The Construction Silica Standard One Year Later; Use the Enforcement Statistics to Your Benefit       
Joe Whiteman, Director of Safety Services  4-2019

Now that we’ve had time to decompress from the first year complying with the new construction silica standard, we can utilize the enforce­ment data to identify trends to help us better prepare as we continue forward. I recently submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for specific data related to the enforcement of 1926.1153 Respirable Crystalline Silica standard for the construction industry, September 23, 2017 to September 23, 2018. Though I was provided a Violation Detail Data Report for states, the percentages of where the citations were focused mirrored that of the Federal OSHA’s Frequently Most Cited document that surfaced a few months ago.

Within the FOIA document, there were a total of 192 citations issued to 85 companies. The immediate takeaway is that companies are receiving multiple citations per inspection; in this case at least two per contractor. Of the companies included in this request, several received over five. The severity of the citations was evenly split between Other Than Serious and Serious. I surmise more originally carried the Serious connotation, but through negotiation have landed where they are now. There were four obvious leaders that received the bulk of the citations. First was 1926.1153 (d)(2) employer Exposure Assessment requirements. Second was 1926.1153 (g)(1) Exposure Control Plan requirements. Third was 1926.1153 (c)(1), the Table 1 requirements, and lastly, 1926.1153 (i)(1) complying with the Hazard Communication Standard, including access to labels and containers, Safety Data Sheets, and ensuring the negative health effects related to this standard are communicated. The remaining citations were sprinkled across Medical Surveillance, Housekeeping, Training and Respiratory provisions. To reiterate, they were nearly the same proportions of those on the Federal OSHA’s Frequently Most Cited document.

What was really telling about the FOIA document was where companies have been cited for one requirement of the standard, there will be a second and even a third citation for other portions that are contingent upon another. It should be no surprise that if OSHA cites a com­pany for not complying with Table 1, almost all were also cited for not having performed the required exposure assessment. The company assumed they didn’t need to do this because they were “complying” with Table 1. That is the main reason for those two provisions being at the top of the most frequently cited list. The same goes for other provisions. Many companies were cited for things like the Written Exposure Control Plan, accompanied by a citation for not complying with the Hazard Communication portion. Same goes for companies that were cited for not providing adequate respiratory protection, who also received one for training or lack thereof.

As the statistics show, if you are found out of compliance with one portion of this rule, it’s a safe bet you will be cited for another provision as well. Now that we know the trends and statistics, ask yourselves these questions. Is compliance with Table 1 the correct approach? Have we performed the required exposure assessments? Have we incorporated and referenced the Hazard Communication and Respiratory Protection requirements fully and properly? Does our Exposure Control Plan cover all dust generating activities and the required information? Are our folks properly trained? If OSHA were to question them about their activities and the safety requirements of this standard, would they answer correctly? We are well beyond a year into this new ruling. Now is a great time to reevaluate your programs and ensure you are properly and fully complying with this standard.