Proposed Silica Rule Testimony Under Review
OSHA is considering the testimony from a two-week public hearing on its proposed rule to reduce the permissible exposure limit to silica before it submits its final draft to the U.S. Office of Management & Budget. SHANNON WETZEL, SENIOR EDITOR
O
n August 23, 2013, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) released a proposal which considerably toughens its regulation of respirable crystal- line silica by reducing the permissable exposure limit (PEL) to silica from 100 µg (micrograms)/cu.m to 50 µg/ cu.m. A Silica Task Force created by the American Foundry Society (AFS) has been directing the industry’s com- ments and discussions with OSHA in response to the agency’s proposed silica standard. Outside consultants for the met-
alcasting industry estimate the costs to meet the lower level will be more than $2.2 billion a year for the metalcasting industry. Based on this analysis, the proposed PEL would impose annual costs equivalent to 9.9% of the met- alcasting industry’s revenue and 276% of its profits. OSHA gave 105 days for the public to submit comments on the draft regulations, and public hear- ings before the U.S. Department of Labor were held March 18-April 4. On March 28, AFS and metalcast- ing industry representatives provided their testimony. Te panel consisted of Tom Slavin, AFS Safety & Health Committee Chair and Consult- ing Industrial Hygienist at Cardno ChemRisk; Bob Scholz, TRC Envi- ronmental Corp.; Chris Norch, Deni- son Industries; Peter Mark, Grede Holdings; Jerry Call, AFS CEO; and Al Spada, AFS director of marketing, communications and public relations.
22 | MODERN CASTING June 2014 “The requirements in OSHA’s
proposed silica rule are overly burdensome and not achievable for the foundry industry,” Mark said in his testimony in March. “They will significantly impair U.S. found- ries’ ability to compete in a global economy, force foundries to go out of business, and make others shift production offshore.” In the testimony, AFS called on OSHA to: • Change the formulaic PEL for respirable crystalline silica exposure in foundries to a simple value of 100 µg/cu.m.
• Work with employers to improve compliance with this newly adopted PEL of 100 µg/cu.m through training, outreach and compliance assistance.
• Work with the National Insti- tute for Occupational Safety and Health to help develop innovative approaches to the issues of the industry.
• Work with EPA to allow expansion of ventilation systems to reduce employee exposures under currently permitted criteria.
• Withdraw its proposal, correct the flaws in its economic and techno- logical assessments and modify it to make it economically feasible and allow the use of the most cost effective means of compliance for the metalcasting industry. “Foundries compete on many
levels, but when it comes to health and safety, foundries have freely shared information about controls and best
practices,” Call testified. “Despite extensive, expensive and sincere efforts, consistent compliance with the current PEL—which OSHA proposes to cut in half—has not proven feasible in critical areas of the foundry.” Te more than three hours of
testimony included substantive, non-con- tentious dialogue and questions between OSHA and the metalcasting industry panel. Several agency officials compli- mented AFS on the quality and detailed data the industry provided to the agency. AFS will be filing post-hearing
comments following the public hear- ings and is reaching out to members of Congress to educate them and their staff about the devastating impact OSHA’s proposal will have on met- alcasting facilities.
What’s Next As the proposed rule stands, met-
alcasters should be aware of certain changes in compliance requirements. Several provisions are included in the proposed standard beyond a lowered PEL, including: • Measuring the amount of silica workers are exposed to above an action level of 25 µg/cu.m.
• Protecting workers from respirable crystalline silica exposures above the PEL of 50 µg/cu.m on average over an 8-hour day.
• Limiting workers’ access to areas where they may be exposed above the PEL.
• Using dust controls to protect workers from silica exposures above the PEL.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60