NAHB Asks That New Silica Rule Be Pulled - Fine Homebuilding
previous
  • Energy-Smart Details
    Energy-Smart Details
  • Clever daily tip in your inbox
    Clever daily tip in your inbox
  • Tips & Techniques for Painting
    Tips & Techniques for Painting
  • Video: Build a curved step
    Video: Build a curved step
  • Video Series: Install a Rock-Solid Tile Floor
    Video Series: Install a Rock-Solid Tile Floor
  • Remodeling in Action
    Remodeling in Action
  • 7 Small Bathroom Layouts
    7 Small Bathroom Layouts
  • All about Roofing
    All about Roofing
  • Gallery: Custom Flooring
    Gallery: Custom Flooring
  • Master Carpenter Videos
    Master Carpenter Videos
  • Solid Deck-Framing Advice
    Solid Deck-Framing Advice
  • 9 Concrete Countertops Ideas
    9 Concrete Countertops Ideas
  • Read FHB on Your iPad
    Read FHB on Your iPad
  • 7 Smart Kitchen Solutions
    7 Smart Kitchen Solutions
  • Magazine Departments
    Magazine Departments
  • Deck Design & Construction
    Deck Design & Construction
  • Basement Remodeling Tips
    Basement Remodeling Tips
  • 7 Trim Carpentry Secrets
    7 Trim Carpentry Secrets
  • 12 Remodeling Secrets
    12 Remodeling Secrets
  • Video: Install a Fence
    Video: Install a Fence
next

News

News


NAHB Asks That New Silica Rule Be Pulled

comments (1) February 13th, 2014 in Blogs
ScottG Scott Gibson, contributing writer

Click To Enlarge Photo: Wikimedia: Cpl. Alicia M. Garcia, USMC

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has requested that the government withdraw a proposed rule that would lower permissible exposure levels to crystalline silica for U.S. construction workers.

Airborne silica is created in a variety of common construction tasks, including cutting tile, fiber-cement siding, and concrete block, or otherwise crushing or grinding stone, brick, or mortar.

In announcing the new rule last August, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration said that tiny particles of silica can lodge in the lungs and cause a deadly disease called silicosis. Calling existing exposure limits inadequate and outdated, OSHA said that lower exposure limits would save as many as 796 lives a year and prevent 1600 new cases of the disease annually.

At the time, NAHB called the plan a "one-size-fits-all" approach that could force some builders to stop using common building materials. This week, the trade group said the rule would require "impractical medical surveillance, extensive and costly recordkeeping processes, and restrictions on certain construction site work practices, which contradict existing safety procedures."

"The real problem here is that OSHA doesn't understand how this rule would work on real world residential construction sites," NAHB chairman Kevin Kelly, a home builder from Wilmington, Del., said in a prepared statement.  "Before this rule moves forward, OSHA needs to work with us and our members to craft something that is pragmatic, workable and actually improves construction industry workers' health and wellbeing."

Further, NAHB said that data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show a decline in silicosis in recent decades. NAHB concluded that the government should use existing limits for silica until a comprehensive study proves that lower limits are really necessary.

NAHB also differs with the government over the potential cost of implementing the tighter rules. OSHA said compliance would cost $1242 annually in an average workplace, and that firms with fewer than 20 employees could expect to pay less than $550 a year. NAHB estimates the cost at $2.2 billion per year, four times what OSHA predicted.

In October, OSHA extended the comment period on the propsed rule change by a month and a half. Hearings are scheduled to start in Washington on March 18 and could last a couple of weeks.

"Given the many problems associated with the proposed rule, NAHB is urging OSHA to withdraw it, and instead, treat it as an advance notice of a proposed rule," the NAHB statement said. "Doing so will allow the agency time to collect more comprehensive data and determine how best to align the rule with current industry practices."


posted in: Blogs

Comments (1)

milwaukee milwaukee writes: NAHB is stupid for asking for such a request. Bottom line it comes down to money. I think the gov't is doing the right thing and trying to save lives be reducing exposure levels. NAHB has to learn how to adapt to change. And if the change takes a while, I am sure that out of good conscience, builders would have their workers wear protective gear to limit levels even further.

thanks
Posted: 10:34 am on February 14th

Log in or create a free account to post a comment.