Source: https://ogletree.com/insights/osha-enforcement-for-respirable-crystalline-silica-in-construction-standard-2018-2019-by-the-numbers/
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 14:34:16
Document Index: 496989232

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926']

OSHA Enforcement for Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard, 2018-2019: By the Numbers - Ogletree Deakins
For construction employers anxious over how the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and state plan states are enforcing the Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard, the last two calendar years of enforcement data provided by the agency offers some insight. In 2019, OSHA and state plan states issued 973 violations under 29 C.F.R. Section 1926.1153, the Respirable Crystalline Silica standard for construction. This represents a 15.4 percent increase from the 843 violations under Section 1926.1153 issued in 2018. (According to OSHA, 28 states have OSHA-approved state plans. These plans are required to have standards and enforcement programs that are at least as effective as OSHA’s and may have different or more stringent requirements.)
The table below presents the five most common violations of the silica standard in construction. The numbers refer to the total number of violations issued in each calendar year, based on the date of issuance.
Calendar Year 2018 Calendar Year 2019
Standard No. of violations issued Standard No. of violations issued
§ 1926.1153(d)(2)(i)
Exposure assessment 185 § 1926.1153(c)(1)
Table 1 222
§ 1926.1153(c)(1)
Table 1 179 § 1926.1153(d)(2)(i)
Exposure assessment 189
§ 1926.1153(g)(1)
Written ECP 161 § 1926.1153(g)(1)
Written ECP 173
§ 1926.1153(i)(1)
HazCom 78 § 1926.1153(i)(1)
HazCom 91
§ 1926.1153(i)(2)(i)
Employee information and training 33 § 1926.1153(i)(2)(i)
Employee information and training 68
The data is consistent with our analysis in June 2018 when OSHA began enforcing the Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard and appears to show that inspectors are following one of two enforcement approaches. In Approach One, the inspector takes a “Table 1 First” attitude and focuses on the employer’s adherence to Table 1. If a shortcoming is found (say, not using a saw with an integrated water delivery system, or not following Table 1’s respiratory protection requirements), then the inspector issues a violation of Table 1, Section 1926.1153(c)(1). In Approach Two, the inspector sees that the employer is not following Table 1, and then focuses attention on the employer’s exposure assessment efforts. If the employer has failed to perform an exposure assessment (or has, but the inspector deems it inadequate), then the inspector issues a violation under the exposure assessment requirement, Section 1926.1153(d)(2)(i). Inspectors seemed evenly divided on the two approaches in 2018, but gave Approach Two a slight preference in 2019.
Is an employer better off under one enforcement approach or the other? It depends. Under Approach One, inspectors issued Serious classifications most of the time (approximately 81 percent in 2018 and 74 percent in 2019) and heftier fines ($3,979.23 per violation on average in 2018, $2,624.38 in 2019). Under Approach Two, inspectors also issued Serious classifications most of the time (roughly 73 percent in both 2018 and 2019), but lower penalties ($955.21 in 2018, and $896.29 in 2019). If the employer’s primary concern is penalty amount, then Approach Two may be the better option. But if the employer’s concern is the classification of the violation, neither approach appears to show an appreciable difference.
Rounding out the Top Five most commonly cited violations are: the lack of a (or an inadequate) written exposure control plan; failure to incorporate respirable crystalline silica into the company’s hazard communication program; and failure to train or inadequate training on silica hazards. A common shortcoming of written exposure control plans is having a “global” exposure control plan for all of an employer’s work sites, with no detail on the local work site. Another common violation is the failure to designate a competent person on location (cited under Section 1926.1153(g)(4) 23 times in 2018, and 42 times in 2019).
For hazard communication and training issues, inspectors will commonly ask to see training records and a safety data sheet (SDS) for silica. If none is provided, then one can expect an inspector to issue citations under Sections 1926.1153(i)(1) and (i)(2)(i). Keep in mind that inspectors will likely also quiz employees, asking them about what they know about silica. If the employees appear to have no clue as to what the inspector is talking about, then the inspector may conclude that the company’s hazard communication and training programs are inadequate, and issue citations accordingly.
What is OSHA not citing employers for under the Respirable Crystalline Silica in construction standard? Under Section 1926.1153(j), covering recordkeeping, there were only two violations issued in two years. Housekeeping violations are also uncommon. For example, under the general ban on dry sweeping in Section 1926.1153(f)(1), OSHA issued 18 violations in 2018 and 14 in 2019. Under the general ban on use of compressed air, OSHA issued eight violations in 2018, and only one in 2019.
Indiana Legislature Makes Changes to Unemployment Compensation Statute
In addition to changes in tax rates and benefit amounts, two bills passed by the Indiana legislature this year impact employee eligibility for unemployment compensation. House Enrolled Act No. 1450 provides that effective July 1, 2011, an individual is not unemployed for any week in which the individual is regularly and customarily employed on an