OSHA silica rule facing strong pushback, future uncertain

April 24th, 2017 by Dakota Software Staff Industry News

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration published a rule on respirable crystalline silica in June 2016, with an effective date for general industry implementation of June 23, 2018. As EHS Today pointed out, that new rule is intended to replace a sliding formula first developed in 1968, which later guidance from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health contradicted. The new standard sets an objective limit for personal exposure: 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

With more than a year's worth of time left until the rule starts to impact industries like foundries and brick manufacturers, its future is in doubt. A number of legal challenges and the change in presidential administrations mean the rule could disappear before it impacts the general industry segment of the overall economy.

Legal wrangling on the issue
Trade publication Business Insurance said an important starting point in the current status of the rule is an industry coalition's attempt to obtain a 60-day extension to give the new administration more time to evaluate the rule. That request was made soon after the president took office, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied it in early February. The court didn't specifically indicate why it turned down the request for an extension.

The coalition filed a brief with the court in late February, with a focus on what it said was an unwarranted inclusion of a provision for medical removal protection, according to a separate article from Business Insurance. The group believes the additional medical protection offered by the rule - where a worker receives pay and benefits when a medical professional recommends removal from the site due to exposure - is unnecessary.

"Short-term medical leave is not necessary here because, in addition to the numerous other protective ancillary provisions, 'workers compensation is the appropriate recourse if permanent removal is required' and because 'union petitioners have not offered any evidence of medical removal protection costs or otherwise demonstrated that would be economically feasible,'" the coalition said in its filing.

With the rule already published and the request denied, its existence in the very short term is relatively assured. However, there's little stopping the Trump administration from eventually rolling back or changing the rule, should it desire to do so. While there may be legal challenges from unions and other supporters of the rule, its future is far from clear.