As I was saying …

As reported previously, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2013 concerning worker exposure to silica. Silica is a naturally occurring mineral; it also is a known human carcinogen. For the roofing industry, silica is a concern primarily with tile roof applications and concrete pavers (when the materials need to be cut). We know exposure levels with these activities can be problematic.

We also know previous OSHA regulations have worked. In fact, there has been a dramatic decline in illness resulting from worker exposure to silica during the past decade; some of the decline is no doubt attributable to increased attention being paid to the issue.

Still, OSHA's new notice fails to provide any flexibility to employers for reducing exposures. As the rule is proposed, employers would be required to use engineering controls first and always before being able to provide respiratory protection. For our industry, engineering controls essentially include wetting and vacuuming, two activities that not only are infeasible but also are likely to introduce new hazards, such as slipping. Imagine roofing workers, already required to wear fall-protection equipment, having to maneuver around vacuum lines or hoses.

And respirators are not much better. In some cases, the proposed rule would require they be worn even when engineering controls are being used. We know respirators impair vision, cause shortness of breath and are just plain miserable on a hot summer day. And, of course, OSHA has a separate standard regulating respirator use.

During an earlier examination of the issue, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), working with California's state plan office and representatives from labor and management, concluded wetting and vacuuming on roofs are problematic. In at least two states, rules were adopted that give employers much more flexibility in reducing exposures and don't require engineering controls as a mandated first step.

The new proposed rule also sets new exposure limits so low even OSHA acknowledges the technology may not yet exist to accurately measure exposures.

OSHA's next signature rule is reported to be one that requires employers to identify hazards facing their workers and develop remedies for them. The best contractors already are doing that. Although we're not thrilled with more burdens on employers, the approach at least has some merit: It allows employers some flexibility in finding the best safety solutions.

We can learn a lot from one another about what works in the field and what doesn't. OSHA estimates the annual compliance cost for the new rule to be $511 for a small employer. There's not a chance that's realistic. We need a better approach.

NRCA has submitted comments on the proposed rule and has requested the opportunity to testify later this year. We are interested in learning about your thoughts and experiences as the process moves forward.

Bill Good is NRCA's executive vice president.