[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47566-47828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17596]



[[Page 47565]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 152

August 7, 2015

Part II





Department of Labor





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





 Occupational Safety and Health Administration





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





29 CFR Part 1910





 Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 47566]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870]
RIN 1218-AB76


Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
proposes to amend its existing exposure limits for occupational 
exposure in general industry to beryllium and beryllium compounds and 
promulgate a substance-specific standard for general industry 
regulating occupational exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds. 
This document proposes a new permissible exposure limit (PEL), as well 
as ancillary provisions for employee protection such as methods for 
controlling exposure, respiratory protection, medical surveillance, 
hazard communication, and recordkeeping. In addition, OSHA seeks 
comment on a number of alternatives, including a lower PEL, that could 
affect construction and maritime, as well as general industry.

DATES: Written comments. Written comments, including comments on the 
information collection determination described in Section IX of the 
preamble (OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), must 
be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 5, 2015.
    Informal public hearings. The Agency will schedule an informal 
public hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment 
period. The location and date of the hearing, procedures for interested 
parties to notify the Agency of their intention to participate, and 
procedures for participants to submit their testimony and documentary 
evidence will be announced in the Federal Register if a hearing is 
requested.

ADDRESSES: Written comments. You may submit comments, identified by 
Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making 
electronic submissions. When uploading multiple attachments into 
Regulations.gov, please number all of your attachments because 
www.Regulations.gov will not automatically number the attachments. This 
will be very useful in identifying all attachments in the beryllium 
rule. For example, Attachment 1_title of your document, Attachment 2_
title of your document, Attachment 3_title of your document, etc. 
Specific instructions on uploading all documents are found in the 
Facts, Answer, Questions portion and the commenter check list on 
Regulations.gov Web page.
    Fax: If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer 
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: 
You may submit your comments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. 
OSHA-H005C-2006-0870, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-2350 
(OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, 
messenger, or courier service) are accepted during the Docket Office's 
normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., E.S.T.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the 
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870). 
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are 
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you 
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers 
and birthdates.
    If you submit scientific or technical studies or other results of 
scientific research, OSHA requests (but is not requiring) that you also 
provide the following information where it is available: (1) 
Identification of the funding source(s) and sponsoring organization(s) 
of the research; (2) the extent to which the research findings were 
reviewed by a potentially affected party prior to publication or 
submission to the docket, and identification of any such parties; and 
(3) the nature of any financial relationships (e.g., consulting 
agreements, expert witness support, or research funding) between 
investigators who conducted the research and any organization(s) or 
entities having an interest in the rulemaking. If you are submitting 
comments or testimony on the Agency's scientific or technical analyses, 
OSHA requests that you disclose: (1) The nature of any financial 
relationships you may have with any organization(s) or entities having 
an interest in the rulemaking; and (2) the extent to which your 
comments or testimony were reviewed by an interested party before you 
submitted them. Disclosure of such information is intended to promote 
transparency and scientific integrity of data and technical information 
submitted to the record. This request is consistent with Executive 
Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011, which instructs agencies to 
ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information 
used to support their regulatory actions. OSHA emphasizes that all 
material submitted to the rulemaking record will be considered by the 
Agency to develop the final rule and supporting analyses.
    Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in 
response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-H005C-
2006-0870 at http://www.regulations.gov, or to the OSHA Docket Office 
at the address above. All comments and submissions are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., 
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download 
through that Web site. All comments and submissions are available for 
inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available 
at http://www.regulations.gov. Copies also are available from the OSHA 
Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant 
information, is also available at OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.
    OSHA has not provided the document ID numbers for all submissions 
in the record for this beryllium proposal. The proposal only contains a 
reference list for all submissions relied upon. The public can find all 
document ID numbers in an Excel spreadsheet that is posted on OSHA's 
rulemaking Web page (see www.osha.gov/berylliumrulemaking). The public 
will be able to locate submissions in the record in the public docked 
Web page: http://www.regulations.gov. To locate a particular submission 
contained in http://www.regulations.gov, the public should enter the 
full document ID number in the search bar.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries, contact Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, 
Room N-3647,

[[Page 47567]]

OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: 
[email protected] . For technical inquiries, contact: William 
Perry or Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-
3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1955 or fax (202) 693-1678; 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    The preamble to the proposed standard on occupational exposure to 
beryllium and beryllium compounds follows this outline:

