Let the Rules Apply

Introduction 

Within the construction industry, exposure to silica remains a potentially life-threatening event. However, the characterization of its hazardous effects has not taken place effectively due to several reasons as the dynamically changing workplace, environmental factors and tasks, and the frequent turnover of personnel. Numerous studies have equated silica exposure to a number of diseases within the construction populations. It is now evident that more deaths due to silicosis are presently permeating the construction industry, leading to the significant elevation of the mortality risk associated with overexposure. Among the general construction population and construction laborers, pulmonary tuberculosis is known to be more prevalent, predominantly in people already suffering from silicosis. Medical studies indicate that the exposure to silica relates to the onset and exacerbation of lung cancer as indicated in studies done by Robinson et al., (1995). Similarly, reduced lung function is also a challenge for construction personnel exposed to minimal amounts of concrete dust containing silica. In several construction activities, high levels of quartz exposure are also a concern. As such, employers should exercise responsibility in the minimization and monitoring of silica exposure amounts to their employees.

As a result of the dangerous effects of silica exposure, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issues two standards that are employed for the safety of workers against excessive contact with respirable-crystalline silica. One standard is applicable in the construction of general industries while the other applies in maritime constructions. To get a better understanding of the need for these standards, consider the construction population affected by overexposure to silica. In America, close to two million construction workers are exposed to the dangerous effects of silica. These numbers are aggravated by the fact that as of 2016, there were over 600,000 construction workplaces that were employing the use of silica in their daily construction activities (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2017). OSHA further estimates that more than 840,000 of these workers continue to face excessive exposure to silica levels that exceed the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). In addition to the aforementioned repercussion of lung disease, exposure to silica is detrimental in that it causes the onset of secondary diseases such as kidney diseases due to higher blood toxicity levels. According to the OSHA and comprehensive empirical studies, exposure typically takes place during common tasks in construction such as the use of masonry saws, drills, grinders, handheld powered chipping tools, jackhammers, among others. In addition, operations that involve the use of vehicle-mounted drilling rigs, crushing machine and milling equipment also brings about overexposure (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2017).

While OSHA remains adamant on standard requirements in the construction industry, such customary prerequisites do not apply in situations whereby the exposure remains low for much of the foreseeable conditions. Here, examples that apply include the performance of tasks such as mortar mixing, the establishment of slab foundation and walls, the pouring of concrete footers, and in removing concrete formworks. According to the OSHA, the standard requirement directs employers to restrict the exposure of employees to crystalline silica effectively and to place other measures that protect workers from recurrent exposures. Moreover, the standard accords flexible alternatives that are particularly useful for medium to small employers. Therefore, employers can employ the use of control methodologies that apply to the construction standard, or they can quantify empirically, the exposure of workers to silica, commensurately deciding the best dust control measures that work best for them autonomously. This, leeway in control measures allows employers to work out the best parameters for the PEL within workplaces. Overall, notwithstanding specific exposure control methodologies used, every employer within the construction industry is normally covered by standardized measures as stipulated by the OSHA. These general standards stand as the primary benchmarks for safety, and strict observance to them is required within the construction industry.

OSHA general standard for all types of construction works remains pertinent to the safety of the industry and the workers involved. One such standard is the establishment and implementation of a written exposure control plan, which pinpoints tasks that encompass methods and exposures employed for the protection of workers (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2017). Such control plans include procedures that restrict work access in areas deemed highly expository in nature. The designation of efficient individuals to contrive written exposure control plans is also a standard requirement by the OSHA. Moreover, through such plans, the restriction of housekeeping practices takes place, which reduces the exposure of workers and allows the implementation of feasible alternatives where applicable. Another universal standard is the offering of medical examinations that include frequent chest X-rays and tests on the lung function, including a requirement that stipulates the wearing of a respirator for 30 days or more, yearly. Other standardized measures include the training of workers on various operations that lead to an outcome of silica exposure and how to mitigate this exposure. Such training is imperative not only as a sensitization measure but also as a highly empirical measure. Also, the keeping of records stemming from medical examinations is also a standardized measure in the control and curbing of silica exposure.

In addition to standardized procedures, OSHA provides detailed alternative exposure control methodologies that require strict observance by the industry players in the construction world. Such methods employ a strict enforcement of germane stipulations crucial to occupational health and safety. One is the measurement of the amount of silica exposure by workers, which should be at or above the recommended level of 25 micrograms of silica per cubic meter of air on an average of eight working hours (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2017). Another stipulation is the protection of workers from respirable crystalline silica exposure above the acceptable limits of exposure that does not exceed 50 micrograms of silica per cubic meter of air, over an eight-hour working period. Moreover, the use of dust control measures that protect workers from the exposure of silica above the PEL and the provision or respirators when dust control limits are breached are also effective alternative control measures. According to the OSHA, exposure to crystalline silica occurs using certain tools on concrete blocks, stones, bricks, mortar, as well as other materials that have a high concentration of crystalline silica (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2017). Such tools include various saws such as stationary masonry saws, walk-behind saws, drivable saws, among others; the use of a variety of drills such as rig-mounted drills, hand-held and stand-mounted ones, among others; the use of rigs, grinders and other machineries; among other tools (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2017). This accords sufficient reason for the implementation of OSHA laws while at the same time disputing available reason against their implementation in the construction industry.

Review of Literature 

Crystalline silica is a component of sand, soil, and other natural materials found in the earth’s crust. In its composition, three pertinent forms transpire which are quartz, tridymite, and cristobalite. As mentioned earlier, in its dust form, it usually occurs when workers saw, cut, drill or even crush building materials such as stones, rocks, glasses or bricks. More exposure occurs through abrasive operations that encompass hydraulic fracturing sand blasting among other processes (Szymendera, 2016). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) shows that crystalline silica particles are actually 100 times smaller than normal particles (Szymendera, 2016). As such, due to their tiny nature, silica particles enter into the respiratory system easily. Moreover, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program, identifies crystalline silica as a valid carcinogenic. This exposition makes the respiration of crystalline silica to be linked to the incurable condition of silicosis as well as other diseases that affect the respiratory system. Moreover, autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, and lupus represent detrimental effects of crystalline silica overexposure. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the debilitating effects of crystalline silica and its link to occupational exposure has always been known. A case in point appeared in 1931, whereby, several hundred workers met their death due to acute silicosis while constructing the Hawk’s Nest Tunnel in Gauley Bridge, West Virginia (Szymendera, 2016).

Numerous literature abounds of the heavy effect exposure to crystalline silica has on the body. By far, these effects are the primary prerogatives of laws that continue to limit their exposures. Literature searches conducted with the sole purpose of identifying epidemiological papers on silicosis, silica and lung cancer reveal heavy interrelations. Such literature obtained from electronic databases such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science among others, found a relationship between Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) exposure and various cancer occurrences, including the development of stomach cancer, skin cancer, bone cancer, as well as esophageal cancer. Nonetheless, findings related to these types of cancer have consistently been unreliable, and in most inquiries, the occurrence of joint exposures to other risk factors has taken place. On the other hand, the most significant relationship of RCS exposure to cancer is the occurrence and pervasiveness of lung cancer among veteran construction workers. This is supported by the fact that in 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified crystalline silica from the Group 2A to a Group 1 human carcinogen. This reclassification took place due to intense assessments that are done on various epidemiological studies whereby a low likelihood of symptoms originating from secondary exposures was ruled out. As such, IARV concluded that significant evidence abounds in workers to classify crystalline silica inhaled in its various forms a detrimental carcinogenic to humans (Brown, 2009).

Regarding lung cancer, studies by IARC indicate that the risk of lung cancer tends to increase with an increase in various factors. These factors include the exponential cumulative exposure to RCS, the peak intensities of exposure, the duration of exposure, the length of medical checkup times from diagnosis to the onset of silicosis and the actual presence of silicosis. These studies, however, show inconsistencies in the sense that those who showed an association with cumulative exposure did not commonly observe one with exposure intervals and vice versa (Brown, 2009). Nevertheless, since the publication of the IARC in 1997, an excess of 50 pertinent papers continues to indicate and explore the inherent relationship between crystalline silica exposure and silicosis to lung cancer. Besides, several reviews on studies of lung cancer risks on participants experiencing silicosis indicate the consistent development of excessive risks. Inasmuch as these numerous studies do not point out a clear indication of the extent of these increased risks, the fundamental premise is that lung cancer is a direct result of consistent exposure to RCS. In addition, a number of meta-analyses have scrutinized the risk of developing lung cancer in various people exposed to crystalline silica. In one such research before the IARC monograph, Smith et al. (1995), calculated the cumulative relative risk and estimated it to be 2.2. Further, Tsuda et al. (1997) examined pertinent relationships between lung cancer and pneumoconiosis in 32 divergent studies, settling on a relative risk of 2.7 an increment of 0.5 to Smith’s studies.

Such studies accord the most resounding evidence of the presence of carcinogenicity and further indicate that augmented lung cancer risks appear on those groups of individuals with the highest cumulative risk of exposure, further, portending the existence of an innate threshold. On the other hand, due to the difference in exposure measures, the exposure-response relationship among various cohort studies show slight inconsistency, making it a challenge to carry out intense and highly conclusive meta-analyses. Consequentially, through the pooling of data from multiple cohort studies relating to crystalline silica, and their subsequent analysis in a nested case indicates that a log of exposure that is cumulative in nature and presented through a 15-year lag, indicates a strong prediction on the onset of lung cancer. In 2003, a publication indicated a hazardous assessment of the potential of carcinogenicity of RCS aptly summarizing evidence illustrating the link between silicosis and lung cancer (Brown, 2009). This publication indicated that excess mortality rates among RCS exposed workers transpired in those affected with silicosis in different categories of severity. Their overall conclusion was that the reduction of exposure to RCS within the workplace to manageable levels that resulted in the reduction of RCS commensurately reduced the risk of transmitting lung cancer and that occupational standards were the pillar of this dramatic rate of decline.

According to statistics by the Health & Safety Executive, as a case study in Great Britain, deaths arising from silicosis continues to decrease due to measures placed that curb overexposure tendency by employers. Cherrie et al. (2007) assessed data situated at the National Exposure Database (NEDB) and subsequently projected the ratio of the mean crystalline silica exposure level to the Occupational Exposure Level (OEL). The result revealed that a less than one margin indicative of a reduction of exposure levels with ample enactment of laws and stipulations that continue to govern crystalline silica exposure trend within the construction industry. Although the NEDB presents data over the past 20 years, its representation in the industry is sometimes questionable (Brown, 2009). Nonetheless, sufficient empirical research and cohort studies continue to disseminate the health impacts of crystalline silica exposure as negative and universally carcinogenic. Moreover, surveys of stone masonry and brick making reveal a correlation between exposure levels and the risk of the onset of cancer, as well as other complications (Brown, 2009).

As seen above, the overexposure of silica during construction events is a pestering ongoing problem that numerous construction workers continue to experience. As such, numerous construction sites normally put workers at a very high risk of inhaling dust particles that contain silica. Furthermore, significant amounts of literature continue to detail exposure levels of crystalline silica using risk-based strategies. One such study indicated the use of statistical modeling in the examination of appropriate data sets encompassing 1466 task-based and individual respirable crystalline silica (RCS) measurements acquired from 46 different sources (Dye, 2015). The use of this dataset was to estimate exposure levels for a particular duration in the task of construction in addition to the effects of exposure factors. In doing this, Suave et al. (2012) employed the use of the Monte-Carlo simulation strategy to restructure individual exposures from the limits in summary. The study used multimodal interference statistical models. Also, the use of Tobit models exemplifying an amalgamation of exposure variables such as sampling duration, sampling year, construction sector, workspace, project type, controls, and ventilation were included in the study. Since this model contained all variables, it explained close to 60 percent of the variability and became the best-approximating model.

From this study, apposite derivatives are made and show the specific tasks within the complexity of construction that have the highest risks of overexposure to silica. As such, from the 27 checked tasks within the data set, abrasive blasting, masonry chipping, tunnel boring, concrete scrabbling, and tuck-pointing, all had an estimation of higher PEL averages as established on the developed exposure scenarios. During an examination of the various construction activities that disperse particles easily such as sawing and tunneling, the exposure to crystalline silica was estimated at more significant levels than when activities were not undertaken. In the study, this was highly significant as it correctly identified the activities that are more predisposed to the exposure of silica. This categorization of exposure levels and their predisposition stems from the fact that construction workers execute numerous activities during times of work. As such, the examination of their work habits and standards of safety customary to workplaces is a step towards the reduction of the overexposure problem in activities that pertain to construction. Here a good example is that quartz represents common surface materials used particularly in construction. As such, the lessening of exposure has to be met with construction activities as well as indoor activities such as sheetrocking.

The common occurrence of quartz demands construction personnel to take increased safeguards while carrying out specific jobs. Stacey (2007) soundly examines silica concentrations and exposure limits. In the study, international occupational exposure limits (OELs) for the exposure to respirable crystalline silica ranges from 0.05 to 0.2 milligram per cubic meter of air per an eight-hour time-weighted average. Although this study identifies pertinent exposure limits in Europe and America, conclusions made leaned more towards theory with no concrete evidence authenticating an exposure limit that is standard in nature. While people in America and around the world are uncertain of relevant exposure levels, the application of OSHA standards becomes pertinent in delineating the exposure levels of silica effectively (Dye, 2015). The concentration of silica in materials used in construction plays a significant role in the decrease or increase of the exposure likelihood as mentioned earlier. Moreover, various factors experienced within the work milieu play centralized roles in dictating exposure levels. Such factors include working in environments that are enclosed, open spaced, or semi-closed and the involvement in multiple operations that create huge amounts of silica dust. In addition, environmental conditions such as the speed of the wind and its direction play centralized roles in determining exposure levels to crystalline silica. This makes the laws of organizations such as the National Institute for Occupational Health and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists highly essential.

Supporting Evidence and Facts 

As a naturally occurring inorganic material in rock and soil, silica remains to be the second most plentiful mineral on the surface of the earth. As mentioned earlier, when inhaled, this mineral’s result is various side effects to the body, and this is the reason why the OSHA works on more stringent measures to curtail its resultant effects. Within numerous construction industries, silica is normally present, as such; an examination of the various construction works, and their impact on silica exposure is pertinent since it brings understanding on the need for the observance of rules that curtail its effects. One of the most common procedures in the construction industry is the technique of concrete saw cutting. As a construction industry process, concrete saw cutting exposes workers to crystalline silica. When these workers cut concrete using dry procedures instead of wet, their exposure levels to crystalline silica heighten dramatically. As such, the stipulation by OSHA to use continuous water sprays on the saw blades offers sufficient control in the limitation of exposure levels that exceed silica PEL (Flanagan, Lowenherz & Kuhn, 2001). In the employing dry cutting techniques during construction, the dispersion of particles into the air occurs more readily, resulting in increased exposure. Besides, inasmuch as the use of respirators may aid in reducing exposure, this should be the last resort according to the OHSA

Similar to a concrete saw cutting is concrete core drilling which presages potentially upsetting effects on the health of the employees. To indicate and show supporting evidence to this effect, a study conducted in 2002 evaluated the efficacy of local exhaust ventilation systems (LEV) in their ability to control respirable dust and the exposure to crystalline silica during the construction process of concrete drilling and cutting (Croteau, Guffey, Flanagan & Seixas, 2002). Apprentices sponsored by the union performed work activities such as tuck-point grinding, surface grinding, brick cutting, and concrete block cutting using saws that were hand-held. In the process, the testing of three ventilation rates occurred and was represented by zero, 30, and 75 cfm for each implement. The process also replicated ventilation treatments that were three times in a random procedure and in a time span of fifteen minutes per participant. Following this test, the results indicated significant reductions in the exposure to silica except for the hand-held saw. Moreover, the more the application of higher ventilation levels, the lesser the exposure levels to harmful silica levels transpired. Results from the study further indicated that although the exposure decreased significantly, individual exposure to respirable dust remained high. Nonetheless, the application of local exhaust ventilation proved to reduce the overall exposure levels, considerably curbing the negative effects of exposure to crystalline silica

This study is an important evidence of the effectiveness of OSHA stipulations pertaining to the control of silica exposure. Its importance stems from the fact that it shows and acts as a basis for supporting evidence, the fact that the use of wet sawing and drilling methodologies are more efficient compared to the implementation of ventilation efforts during the construction process. As exemplified through various construction projects throughout the world, concrete core drilling is done dry. The implementation of a dry concrete core drilling procedure results in overexposure to crystalline silica, which in turn results in hazardous complications to one's health. While construction workers prefer dry drilling due to its fiscal considerations and the fact that it requires less after work clean up, the reality is that it is potentially life-threatening. Besides, new research indicates constant improvements in wet drilling strategies such as the use of micro-Nano-based fluids for drilling (Mao et al., 2015). Overall the fact remains that through the combination of LEV and water application, silicate dust at all points of emission is controlled efficiently as seen in various studies.

Another supporting evidence of the effectiveness in implementing OSHA rules and regulations is through the construction process of sheetrock finishing (Dye, 2015). Presently, more construction jobs require sheetrock finishing, which includes sanding, and the finishing of sheetrock joint compounds. Studies by Simmons, Jones & Boelter (2012) concerning the potential determinants that cause an immense influence on the exposure to respirable and general dust to sanders who work within the sphere of sheetrock finishing showed interesting pointers. This research resulted in the observance of 17 test events in an isolation chamber with the scale of a normal room. Findings by researchers indicated showed that the rate of air change correlated negatively with the concentration of TWA in both the personalized breathing zones in the workers who were sanding and their surrounding environs. Although they could not come to a full conclusion of the specific types of sanding tools used, they found out that respirable dust was dispersed uniformly close to 1 or 2 meters away from the activities of sanding. The research found out that the concentration of dust focused on where the sanders were working and that the dust took 3 to 4 hours to settle after the conclusion of the activity of sanding. Although this showed a relatively short dissipation period, the underlying solution to this persistent problem remained the implementation of OHSA laws and stipulations (Dye, 2015).

Since its inception through the Occupation Safety and Health Act enacted by Congress in 1970, the formation of the present federal agency that is now the OSHA has resulted in a safer environment particularly for workers in the construction industry. While the OSHA forms and enforces health standards and safety within workplaces, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health researches the causes and solutions to most occupational injuries and illnesses. As such, this has made OSHA the fourth leader of the safety system in America. Other mainstays of the safety policy include the state workers’ compensation insurance, the legal system, and the labor market (Leeth, 2013). Since its establishment, proponents of this organizational body have repeatedly aired out their belief of its dramatic effect on the improvement and augmentation of American worker health and safety. As a testament to this effect and supporting evidence, throughout its 40 years of existence, workplace nonfatal injuries, fatalities and illnesses have reduced drastically (Leeth, 2013). Although OSHA is not the only player in the reduction of workplace injuries and illnesses, its role in it is quite momentous and leaves a lot to be desired. Further, through the existence of OSHA, the other three pillars of the United States safety policy system have been significantly augmented through the provision of pertinent information to workers about the potential health-related hazard and how to mitigate them

More supporting evidence indicates that through the working of OSHA within the four pillars of the American safety policy system, leads to an in-depth and overall necessity of this body. By working hand-in-hand with the other four pillars, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration offers incentives that increase worker safety. The offering of incentives is a true demonstration of the commitment of OSHA in its effort to mitigate worker illnesses, predominantly, in the construction industry. According to statistical inferences, the inspection efforts of OSHA in ensuring their rules and regulations are followed to the letter has resulted in the reduction of worker injuries by a modest 4 percent (Leeth, 2013). Moreover, a myriad of studies indicates that the augmentation of OSHA’s powers will generate substantial enhancements to the overall safety of workers. The idea here is simple, augmented regulation brings about more compliance from the firms concerned, and this process incentivizes safety strategies immeasurably. Moreover, the 1968 reduction in PEL from 250 micrograms to 50 per cubic meter of air has resulted in a 93 percent decrease in silica-related deaths. This drop according to the Center for Disease control occurred between the periods of 1968 and 2007.

More supporting evidence indicates that OSHA’s laws enforce technological alterations, thereby, resulting in a precipitation of positive changes within the construction industry. In simpler terms, through the enactment of their stipulations, OSHA ensures that people are implementing safer strategies in their day-to-day work activities. Besides, this implementation is what people normally do not do to ensure safe working environments. In enforcing their stipulations and laws, OSHA creates pertinent opportunities for the development of safety solutions among various industry players in construction. Such provision of safety solutions often solves problems that have affected workers for epochs. Moreover, the performance standards of OSHA, which relate to the construction industry, continue to present prior thoughtfulness and a reasoning capability that shows sound outlook on the potential hazard that appears within the industry. This ability of forethought is in itself a representation of evidence supporting the effectiveness of OSHA’s laws and stipulations

Analysis 

Although OSHA continues to be a pillar in the implementation of procedures that result in a safer working environment, pertinent issues still permeate the construction industry indicating a supposed negative outcome of their efforts. One of the major counterproductive arguments against the laws and stipulations of OSHA is their estimated cost to the construction industry. The major proponent of this argument, the Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) presents an estimation that the new criteria proposed by OSHA regarding exposures to crystalline silica are estimated to cost the industry more than $4.9 billion yearly (Environomics, Inc., 2015). This estimation has, consequently, made OSHA’s new rules, the most expensive ones in the history of its existence. Further CISC has tabulated that 80 percent of the cost will go to the direct compliance of expenditures by the industry. According to the CISC, such compliance will go to the enablement of engineering controls and program requirements such as the conduction of exposure assessments and medical surveillance, the purchasing of respirators, the enactment of training programs and the establishment and maintenance of regulated areas (Environomics, Inc., 2015). The other 20 percent will transpire in the form of increased prices in the materials and building products used in the construction industry. CISC further states that according to its independent analysis, the economic data estimation of OSHA is severely depleted and has come up with its estimates, which indicate economic infeasibility that transcends more than ten times the estimates of OSHA.

In addition to costs, CISC further claims and estimates that the proposals by OSHA will increase not only operational costs but also the reduction of job opportunities and thus the resultant revenues of individuals and the state. In doing so, CISC states that the suggested regulations will result in a job depreciation of more than 52,700 jobs in the economy of the United States (Environomics, Inc., 2015). More data is provided indicating that these jobs will be 20,800 direct construction jobs; additional 12, 180 jobs in industries that provide the products, materials and services within the construction industry such as manufacturers, architects, realtors, among others; and close to 20,000 secondary jobs supported by the earnings from construction workers (Environomics, Inc., 2015). Although CISC presents these projections as factual, they are yet to be empirically tested in current construction marker dynamics. Moreover, the assertions that CISC makes regarding the fact that these jobs are expressed on the basis of full-term employment and that the inclusion of part-time workers would quadruple the number are baseless and non-factual.

Moreover, the CISC criticizes OSHA’s estimates based on a misunderstanding of the construction industry. The CISC continually claims that in establishing their laws, OSHA failed to acknowledge pertinent additional costs to the construction industry, which essentially come from the projected general industry standards. Here, CISC argues that many of the to-be-enacted regulations within general industries affect the production of materials such as bricks, concrete, blocks, tiles, stones, etcetera; and products such as roofing shingles, plumbing fixtures, and electrical parts, among others. While it is true that this effect on the general industry is normally passed on to the construction industry, the resultant fiscal consequence on appropriate industries is at most, minimal. The CISC also argues that OSHA overlooks subcontracting prevalence within the construction industry. It further goes to argue and presume that the total annual revenues for the construction industry are equal to the total summed up revenues for each of the firms within the construction industry for the same year. However, this approach double-counts the revenues of each firm that is paid out to subcontractors, heavily inflating the overall estimations of CISC regarding the effects of the new OSHA stipulations.

Overall, although it is quite evident that the construction industry will incur costs in the process of enacting the new rules and stipulations, the underlying benefits of them are tremendous and overlooks CISC’s myopic interpretation of the stipulations. First, the laws that have enacted new PEL and a penalization to those who do not comply are ethically justified. The core mandate of OSHA is to provide a safe working environment for workers, to protect them and cushion them against workplace hazards, illnesses, and accidents. Therefore, with this decree, OSHA acts within its stipulated ethical boundaries in ensuring proper observance of rules and etiquettes, which continue to provide safe working environments. The second justification for OSHA is the health issue that pertains to crystallized silica overexposure. Numerous empirical evidence and intricate research abound of the negative effects of silica overexposure, which explicitly show that such exposures lead to acute respiratory failures such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases (COPD) and eventual death if managed inefficiently. Bang et al. (2015) further show that between 2001 and 2010 more than 1,400 deaths in the US were related to the prevalence of silicosis in one way or the other. Such deaths and disease-related cases represent a worrying trend that justifies the implementation of stringent measures, which are able to curb them. As such, ethically, OSHA is highly warranted to implement its control laws in the construction industry

Conclusions 

While apposite industry regulators such as the Construction Industry Safety Coalition continue to present their antagonistic reasons for the repeal of OSHA stipulations and laws, their need in the construction industry is becoming more apparent. The rules and regulations of OSHA will continue to benefit construction workers, particularly concerning their health. This importance calls for employers to be more productive in enacting these stipulations and ensure that they are the core governors of their businesses in relation to safety and health. Moreover, through the provision of assistance, services, and pertinent programs, OSHA establishes essential health and safety programs that continue to be the pillar of the safest working environments within the construction industry. Furthermore, through offering cooperative programs, OSHA is able to collaborate with labor groups, businesses, as well as other organizations in various strategic initiatives. Such initiatives include Voluntary Protection Programs, Strategic Partnerships, and Alliances, among others.

The incorporation of cooperative programs enables the development of compliance assistance resources and tools that enable drastic sensitizations among workers and employers. In addition to providing safety guidelines, OSHA also educates employers and workers concerning their rights and responsibilities, commensurately, resulting in a well-educated workforce attuned to both productivity and safety. Above and beyond, through offering occupational safety and health courses, OSHA partners with 27 other educational training institution centers in 42 locations in continental America. Per year, such institutions deliver germane courses to thousands of students and workers (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2017). Such educational programs continue to be the core of organizations such as OSHA and continue to serve as forerunners in the enactment of the safe working zone. As such, the core of all construction businesses should be attuned to the standards and stipulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in all their activities as a way of inculcating ethical safety, overall health and performance.

Reference

Bang, K., Mazurek, J., Wood, J., White, G., Hendricks, S., & Weston, A. (2015). Silicosis Mortality Trends and New Exposures to Respirable Crystalline Silica — the United States, 2001–2010.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) ,  64 (5), 117-120.

Brown, T. (2009). Silica exposure, smoking, silicosis and lung cancer--complex interactions.  Occupational Medicine ,  59 (2), 89-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqn171 

Cherrie, J. W., Van Tongeren, M., & Semple, S. (2007). Exposure to occupational carcinogens in Great Britain.  Annals of occupational hygiene ,  51 (8), 653-664.

Croteau, G., Guffey, S., Flanagan, M., & Seixas, N. (2002). The Effect of Local Exhaust Ventilation Controls on Dust Exposures during Concrete Cutting and Grinding Activities.  AIHA Journal ,  63 (4), 458-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15428110208984734 

Dye, B. (2015).  Silica Exposure in Construction Workers  (Master of Science). Montana Tech of the University of Montana.

Environomics, Inc. (2015).  Costs to the Construction Industry and Job Impactsfrom OSHA’s Proposed Occupational ExposureStandards for Crystalline Silica . Construction Industry Safety Coalition.

Flanagan, M., Loewenherz, C., & Kuhn, G. (2001). Indoor Wet Concrete Cutting and Coring Exposure Evaluation.  Applied Occupational And Environmental Hygiene ,  16 (12), 1097-1100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104732201753339587 

Leeth, J. (2013).  Evaluating OSHA's Effectiveness and Suggestions for Reform .  Mercatus Center . Retrieved 10 November 2017, from https://www.mercatus.org/publication/evaluating-oshas-effectiveness-and-suggestions-reform 

Mao, H., Qiu, Z., Shen, Z., Huang, W., Zhong, H., & Dai, W. (2015). Novel hydrophobic associated polymer based nano-silica composite with core-shell structure for intelligent drilling fluid under ultra-high temperature and ultra-high pressure.  Progress In Natural Science: Materials International ,  25 (1), 90-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2015.01.013 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2017).  OSHA’s Crystalline Silica Rule: Construction . Washington D. C., US.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2017).  Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction . Washington, D.C., United States.

Robinson, C., Stern, F., & Halperin, W. (1995). Assessment of mortality in the construction industry in the United States, 1984–1986.  Am. J. Ind. Med ,  28 , 49–70.

Simmons, C., Jones, R., & Boelter, F. (2011). Factors Influencing Dust Exposure: Finishing Activities in Drywall Construction.  Journal Of Occupational And Environmental Hygiene ,  8 (5), 324-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.570239 

Smith, A. H., Lopipero, P. A., & Barroga, V. R. (1995). Meta-analysis of studies of lung cancer among silicotics.  Epidemiology , 617-624.

Stacey, P. (2007). Analytical performance criteria.  Journal Of Occupational And Environmental Hygiene ,  4 (1), D-1.

Szymendera, S. (2016).  Respirable Crystalline Silica in the Workplace: New Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standards . Congressional Research Service.

Tsuda, T., Babazono, A., Yamamoto, E., Mino, Y., & Matsuoka, H. (1997). A meta-analysis on the relationship between pneumoconiosis and lung cancer.  Journal of Occupational Health ,  39 (4), 285-294.