A new report by the Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) found that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposed silica standards for U.S. construction industry will cost the industry $5 billion per year. That’s about $4.5 billion per year more than OSHA’s estimate.
The coalition says that OSHA’s flawed cost estimates point to flaws in the rule, and has urged the federal agency to reconsider its approach. The proposed rule aims to greatly reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of crystalline silica for the construction industry.
The agency pegged the cost to the construction industry at about $511 million a year. “The OSHA analysis included major errors and omissions that account for the large discrepancies with the CISC report,” according to a statement from the industry group.
The CISC report estimates that about 80% of the cost ($3.9 billion/year) will be direct compliance expenditures by the industry such as additional equipment, labor and record-keeping costs.
The remaining 20% will come from increased prices that the industry will have to pay for construction materials and building products such as concrete block, glass, and roofing shingles. OSHA’s estimates failed to take into account these additional costs, CISC says. The added cost would be passed down to customers, the industry group says.
Related Stories
| May 8, 2014
Door knob code revisions generating controversy
The City of Vancouver’s ban on doorknobs in all new buildings, which went into effect last month, has drawn a strong reaction from the public and heated debate across Canada as other jurisdictions consider the measure.
| May 8, 2014
Structural concrete code revisions open for public comments
The American Concrete Institute’s completely reorganized ACI 318-14, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,” is open for public review for a 45-day period.
| May 3, 2014
Controversy rages over cost, benefits of proposed OSHA silica dust rule
Introduced in August 2013, the proposal would lower allowable levels of crystalline silica in all workplaces, standardize how the dust is calculated, and require medical monitoring for employees exposed to high levels.
| May 3, 2014
California’s Title 24 promises to reshape the construction industry
California’s recent revisions to Title 24 contain ambitious performance goals: all residential buildings must be Zero Net Energy by 2020 and commercial buildings must reach that standard by 2030.
| Apr 30, 2014
House Appropriations Committee approves $3 billion cut for military construction
The Army would see the sharpest cuts on a percentage basis, with a $578 million, or 52% reduction in FY 2015.
| Apr 30, 2014
GSA wants to trade D.C. office building for construction and development services
The GSA has issued an RFQ seeking developers who can provide construction and development services in exchange for the GSA Regional Office Building and Cotton Annex located in Southwest Washington, D.C.
| Apr 30, 2014
Mexico City spending big on green roofs to fight air pollution
Although green roofs have been widely adopted in urban areas to reduce the heat island effect and stormwater runoff, Mexico City is hoping that vegetative rooftops can also reduce the city’s air pollution.
| Apr 23, 2014
California bill would make employers responsible for subcontractors' wages, workers' comp
Under the recently revised Assembly Bill 1897, employers would have to pay wages, taxes, and workers compensation on behalf of a subcontractor’s workers if the subcontractor reneges on that responsibility.
| Apr 23, 2014
Obama’s 2015 budget includes $1.7 billion to GSA for building construction, renovations
The Obama Administration has proposed $1.7 billion for construction, renovation, and repairs to federal buildings in fiscal year 2015 under the auspices of the U.S. General Services Administration.
| Apr 18, 2014
Massachusetts Supreme Court clarifies building code liability issue on mixed-use projects
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that distinct portions of a mixed-used building may be treated as distinct and different structures under the state building code.