Executive Summary

I. Issues and Alternatives
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Events Leading to the Proposed Standards
IV. Chemical Properties and Industrial Uses
V. Health Effects
VI. Preliminary Risk Assessment
VII. Response to Peer Review
VIII. Significance of Risk
IX. Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
X. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
XI. Federalism
XII. State-Plan States
XIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XIV. Protecting Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
XV. Environmental Impacts
XVI. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
XVII. Public Participation
XVIII. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
    (a) Scope and Application
    (b) Definitions
    (c) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)
    (d) Exposure Assessment
    (e) Beryllium Work Areas and Regulated Areas
    (f) Methods of Compliance
    (g) Respiratory Protection
    (h) Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
    (i) Hygiene Areas and Practices
    (j) Housekeeping
    (k) Medical Surveillance
    (l) Medical Removal
    (m) Communication of Hazards to Employees
    (n) Recordkeeping
    (o) Dates
XIX. References

Executive Summary

    OSHA currently enforces permissible exposure limits (PELs) for 
beryllium in general industry, construction, and shipyards. These PELs 
were adopted in 1971, shortly after the Agency was created, and have 
not been updated since then. The time-weighted average (TWA) PEL for 
beryllium is 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air ([mu]g/m\3\) as an 8-
hour time-weighted average. OSHA is proposing a new TWA PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ in general industry. OSHA is also proposing other elements 
of a comprehensive health standard, including requirements for exposure 
assessment, preferred methods for controlling exposure, respiratory 
protection, personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE), medical 
surveillance, medical removal, hazard communication, and recordkeeping.
    OSHA's proposal is based on the requirements of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and court interpretations of the Act. 
For health standards issued under section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, OSHA 
is required to promulgate a standard that reduces significant risk to 
the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible to do 
so. See Section II of this preamble, Pertinent Legal Authority, for a 
full discussion of OSHA legal requirements.
    OSHA has conducted an extensive review of the literature on adverse 
health effects associated with exposure to beryllium. The Agency has 
also assessed the risk of beryllium-related diseases at the current TWA 
PEL, the proposed TWA PEL and the alternative TWA PELs. These analyses 
are presented in this preamble at Section V, Health Effects, Section 
VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment, and Section VIII, Significance of 
Risk. As discussed in Section VIII of this preamble, Significance of 
Risk, the available evidence indicates that worker exposure to 
beryllium at the current PEL poses a significant risk of chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer, and that the proposed standard 
will substantially reduce this risk.
    Section 6(b) of the OSH Act requires OSHA to determine that its 
standards are technologically and economically feasible. OSHA's 
examination of the technological and economic feasibility of the 
proposed rule is presented in the Preliminary Economic Analysis and 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (PEA) (OSHA, 2014), and is 
summarized in Section IX of this preamble, Summary of the Preliminary 
Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. OSHA has 
preliminarily concluded that the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is 
technologically feasible for all affected industries and application 
groups. Thus, OSHA preliminarily concludes that engineering and work 
practices will be sufficient to reduce and maintain beryllium exposures 
to the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or below in most operations most 
of the time in the affected industries. For those few operations within 
an industry or application group where compliance with the proposed PEL 
cannot be achieved even when employers implement all feasible 
engineering and work practice controls, the proposed standard would 
require employers to supplement controls with respirators.
    OSHA developed quantitative estimates of the compliance costs of 
the proposed rule for each of the affected industry sectors. The 
estimated compliance costs were compared with industry revenues and 
profits to provide a screening analysis of the economic feasibility of 
complying with the revised standard and an evaluation of the potential 
economic impacts. Industries with unusually high costs as a percentage 
of revenues or profits were further analyzed for possible economic 
feasibility issues. After performing these analyses, OSHA has 
preliminarily concluded that compliance with the requirements of the 
proposed rule would be economically feasible in every affected industry 
sector.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires that OSHA either 
certify that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities or prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis and hold a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 
Panel prior to proposing the rule. OSHA has determined that a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is needed and has provided this 
analysis in Chapter IX of the PEA (OSHA, 2014). A summary is provided 
in Section IX of this preamble, Summary of the Preliminary Economic 
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. OSHA also 
previously held a SBAR Panel for this rule. The recommendations of the 
Panel and OSHA's response to them are summarized in Section IX of this 
preamble.
    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This rule has been designated an economically significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The remainder of this section summarizes the key 
findings of the analysis with respect to costs and benefits of the 
proposed standard, presents alternatives

[[Page 47568]]

to the proposed standard, and requests comments on a number of issues.
    Table I-1, which is derived from material presented in the PEA, 
provides a summary of OSHA's best estimate of the costs and benefits of 
this proposed rule. As shown, this proposed rule is estimated to 
prevent 96 fatalities and 50 non-fatal beryllium-related illnesses 
annually once it is fully effective, and the monetized annualized 
benefits of the proposed rule are estimated to be $576 million using a 
3-percent discount rate and $255 million using a 7-percent discount 
rate. Also as shown in Table I-1, the estimated annualized cost of the 
rule is $37.6 million using a 3-percent discount rate and $39.1 million 
using a 7-percent discount rate. This proposed rule is estimated to 
generate net benefits of $538 million annually using a 3-percent 
discount rate and $216 million annually using a 7-percent discount 
rate. These estimates are for informational purposes only and have not 
been used by OSHA as the basis for its decision concerning the choice 
of a PEL or of other ancillary requirements for this proposed beryllium 
rule. The courts have ruled that OSHA may not use benefit-cost analysis 
or a criterion of maximizing net benefits as a basis for setting OSHA 
health standards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Nat'l Cotton Council of 
Am., 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981); Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 177 (3d Cir. 2009).

