OSHA's Proposed Silica Rule Raises Concerns for Construction Industry, Says NAHB

NAHB Press Release

WASHINGTON, Aug. 28--A coalition of construction industry groups is concerned about a proposed rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that's intended to protect workers from inhaling dust containing silica, created by activities such as cutting brick or block, and sawing, grinding or drilling concrete.

"We need practical, science-based solutions that protect workers in all facets of construction," said Rick Judson, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and a builder and developer from Charlotte, N.C. "Unfortunately, OSHA's initial announcement about this proposed rule indicates we aren't there yet."

Announced Aug. 23 in a press conference that laid out few details, the proposed rule seems to call for one-size-fits-all measures that contradict existing safety and quality assurance practices for different types of contractors.

For instance, spraying water to reduce dust may be practical in some construction projects, but using it inside a home while cutting granite counters can cause mold. In cold weather, spraying water while cutting asphalt roof shingles could cause ice to form on the slanted surface, endangering workers. Ventilation and dust-capture systems can inhibit the safe operation of tools. And if prescribed measures are not practicable, contractors might be forced to eliminate products with silica altogether, including concrete, brick, granite, and other common construction materials.

Independent studies have estimated costs for construction industry compliance will exceed $1 billion per year.

NAHB is part of the Construction Industry Safety Coalition, which is seeking a feasible and cost-effective crystalline silica regulation that improves safety and health protection measures for workers. The coalition represents thousands of employers working to protect hundreds of thousands of workers in home building, road repair, heavy industrial production, specialty trades and materials supply.

It was formed to encourage OSHA to develop better choices for compliance with the construction-specific silica rule: alternatives that also address costs, consistency with existing federal regulations and do not overly burden small businesses.

Construction Industry Safety Coalition members include:

· Associated Builder and Contractors (ABC)
· Associated General Contractors (AGC)
· Association of the Wall and Ceiling Industry (AWCI)
· American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
· American Subcontractors Association (ASA)
· International Council of Employers of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (ICE)
· Mason Contractors Association of America (MCAA)
· Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCA)
· National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA)
· National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA)

OSHA announces new National Emphasis Program for occupational exposure to isocyanates

OSHA Press Release

WASHINGTON – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced a new National Emphasis Program to protect workers from the serious health effects from occupational exposure to isocyanates. OSHA develops national emphasis programs to focus outreach efforts and inspections on specific hazards in an industry for a three-year period. Through this NEP, OSHA will focus on workplaces in general, construction and maritime industries that use isocyanate compounds in an effort to reduce occupational illnesses and deaths.

“Workers exposed to isocyanates can suffer debilitating health problems for months or even years after exposure,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “Through this program, OSHA will strengthen protections for workers exposed to isocyanates.”

Isocyanates are chemicals that can cause occupational asthma, irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat, and cancer. Deaths have occurred due to both asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis from isocyanates exposure. Respiratory illnesses also can be caused by isocyanates exposure to the skin. Isocyanates are used in materials including paints, varnishes, auto body repair, and building insulation. Jobs that involve exposure to isocyanates include the spray-on polyurethane manufacturing of products such as mattresses and car seats, and protective coatings for truck beds, boats, and decks.

OSHA’s Web page on Isocyanates provides additional information on recognizing potential hazards, as well as OSHA standards that address isocyanates in the general, construction and maritime industries.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

Regulatory Burdens on Small Business Hurt Housing, Economy, Builders Tell Congress

NAHB Press Release

WASHINGTON, March 14 - Federal agencies are circumventing the intent and the letter of a law to make the regulatory process more cost effective and less burdensome for small businesses, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) told Congress today. As a result, the regulatory process continues to unnecessarily increase compliance costs and is acting as a drag on the housing and economic recovery.

Testifying on behalf of NAHB before the House Small Business Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations, Kansas home builder Carl Harris said compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires federal agencies to review regulations for their impact on small businesses and consider less burdensome alternatives, continues to fall far short of the act's objective.

"Federal agencies often view compliance as largely a procedural function during the federal rulemaking process and not - as Congress intended - an opportunity to reduce the burden of regulations on small businesses," said Harris, who has participated in the regulatory process. "When federal agencies are unprepared to provide small business review panelists with the information and data necessary to evaluate the costs and compliance obligations, the process breaks down."

Harris then cited several examples where a smarter and more sensible regulatory process would benefit the housing industry, home builders and small businesses:

 

The 2008 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Cranes and Derricks Construction Rule:

The rule is intended to protect workers from hazards associated with hoisting equipment in construction. The Regulatory Flexibility Act required OSHA to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to evaluate the rule's potential impact on small businesses. However, OSHA did not establish a panel until after the rulemaking process was completed.

Harris, who participated on the review panel, explained to OSHA officials that the rule does not take into account the differences between crane applications on residential construction sites and large commercial construction sites. "I personally put forward an effective, feasible alternative that would save lives and reduce injuries in a more cost-effective way by developing regulations for crane operator certification which are appropriate to the equipment that is being used and the risks presented by that equipment," he said. However, since small businesses were not brought into the process until after the rule was finalized, Harris said his participation "seemed little more than a procedural hurdle with little interest from OSHA to make changes based on the feedback received."

 

Stormwater discharges:

In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency issued changes to its policies covering stormwater discharges from developed sites that had major ramifications for home builders. Once again, EPA failed to provide sufficient information about the proposed changes to a small business review panel on which Harris also served. "Unfortunately, the pattern is often the same: Agencies either fail to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act by ignoring the statutory obligation to convene a small entity review panel or convene a panel but fail to provide the panelists sufficient information concerning the proposed rule to allow them to evaluate regulatory options or provide alternatives," he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule:

EPA failed to convene a small business review panel when it first moved to amend the rule in 2008. The final rule, which went into effect in 2010, constrained small businesses in the home building and remodeling industry. It requires renovation work that disturbs more than six square feet in a home built before 1978 to follow new lead-safe work practices supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and performed by an EPA-certified renovation firm.

This has resulted in excessive compliance costs that ultimately get passed on to consumers. An unintended consequence of this rule is that it encourages home owners to hire uncertified contractors to do the work, or worse, do the work themselves and actually increase the likelihood of disturbing lead-based paint. Poor development and implementation by EPA has jeopardized safety, needlessly raised costs for remodelers and consumers, and hindered both job growth and energy efficiency upgrades.

Many of the deficiencies in EPA's RRP rule could have been addressed if the agency had complied with both the letter and the spirit of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, said Harris.

When establishing the Regulatory Flexibility Act in 1980, Congress said the purpose of the law was to "fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulations. To achieve this, principal agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration."

"Unfortunately, all too often federal agencies view compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act as either a technicality of the federal rulemaking process or, worse yet, as unnecessary," Harris said. "I urge Congress to seek out ways to improve agency compliance with this law."