1. UNDERSTANDING OSHA’S PROPOSED SILICA STANDARD Del Kubeldis, CIH, CSP, ARM January 17, 2013 Houston, TX Silica Task Force

2. Briefly discuss Silica Sources and Construction Activities Review OSHA’s Proposed Standard Present Potential Impacts and Opportunities for Contractors Executive Summary

3. What is Silica? “Silica” - refers to silicon dioxide Exists in crystalline or amorphous form Crystalline silica - more hazardous - occurs as quartz, cristobalite or tridymite

4. Where is Silica Found? Naturally Occurring Quartz – 2nd most common mineral in earth’s crust Granite 20 - 70% quartz Shale 5 - 20% Beach sand >90% Manufactured products: Concrete products Bricks and blocks Abrasive blasting materials

5. Some construction tasks with exposure: Silica Exposures in Construction Abrasive/sand blasting (High Risk) Rock drilling (High Risk) Stone, brick, and concrete block cutting, blasting, chipping, grinding, and sawing Cement/concrete mixing or cutting Demolition Jack hammer operations

6. Industries and Contractors Impacted: Silica Exposures in Construction Building Construction Concrete & masonry contractors Demolition Earthwork and rock crushing/drilling Road construction and repair Abrasive blasting (sand blasting) Oil & Gas - fracking OSHA estimates 2.2 M workers exposed to silica – 1.8 M in Construction

7. One of oldest known occupational diseases Reports date to ancient Egypt & Greece Recognized in knife grinders and potters in the 18th century Later eventually known by associated trade as “grinders’ asthma”, “masons’ disease” and “miners’ phthisis” Silica as a Significant Health Hazard

8. By 1930, silicosis was “the most serious occupational disease” 1930-1931 “Hawk’s Nest Tragedy” Near the Gauley Bridge in WV Union Carbide & local power company project Dug 3-mile tunnel thru silica-rich material Most workers poor, uneducated Of 3,000 workers 764 died and 1,500 developed silicosis Silica as a Significant Health Hazard

9. Symptoms Dry, non-productive cough Initial breathlessness during exercise, which progresses to shortness of breath during normal activity Progresses to lung scarring and failure Diagnosis Incurable Causes significant impairment or death What is Silicosis? Miner's lung with silicosis

10. Acute silicosis (1-3 yrs.) Accelerated silicosis (3-10 yrs.) - 36-yr old, sandblasted for 36 months, died 11 yrs. after exposure - 30-yr old, sandblasted for 48 months, died 10 yrs. after exposure Chronic silicosis (7-25 yrs.) Silicosis Healthy Lung Scarred Lung Silicosis is a single disease w/single cause – breathing crystalline silica dust

11. Occupational Carcinogen IARC Group 1 for lung cancer Similar to benzene, asbestos and vinyl chloride Some evidence of “synergy” w/cigarette smoking Also linked with: Tuberculosis, emphysema, and pneumonia Stomach and other cancers Other Health Hazards of Silica

12. OSHA’s Proposed Standard “Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica” standard (1926.1053) - published in FR 9/12/13 Why Needed According to OSHA? Current PELs outdated…adopted in 1971 and not protective of workers Since 1971 NTP, IARC, and NIOSH have identified silica as a carcinogen OSHA estimates that the proposed rule will save nearly 700 lives and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis/yr

13. OSHA’s Proposed Standard Similar in approach to lead and hexavalent chromium standards a)Scope/Application b)Definitions c)PEL d)Exposure Assessment (w/AL) e)Regulated Areas/Access Control ($$)* f)Methods of Compliance ($$)* g)Respiratory Protection h)Medical Surveillance i)Communication of hazards to employees (training) j)Recordkeeping ($$)* Denotes deviation from approach of lead/hexavalent chromium standards and/or area of potentially significant cost to contractors

14. OSHA’s Proposed Standard c) PEL 8 hour TWA PEL = 50 micrograms of respirable crystalline silica per cubic meter of air (50 ug/m 3 ) – Formerly “millions of particles per cubic foot, or mppcf” For CI proposed PEL represents 50-80% reduction of current PEL (to 50 ug/m3 from 250 ug/m3). FYI…since 2006, ACGIH TLV has been 25 µg/m3 Monitoring Cyclone

15. OSHA’s Proposed Standard d) Exposure Assessment Assess exposures for employees who may “reasonable be expected” to be at or above TWA AL = 25 ug/m 3 (or ½ PEL) Initial Assessment - IH monitoring or objective data <12 months - Not required if Table 1 followed - “Employer must ensure Lab…” - “Employee Notification in 5 days” Periodic Assessment - AL< Exposure <PEL, then every 6 mos. - Exposure >PEL, then every 3 mos.