 Table I-1--Annualized Costs, Benefits and Net Benefits of OSHA's Proposed Beryllium Standard of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Discount rate                                            3%                       7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs
    Engineering Controls.........................                            $9,540,189              $10,334,036
    Respirators..................................                               249,684                  252,281
    Exposure Assessment..........................                             2,208,950                2,411,851
    Regulated Areas and Beryllium Work Areas.....                               629,031                  652,823
    Medical Surveillance.........................                             2,882,076                2,959,448
    Medical Removal..............................                               148,826                  166,054
    Exposure Control Plan........................                             1,769,506                1,828,766
    Protective Clothing and Equipment............                             1,407,365                1,407,365
    Hygiene Areas and Practices..................                               389,241                  389,891
    Housekeeping.................................                            12,574,921               12,917,944
    Training.....................................                             5,797,535                5,826,975
Total Annualized Costs (Point Estimate)..........                            37,597,325               39,147,434
Annual Benefits: Number of Cases Prevented
    Fatal Lung Cancer............................          4.0
    CBD-Related Mortality........................         92.0
    Total Beryllium Related Mortality............         96.0              572,981,864              253,743,368
Morbidity........................................         49.5                2,844,770                1,590,927
Monetized Annual Benefits (midpoint estimate)....                           575,826,633              255,334,295
        Net Benefits.............................                           538,229,308              216,186,861
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Both the costs and benefits of Table I-1 reflect the incremental 
costs and benefits associated with achieving full compliance with the 
proposed standard. They do not include costs and benefits associated 
with employers' current exposure control measures or other aspects of 
the proposed standard they have already implemented. For example, for 
employers whose exposures are already below the proposed PEL, OSHA's 
estimated costs and benefits for the proposed standard do not include 
the costs of their exposure control measures or the benefits of these 
employers' compliance with the proposed PEL. The costs and benefits of 
Table I-1 also do not include costs and benefits associated with 
achieving compliance with existing requirements, to the extent that 
some employers may currently not be fully complying with applicable 
regulatory requirements.

I. Issues and Alternatives

    In addition to the proposed standard itself, this preamble 
discusses more than two dozen regulatory alternatives, including 
various sub-alternatives, to the proposed standard and requests 
comments and information on a variety of topics pertinent to the 
proposed standard. The regulatory alternatives OSHA is considering 
include alternatives to the proposed scope of the standard, regulatory 
alternatives to the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and proposed 
STEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\, a regulatory alternative that would modify the 
proposed methods of compliance, and regulatory alternatives that affect 
proposed ancillary provisions. The Agency solicits comment on the 
proposed phase-in schedule for the various provisions of the standard. 
Additional requests for comments and information follow the summaries 
of regulatory alternatives, under the ``Issues'' heading.

Regulatory Alternatives

    OSHA believes that inclusion of regulatory alternatives serves two 
important functions. The first is to explore the possibility of less 
costly ways (than the proposed standard) to provide an adequate level 
of worker protection from exposure to beryllium. The second is tied to 
the Agency's statutory requirement, which underlies the proposed 
standard, to reduce significant risk to the extent feasible. Each 
regulatory alternative presented here is described and analyzed more 
fully elsewhere in this preamble or in the PEA. Where appropriate, the 
alternative is included in this preamble at the end of the relevant 
section of Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed 
Standard, to facilitate comparison of the alternative to the proposed 
standard. For example, alternative PELs under consideration by the 
Agency are presented in the discussion of paragraph (c) in Section 
XVIII. In addition, all

[[Page 47569]]

