[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9380-9383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5519]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9381]]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915 and 1926

[Docket No. H-041]


Occupational Exposure to 1,3-Butadiene

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Limited reopening of the rulemaking record.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is reopening 
the record for the proposed revision of the 1,3-Butadiene (BD) standard 
to solicit public comment on a joint labor/industry agreement dated 
January 29, 1996, recommending that OSHA reduce the permissible 
exposure limits and expanding on some provisions that were addressed in 
OSHA's 1990 proposal (55 FR 32736, August 10, 1990). In addition, OSHA 
is seeking comment on possible changes in the medical surveillance 
requirements, including reliance on a medical questionnaire that would 
replace some of the proposed yearly medical examinations and reduce the 
need for medical removal protection. Finally, the Agency is entering 
into the rulemaking record four documents that have become available 
since the submission deadline of December 13, 1991, set by the 
Administration Law Judge following the rulemaking hearings.

DATES: Written comments must be postmarked by April 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket 
Office, Docket No. H-041, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2634, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219-
7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less in length may also 
be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided the original 
and 3 copies are sent to the Docket Office thereafter.

    Copies of the labor/industry agreement and submissions to the 
record along with other information cited in this notice are available 
for inspection and copying in the Docket Office. For electronic copies 
of this notice, contact the Labor News Bulletin Board (202) 219-4784; 
or OSHA's WebPage on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/. For news 
releases, fact sheets, and other short documents, contact OSHA FAX at 
(900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per minute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne C. Cyr, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone 
(202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

A. History

    The present OSHA standard for BD requires employers to ensure that 
employee exposure does not exceed 1,000 ppm determined as an 8-hour 
time weighted average (TWA) (29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1).
    In 1983, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists (ACGIH) classified BD as an animal carcinogen based on a 
National Toxicology Program (NTP) animal study showing that BD caused 
cancer in rodents. The ACGIH recommended that employee exposures be 
reduced to or below 10 ppm (8-hr TWA). In 1984, the United Rubber, 
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America (URW), the Oil, Chemical 
and Atomic Workers, and the American Federation of Labor and Congress 
of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) petitioned OSHA to issue an 
Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) of 1 ppm or less. OSHA denied the 
petition for an ETS, but began collecting information in order to 
institute rulemaking under Section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was also studying 
the health hazards of BD. That agency's analysis found that BD was a 
probable human carcinogen and that workplace exposures presented an 
unreasonable risk of injury to human health. Because exposures to BD 
occurred primarily in the workplace, EPA, in accordance with section 
9(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, referred BD to OSHA to give 
this Agency an opportunity to regulate the chemical under the OSH Act. 
(50 FR 41393; October 10, 1985).
    On August 10, 1990, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (55 
FR 32736) to address the significant occupational risks of BD-induced 
health effects. The proposed rule required employers to reduce 
occupational exposure to BD to 2 ppm as an 8-hour TWA and 10 ppm as a 
15-minute short term exposure limit (STEL), and to institute ancillary 
measures, such as employee training and medical surveillance, for 
further protection of BD-exposed workers.
    OSHA convened public hearings in Washington, DC, on January 15-23, 
1991, and in New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 20-21-1991. The post-
hearing period for the submission of briefs, arguments and summations 
was to end July 22, 1991, but was extended by the Administrative Law 
Judge to December 13, 1991, in order to give participants time to 
review new data on low-dose exposure submitted by NTP and a 
quantitative risk assessment done by NIOSH.