16. 7% 50% 93% 17% 55% 79% 47% 52% 34% 100% 20 % 35 %

17. OSHA’s Proposed Standard e) Regulated Area OR Access Control Plan ($$) Regulated Area Required >PEL Demarcation from the rest of the workplace – “in any manner that alerts employees to boundaries AND minimizes the number of employees exposed”(?) Limit access to “persons authorized and required” to be present in the RA (?) Protective work clothing – “where there is the potential for clothing to become grossly contaminated w/finely divided material” (?)

18. OSHA’s Proposed Standard e) Regulated Area OR Written Access Control Plan Written Access Control Plan Required >PEL Provisions for Competent Person to “identify the presence and location of any areas where silica exposures >PEL” (?) Procedures for notifying employees For multi-employer workplaces, methods to notify other employers - e.g., Site Safety Plan Provisions for limiting access by other employees Reviewed annually

19. OSHA’s Proposed Standard f) Methods of compliance Feasible Engineering/Work Practice Controls

20. OSHA’s Proposed Standard f) Methods of compliance Feasible Engineering/Work Practice Controls Saw-cutting w/o water Saw-cutting w/water

21. OSHA Chat – 1/14/14 QHow will this regulation ensure that the hierarchy of controls is the basis of the entire program? AAs with all OSHA Health Standards, the proposed rule requires employers to implement engineering and work practice controls before requiring employees to wear PPE, such as respirators. QWho decides when enough engineering controls have been implemented? AThe proposed rule provides flexibility to employers in that the employer decides which engineering and work practice controls will be implemented to meet the proposed PEL. Under the proposed rule, the employer would be required to use feasible engineering and work practice controls to reduce employee exposures to, or below, the proposed PEL.

22. OSHA’s Proposed Standard f) Methods of compliance 1 st - Feasible Engineering/Work Practice Controls Table 1 for specific operations - Includes Engineering/Work Practice AND Respirator requirements - Most tasks still require ½ face APR even w/wet methods or LEV Table 1 requirements similar to OSHA 3362-05 (2009)

23. Table 1 (excerpt) NOTE: PAPR or Full face APR for all exposures NOTE: Most Task entries half-mask (10) respirator required >4 hrs.

24. OSHA’s Proposed Standard g) Respiratory Protection Consistent w/1910.134 h) Medical Surveillance Required if exposure >PEL for 30 days/year Q - Should workers be pre-screened for silicosis? i)Communication of hazards to employees Under Hazard Communication “Each affected employee…” (?) “…can demonstrate knowledge of…” (?) j) Recordkeeping

25. OSHA’s Proposed Standard Timeline Comment period extended until 1/27/14 Public hearings in March 2014 Final Standard - ??? (AIHA – “not expected until late 2014…if at all”) Opinion - Will be issued in late 2014, if at all this year - Some requirements negotiated favorably (e.g. PEL increased to 100 ug/m 3 )

26. Contractor Issues w/Proposal Cost burden for contractors potentially significant (training, eng./work practice controls, Regulated Areas/Control Access Plan, PPE, etc.) “The proposed rule is estimated to result in annual costs of about $1,242 for the average workplace covered by the rule. The annual cost to a firm with fewer than 20 employees would be less, averaging about $550.” Regulated Areas/Control Access burdensome For own employees AND for other contractor employees Insurance implications WC occupational disease claims GL claims (PA Supreme Court - WC Act does not bar a personal injury lawsuit against employer for disease that manifests >300 wks. after employment )

27. Summary Silica is a known health hazard Proposal similar to other health hazards, w/significant exceptions Contractors could: 1.Do nothing! – wait and see where this goes 2.Do something! -Evaluate silica-related tasks for impact - Qualify/quantify potential exposures (in-house vs. consultants) -Consider opportunities to introduce engineering/work practice controls -Consider cost implications (e.g., bids) -Monitor progress of Proposed Standard

28. Questions? Del.kubeldis@willis.com 412-586-3538