Washington — A Mine Safety and Health Administration proposed rule meant to scale back employee publicity to respirable crystalline silica “does not demand enough from operators,” Reps. Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Alma Adams (D-NC) declare.
Scott is rating member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, whereas Adams chairs the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee. In a letter dated Sept. 11 and addressed to performing Labor Secretary Julie Su, they write that though the proposed rule is sound, it may be improved to “attain the maximum protection attainable for miner health.”
Workers can inhale silica mud throughout operations resembling mining, chopping, sawing, drilling or crushing supplies together with rock and stone. Crystalline silica can injury lung tissue and result in black lung illness, power obstructive pulmonary illness or incurable silicosis. OSHA estimates that 2.3 million employees are uncovered to silica mud yearly.
The proposed rule, printed July 13, would decrease the permissible publicity restrict for silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air over an 8-hour time-weighted common. The proposed PEL is half the present restrict and matches the PEL OSHA established in 2016.
Scott and Adams, nonetheless, write that MSHA should strengthen quite a few provisions within the proposal to adequately:
- Block mine operators from evading their duty to scale back and handle silica publicity.
- Prevent operators from dishonest on silica publicity monitoring.
- Guard towards conflicts of curiosity with operator-funded science.
- Permit miners to observe hazardous silica publicity and defend their well being.
- Require operators to report excessive silica publicity ranges to miners, MSHA and the general public.
“The proposed rule must remedy these shortcomings by demanding more from operators to keep mines safe, closing loopholes that unscrupulous operators and their hired experts can use to avoid meaningful compliance, empowering workers, and leveraging the power of information,” the letter states.
Comments on the proposal initially have been due Aug. 28, earlier than an extension moved the deadline to Sept. 11.