B. The Labor/Industry Agreement

    To assist OSHA in issuing a final rule for BD, representatives of 
the major unions and industry groups involved in the production and use 
of BD submitted a voluntary agreement reached by the parties dated 
January 29, 1996, on provisions that should be included in the 
standard. The letter transmitting the agreement was signed by J.L. 
McGraw for the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, 
Michael J. Wright for the United Steelworkers of America and Michael 
Sprinker for the International Chemical Workers Union. The committee 
that worked on the issues also included Joseph Holtshouser of the 
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Carolyn Phillips of the Shell 
Chemical Company, representing the Chemical Manufacturers Association, 
Robert Richmond of the Firestone Synthetic Rubber and Latex Company, 
and Louis Beliczsky (formerly of the URW) and James L. Frederick of the 
United Steelworkers. OSHA is pleased that labor and industry have 
joined together to recommend regulatory requirements that can lead to 
lower and less frequent exposures for employees who work with or near 
BD.
    The agreement proposes a significant change in the permissible 
exposure limits, additional provisions for exposure monitoring, and an 
exposure goal program designed to reduce exposures below the action 
level. It also proposes other modifications to the scope, respiratory 
protection, communication of hazards, medical surveillance, and start-
up dates sections of the final rule. The agreement also assumes that 
items not specifically addressed in the agreement will remain as 
proposed. OSHA reprints the provisions below in order to allow the 
public an opportunity to provide the Agency with comments.

1, 3-Butadiene

    Recommended Revisions to OSHA's Proposed Standard Scope and 
Application: Exclude [from the final rule's coverage]:
    1. Products with BD concentration of 0.1% or less by volume unless 
objective data shows exposure could exceed the 

[[Page 9382]]
AL [action level] or STEL [short-term exposure level].
    2. Storage, transportation, distribution or sale of BD in intact 
containers or pipelines, except for labeling requirements and emergency 
response provisions.
    Definitions: Objective Data means monitoring data or mathematical 
calculations or modeling based on the chemical and physical properties 
of the material, stream or product.
    Limits:
    1. Action level (AL) of 0.5 ppm [parts per million] (ppm) as an 8-
hour TWA.
    2. Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1 ppm as an 8 hr TWA.
    3. Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) of 5 ppm [sampled] for 15 
minutes.
    Exposure Monitoring:
    1. Establish a baseline of at least 8 samples. The samples may be 
taken in a single year, so long as at least one sample is taken in each 
quarter, and no two are taken within 30 days of each other. The 
employer may utilize monitoring data from the previous two years to 
satisfy the initial monitoring requirement as long as [the] process has 
been consistent.
    2. After the baseline has been established, monitoring is 
[required]:
    a. Every 6 months if exposure exceeds PEL or STEL.
    b. Annually if exposure is at or above the AL but below the PEL.

    Additional Monitoring: May use direct reading instruments for any 
spills, leaks, etc. to ensure that levels have returned to normal 
following an emergency.
    Employee Notification: Five (5) day [period for] employee 
notification of sampling results.
    Exposure Goal Program: The employer shall institute an ``exposure 
goal program'' which attempts to limit exposure levels to or below the 
action level. No exposure goal program is required if all exposures are 
at or below the action level. The program shall include the following 
controls, unless the employer can demonstrate that they will not be 
feasible or effective.
    a. A leak prevention, detection, and repair program.
    b. A program for maintaining the integrity of local exhaust 
ventilation systems.
    c. The use of pump exposure control technology such as, but not 
limited to, double-sealed or seal-less pumps.
    d. Gauging devices designed to limit employee exposure, such as 
magnetic gauges on rail cars.
    e. Unloading devices designed to limit employee exposure, such as 
vapor return systems.
    f. Maintaining control rooms below the AL by use of engineering 
controls.
    Respirators:
    1. Use when exposure may exceed PEL or STEL.
    2. Fit testing as per ANSI standards.
    3. Allow \1/2\ face negative pressure respirators for certain 
applications.
    Medical Surveillance:
    1. Medical evaluations for all employees exposed above the PEL for 
30 days or more, or above the AL for 60 days or more.
    2. Medical evaluations for formerly-exposed employees whose work 
history includes exposure as defined in (1) for 10 year or more, or 
exposure above 10 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for more than 30 days in any past 
year, so long as they continue to be employed by the employer 
responsible for the exposure, or a successor owner.
    3. An exam with respect to acute effects as quickly as possible in 
the case of exposure from a significant release.
    4. Appropriate exams for respirator wearers in accord with 29 
C.F.R. 1910.134.
    5. Medical evaluations include an update of medical history [and] a 
CBC [complete blood count] including platelets. Additional tests are 
deemed appropriate by the examining physician. Remove references to 
fertility evaluations.
    Communication of BD Exposure to Employees: Modify warning signs and 
label requirements to eliminate reproductive/lung/kidney reference.
    Employee Training: Required annually or with change of job when 
exposure may reach PEL, STEL or AL.
    Dates: Employer may take up to two (2) years from effective dates 
to implement engineering controls.
    Appendices: OSHA should also correct certain misstatements in 
Appendices A and B:
    Appendix A, Part IV(B): The sentence; ``Any clothing which becomes 
wet with liquid BD should be removed immediately * * *'' should be 
deleted. BD evaporates too rapidly to cause wet clothing.
    Appendix B, Part II(A)(6): The statement that ``vapors of BD will 
burn without the presence of air or other oxidizers'' is incorrect.
    Appendix B, Part III(A)(3): The suggestion that spills of small 
quantities of BD should be absorbed on paper towels is unnecessary, as 
the BD will evaporate too quickly.
    Appendix B, Parts VI (C) and (D): Sanitation requirements 
concerning agents to remove BD from the skin, and separate lockers, are 
unnecessary, since liquid BD evaporates rapidly and will not 
contaminate skin or clothing for any significant time.
    Not also the odor threshold discrepancy between Appendix B, Part 
II(C) and Appendix D, Part 1.1.4. The correct value is 0.45 ppm, based 
on the AIHA publication, ``Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with 
Established Occupational Health Standards,'' (1989).
    OSHA believes the agreement contains a number of provisions that 
will greatly improve worker health and therefore should be included in 
the final BD standard. However, prior to inclusion, the Agency must be 
certain of the meaning and effect of the provisions and then translate 
the recommendations into regulatory language. To this end, OSHA seeks 
comment on the following issues addressed by labor and industry in 
their agreement:
    1. Definitions. When objective data are relied upon to exclude 
products with a BD concentration of 0.1% or less, what should be the 
source of the objective data? Should conditions be placed upon the 
monitoring or modeling methods used to obtain or project exposure 
levels in order to ensure accuracy?
    2. Exposure Monitoring. OSHA is concerned that the taking of 8 
samples to establish a baseline may not be an effective use of scarce 
industrial hygiene resources in that the number of samples taken may be 
far less important than the quality of the samples used to characterize 
the exposure of BD employees. Are there other ways to improve OSHA's 
traditional approach of monitoring at least the one most exposed 
employee in each job classification on each shift? Please comment.
    3. Exposure Goal Program. OHSA requests comment on whether the 
requirements for specific engineering controls rather than a 
performance approach could lead to situations in which (1) better 
engineering controls are discouraged or ignored, (2) the required 
controls may not be applicable, or (3) the required controls may not be 
needed because work practices will achieve the necessary reduction. How 
could these situations be avoided?
    4. Respirators. ANSI does not have final protocols for respirator 
fit-testing. OSHA is in the process of completing its generic 
respirator standard that will include protocols for fit-testing. (OSHA 
Docket No. H-049; 59 FR 5884, November 15, 1994). Do workers exposed to 
BD need special provisions for respirator fit-testing? If so, what 
provisions are necessary and why? What applications are appropriate for 
half-mask negative pressure respirators? Should the standard specify 
tasks or exposures where the respirators are or are not appropriate?
    5. Medical Surveillance. OSHA is concerned that some at-risk 
employees 

[[Page 9383]]
will not be afforded the protection of medical surveillance because 
eligibility for inclusion requires exposures of 60 days above the AL or 
30 days above the PEL, requirements that are more restrictive than the 
comparable requirements in OSHA standards for acrylonitrile, (any 
exposure above the AL); benzene, (30 days above AL or 10 above PELs); 
and cadmium, (30 days above AL). OSHA also seeks comment on whether the 
medical requirements in the respirator standard for general industry, 
29 CFR 1910.134(b)(10), may be inadequate to protect workers with 
occupational exposure to BD. In addition, should each employee whose 
exposure to BD requires the use of a respirator be included in the 
medical surveillance program, regardless of duration of exposure? 
Finally, by requiring employees whose former exposures were above the 
action level for 60 days or the PEL for 30 days to have had 10 years of 
exposure before being included in medical surveillance, would the 
standard improperly exclude employees whose exposures occurred over a 
lesser period of time, say 5 years, but whose risk may be comparable?
    6. Communication of BD Exposure to Employees. OSHA is concerned 
that eliminating the reference to potential reproductive hazard from 
warning signs and labels would not provide sufficient information to 
employees. Toxicological studies cited in the proposal indicate BD is a 
potential reproductive hazard. For example, ovarian atrophy and 
testicular atrophy were observed in mice exposed to BD. OSHA is 
considering requiring the warning signs and labels to contain the 
phrase ``Cancer and Potential Reproductive Hazard.''

C. Additional Issues

    OSHA is also seeking comment on the following issues that were 
neither addressed by labor and industry in their agreement, nor fully 
aired at the rulemaking hearing:
    1. OSHA proposed to define ``Emergency'' as:

    * * * any occurrence such as, but not limited to, equipment 
failure, rupture of containers, or failure of control equipment that 
may or does result in an unexpected significant release of BD.

OSHA is considering limiting the emergency releases to those that are 
uncontrolled, so that the last phrase of the definition would read: ``* 
* * that may or does result in an uncontrolled significant release of 
BD.'' Does this addition clarify what situations OSHA considers to be 
emergencies? Does the term ``significant release'' give adequate 
guidance to employers as to how much BD must be released in order to 
constitute an emergency?
    2. OSHA is considering the adequacy of a less burdensome medical 
surveillance program for BD-exposed workers. The program would consist 
of an initial medical examination, repeated every third year, and an 
annual CBC along with a yearly questionnaire focusing on the 
hematopoietic and reproductive systems. OSHA requests comment on 
whether this approach is sufficiently protective. OSHA is also seeking 
comment on whether medical removal protection provisions similar to 
those contained in the Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028) are 
appropriate for BD. Removal would be predicated upon a medical 
determination that the employee should not continue to be exposed to 
BD.
    3. Where employers rely on objective data to exempt them from 
monitoring responsibilities, OSHA is considering requiring these 
employers to keep the data for as long as such data continue to be 
relied upon. Is this the appropriate length of time to keep such data?

D. Additional Submissions to the BD Docket

    OSHA is submitting the following reports to the BD Docket:
    (1) Abstracts from International Symposium: Evaluation of Butadiene 
and Isoprene Health Risks, June 27-29, 1995, Blaine, Washington; (2) 
Delzell, E., N. Sathiakumar, M. Macaluso, M. Hovinga, R. Larson, F. 
Barbone, C. Beall, P. Cole, A Follow-up Study of Synthetic Rubber 
Workers, October 2, 1995; (3) Santos-Burgua, C., G. Matanoski, S. 
Zeger, L. Schwartz, ``Lymphohematopoietic Cancer in Styrene-Butadiene 
Polymerization Workers,'' American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 136, 
1992, pp. 843-844; and (4) M. Sorsa, K. Peltonen, H. Vainio, and K. 
Hemminki (eds.), Butadiene and Styrene Assessment of Health Hazards, 
International Agency for Research on Cancer Scientific Publication No. 
127, Lyon, France, 1993.

II. Public Participation

Comments

    Written comments regarding the issues raised by this notice must be 
postmarked by April 8, 1996. Four copies of these comments must be 
submitted to the Docket Office, Docket No. HS-041), U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Written 
comments limited to 10 pages or less in length may also be transmitted 
by facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided the original and 3 copies are 
sent to the Docket Office thereafter. All materials submitted will be 
available for inspection and copying at the above address. Materials 
previously submitted to the Docket for this rulemaking need not be re-
submitted.

III. Authority

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 
20210. It is issued pursuant to section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 5th day of March, 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 96-5519 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M