the rule potentially affects 2.3 million workers and 676,000 establishments, the costs are spread over a large number of establishments and workers. OSHA projects that the rule could “save over 600 lives and prevent more than 900 cases of silicosis each year, once its effects are fully realized,” producing annual net benefits of $3.8 to $7.7 billion over the next 60 years.

But industry associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce point out that silica-related mortality has already declined by 93 percent since 1968 and argue that “the remaining cases are due to long term exposures above the current OSHA limit, not because the exposure limit was set too high.” The U.S. Chamber notes that silica is “one of the most common materials on earth (e.g. sand)” and “a critical component in construction, manufacturing, and transportation.”

OSHA responds to these concerns by emphasizing that its rule will regulate respirable crystalline silica comprised of “very small particles typically at least 100 times smaller than ordinary sand found on beaches or playgrounds” and “generated by high-energy operations like cutting, sawing, grinding, drilling and crushing stone, rock, concrete, brick, block and mortar” or “when using industrial sand.” OSHA adds that respirable dust is generated by activities such as: “abrasive blasting with sand; sawing brick or concrete; sanding or drilling into concrete walls; grinding mortar; manufacturing brick, concrete blocks, or ceramic products; and cutting or crushing stone.”

The rule is being challenged as too stringent by construction and manufacturing interests and too lenient by labor interests. Six petitions for review have been consolidated in the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. As of now, the rule becomes effective on June 23, 2016. Unless the wave of litigation undermines OSHA’s remodeled silica program, employers in the Construction sector will have an additional year (until June 23, 2017) and those in General Industry and Maritime will have two additional years (until June 23, 2018) to comply with most of the revised PEL requirements.  Hydraulic fracturing operations (aka “fracking”) will have five additional years (until June 23, 2021) to develop and implement the engineering controls required to limit exposures to the new PEL.

Photo of Megan Baroni Megan Baroni

I am an environmental attorney in Robinson+Cole’s Environmental and Utilities Group. I have worked with manufacturers, both big and small, on environmental compliance, risk management, and litigation matters for my entire career. My full firm bio can be accessed here.

As an…

I am an environmental attorney in Robinson+Cole’s Environmental and Utilities Group. I have worked with manufacturers, both big and small, on environmental compliance, risk management, and litigation matters for my entire career. My full firm bio can be accessed here.

As an environmental lawyer, I never want to be a roadblock to our client’s goals. I strive to understand the business of our manufacturing clients – what do you make and how do you make it? I want to know your objective, and I want to help you get there. Regulatory requirements and potential legal liabilities can sometimes seem daunting, but I help our clients develop an understanding of the requirements and all of the potential options so that we can create practical and cost-effective solutions to accomplish the objective. I work with management as well as the people who make our clients’ products every day, and I enjoy every part of it. It’s a good day for me when I can put on my hard hat and walk the factory floor.

Read more about Megan BaroniEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Manufacturing Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Robinson & Cole LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo