Car bodies moving along an automotive assembly line inside a factory.

News Mass Tort

California moves on the material, not just the dust

Vetted by Stefan Rest 3 min read

Workplace dust is normally regulated by telling employers to control it. California has started down a different road: banning the product that makes it. On May 21, 2026, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to grant a petition that begins rulemaking to prohibit the fabrication and installation of artificial stone containing more than 1% crystalline silica, and asked Cal/OSHA to prepare the emergency finding that would let the rule move quickly. That is a considerable escalation from the emergency standard the state adopted in December 2023, which left the material on the market and regulated the tasks performed on it.

What the board actually did

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted on May 21, 2026 to grant a petition filed on behalf of the Western Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association, beginning the process of banning the fabrication and installation of artificial stone containing more than 1% crystalline silica. The board asked Cal/OSHA to prepare a finding of emergency to support expedited rulemaking, and to convene advisory committees, including a scientific advisory committee (California Department of Industrial Relations, News Release 2026-45).

Cal/OSHA then held an advisory meeting on July 31, 2026 in Oakland on a rule that would prohibit fabricating engineered stone countertops and similar products above that 1% threshold, responding to Petition File No. 609. No draft regulatory text was posted with the meeting materials (Cal/OSHA rulemaking page).

How the state got here

California adopted an emergency temporary standard in December 2023 covering high-exposure tasks — cutting, grinding, polishing, cleanup — on artificial and natural stone containing more than 10% crystalline silica, and made the requirements permanent in February 2025 as Title 8, section 5204. Senate Bill 20, signed in October 2025, classified silicosis as a serious illness and required Cal/OSHA and the state health department to share information about cases.

The enforcement figures the state published alongside the May vote give a sense of the scale of the problem it is chasing:

  • More than 900 citations issued under the silica special emphasis program
  • Approximately $1.9 million in proposed penalties
  • 465 onsite consultations, reaching 27,665 employees
  • Roughly 98% of California workers diagnosed with silicosis associated with this industry are Latino men, and the average age at death from the disease is under 50

The federal picture, which has not moved

Nothing comparable is under way nationally. The federal response so far has been a hazard alert — a joint NIOSH and OSHA document on worker exposure to silica during countertop manufacturing, finishing and installation, which describes engineered stone as containing more than 90% crystalline silica, far more than the granite and marble it replaced (NIOSH/OSHA Hazard Alert 2026-101).

A hazard alert informs; it does not prohibit. So the country now has a patchwork: one state moving toward banning a building material, and the rest applying an exposure limit written before engineered stone was common in American kitchens.

What a standard is, and is not

A dust standard is not a liability rule. It does not decide who owes what to a worker who is already ill, and a ban adopted in 2027 would do nothing for someone diagnosed in 2019. The federal standards that apply in the rest of the country — 29 CFR 1910.1053 for general industry and 29 CFR 1926.1153 for construction — set an exposure limit and require employers to assess and control dust, and they have been in force for years.

What regulation does produce is paper. Inspection reports, citations, air-monitoring results, consultation records and rulemaking files all describe particular shops on particular dates, and in a silica dust exposure case that is evidence: it can corroborate what a worker remembers about wet cutting, ventilation and respirators years after the shop has closed or changed hands.

A regulator writing a rule and a worker proving a case are doing different jobs with the same documents.

Whether California ends up prohibiting high-silica engineered stone, phasing it out, or settling for tighter controls is not yet decided, and the rulemaking record is the place to watch rather than the press release. For workers already diagnosed, the more useful question is what their own shop looked like — and which agency, if any, ever walked through it.

This article is general information about how these cases work. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no two claims are alike. If something here sounds like your situation, the useful next step is a conversation about the facts.

Sources and citations

Statutes, regulations, agency material and decisions referred to above.

  1. Standards Board Advances Efforts to Protect Workers from Silicosis (News Release 2026-45)California Department of Industrial RelationsSource for the May 21, 2026 vote granting the WOEMA petition, the 1% threshold in the proposed prohibition, the request that Cal/OSHA prepare a finding of emergency and convene advisory committees, the December 2023 emergency temporary standard and its 10% threshold, the February 2025 permanent standard, Senate Bill 20 of October 2025, the enforcement figures of more than 900 citations and approximately $1.9 million in proposed penalties, the 465 consultations reaching 27,665 employees, and the CDPH figures that approximately 98% of affected workers are Latino men with an average age at death under 50.
  2. Emergency Silica Advisory Committee — advisory meeting materialsDivision of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)Source for the July 31, 2026 advisory meeting in Oakland, the subject of the contemplated emergency regulation, the reference to Petition File No. 609, and the absence of posted draft regulatory text.
  3. Hazard Alert: Worker Exposure to Silica during Countertop Manufacturing, Finishing, and InstallationNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationSource for the existence and subject of the joint federal hazard alert and for the statement that engineered stone contains more than 90% crystalline silica, more than granite or marble.
  4. Title 8, section 5204 — Occupational Exposures to Respirable Crystalline SilicaCalifornia Code of RegulationsThe California standard as adopted, cited for its existence and scope rather than for any conclusion about a particular workplace.
  5. 29 CFR 1910.1053 — Respirable crystalline silicaElectronic Code of Federal RegulationsThe federal general industry standard, cited for the existence of a federal exposure limit and of employer duties to assess exposures and control dust.

Vetted by

Stefan Rest, managing director of CBW Law

Stefan Rest

Managing Director, CBW Law

Stefan Rest has spent more than two decades advocating for consumers and helping people understand how the law may provide a path forward when they’ve been wronged. As Managing Director of CBW Law, he oversees client relations, the firm’s national law-firm network and new partnerships. He writes about developing litigation and consumer legal issues because the right information can help people recognize when their own story may matter.

Other articles sharing a case type with this one.

All articles →

Mass Tort: Five trials, and the settlements nobody reported

Engineered stone silicosis cases have now reached a jury five times in the United States, and the verdicts get the coverage. The settlements do not, and they are most of the litigation. In the first case to be tried, a Los Angeles County jury returned $52.4 million in August 2024 for a 34-year-old countertop fabricator who had already undergone a double lung transplant — but of the 34 manufacturers he sued, 29 had settled before the trial began and two had won summary judgment, leaving three companies at the table. That ratio, rather than the verdict, is the shape of…

Vetted by Stefan Rest

Read more about this Mass Tort article: “Five trials, and the settlements nobody reported”

Mass Tort: The bill that would dismiss the cases

While the engineered stone silicosis cases move through state courts, a bill in Congress would end them. H.R. 5437, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Stone Slab Products Act, would bar civil actions against manufacturers and sellers of stone slab products for harm resulting from a fabricator’s alteration of the product — and would dismiss the actions already pending on the day it became law. It was introduced on September 17, 2025 by Representative Tom McClintock of California, referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and aired at a subcommittee hearing in January 2026. It is not law, and nothing about…

Vetted by Stefan Rest

Read more about this Mass Tort article: “The bill that would dismiss the cases”

Mass Tort: When the exposure ends decades before the diagnosis

Occupational disease cases run on a clock most people never see. A worker breathes silica, solvent vapor or diesel exhaust for a few years in their twenties, changes jobs, and is diagnosed in their sixties. By then the plant may be closed, the employer reorganized, the product reformulated and the coworkers scattered. None of that makes the claim weaker on the merits, but it does change where the proof has to come from. These cases are built out of records rather than recollection: union and payroll files that place someone in a building on specific dates, purchase orders and safety…

Vetted by Stefan Rest

Read more about this Mass Tort article: “When the exposure ends decades before the diagnosis”

Attorney advertising. The content of this website may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of certain jurisdictions. The information on this website is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Viewing this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statutes, regulations and case law change, and the law differs from state to state.