alternatives are discussed in the PEA, Chapter VIII: Regulatory 
Alternatives (OSHA, 2014). The costs and benefits of each regulatory 
alternative are presented both in Section IX of this preamble and in 
Chapter VIII of the PEA.
    The more than two dozen regulatory alternatives, including various 
sub-alternatives regulatory alternatives under consideration are 
summarized below, and are organized into the following categories: 
alternatives to the proposed scope of the standard; alternatives to the 
proposed PELs; alternatives to the proposed methods of compliance; 
alternatives to the proposed ancillary provisions; and the timing of 
the standard.
Scope
    OSHA has examined three alternatives that would alter the groups of 
employers and employees covered by this rulemaking. Regulatory 
Alternative #1a would expand the scope of the proposed standard to 
include all operations in general industry where beryllium exists only 
as a trace contaminant; that is, where the materials used contain no 
more than 0.1% beryllium by weight. Regulatory Alternative #1b is 
similar to Regulatory Alternative #1a, but exempts operations where the 
employer can show that employees' exposures will not meet or exceed the 
action level or exceed the STEL. Where the employer has objective data 
demonstrating that a material containing beryllium or a specific 
process, operation, or activity involving beryllium cannot release 
beryllium in concentrations at or above the proposed action level or 
above the proposed STEL under any expected conditions of use, that 
employer would be exempt from the proposed standard except for 
recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the objective data. 
Alternative #1a and Alternative #1b, like the proposed rule, would not 
cover employers or employees in construction or shipyards.
    Regulatory Alternative #2a would expand the scope of the proposed 
standard to also include employers in construction and maritime. For 
example, this alternative would cover abrasive blasters, pot tenders, 
and cleanup staff working in construction and shipyards who have the 
potential for airborne beryllium exposure during blasting operations 
and during cleanup of spent media. Regulatory Alternative #2b would 
update Sec. Sec.  1910.1000 Tables Z-1 and Z-2, 1915.1000 Table Z, and 
1926.55 Appendix A so that the proposed TWA PEL and STEL would apply to 
all employers and employees in general industry, shipyards, and 
construction, including occupations where beryllium exists only as a 
trace contaminant. However, all other provisions of the standard would 
be in effect only for employers and employees that fall within the 
scope of the proposed rule. More detailed discussion of Regulatory 
Alternatives #1a, #1b, #2a, and #2b appears in Section IX of this 
preamble and in Chapter VIII of the PEA (OSHA, 2014). In addition, 
Section XVIII of this preamble, Summary and Explanation, includes a 
discussion of paragraph (a) that describes the scope of the proposed 
rule, issues with the proposed scope, and Regulatory Alternatives #1a, 
#1b, #2a, and #2b.
    Another regulatory alternative that would impact the scope of 
affected industries, extending eligibility for medical surveillance to 
employees in shipyards, construction, and parts of general industry 
excluded from the scope of the proposed standard, is discussed along 
with other medical surveillance alternatives later in this section 
(Regulatory Alternative #21) and in the discussion of paragraph (k) in 
this preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed 
Standard.
Permissible Exposure Limits
    OSHA has examined several regulatory alternatives that would modify 
the TWA PEL or STEL for the proposed rule. Under Regulatory Alternative 
#3, OSHA would adopt a STEL of 5 times the proposed PEL. Thus, this 
alternative STEL would be 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ if OSHA adopts a PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\; it would be 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ if OSHA adopts a PEL of 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\; and it would be 2.5 [micro]g/m\3\ if OSHA adopts a PEL of 
0.5 [micro]g/m\3\ (see Regulatory Alternatives #4 and #5). Under 
Regulatory Alternative #4, the proposed PEL would be lowered from 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. Under Regulatory Alternative #5, the 
proposed PEL would be raised from 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ to 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\. In 
addition, for informational purposes, OSHA examined a regulatory 
alternative that would maintain the TWA PEL at 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, but all 
of the other proposed provisions would be required with their triggers 
remaining the same as in the proposed rule. This alternative is not one 
OSHA could legally adopt because the absence of a more protective 
requirement for engineering controls would not be consistent with 
section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act. More detailed discussion of these 
alternatives to the proposed PEL appears in Section IX of this preamble 
and in Chapter VIII of the PEA (OSHA, 2014). In addition, in Section 
XVIII of this preamble, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed 
Standard, the discussion of proposed paragraph (c) describes the 
proposed TWA PEL and STEL, issues with the proposed exposure limits, 
and Regulatory Alternatives #3, #4, and #5.
Methods of Compliance
    The proposed standard would require employers to implement 
engineering and work practice controls to reduce employees' exposures 
to or below the TWA PEL and STEL. Where engineering and work practice 
controls are insufficient to reduce exposures to or below the TWA PEL 
and STEL, employers would still be required to implement them to reduce 
exposure as much as possible, and to supplement them with a respiratory 
protection program. In addition, for each operation where there is 
airborne beryllium exposure, the employer must ensure that one or more 
of the engineering and work practice controls listed in paragraph 
(f)(2) are in place, unless all of the listed controls are infeasible, 
or the employer can demonstrate that exposures are below the action 
level based on two samples taken seven days apart. Regulatory 
Alternative #6 would eliminate the engineering and work practice 
controls provision currently specified in paragraph (f)(2). This 
regulatory alternative does not eliminate the need for engineering 
controls to lower exposure levels to or below the TWA PEL and STEL; 
rather, it dispenses with the mandatory use of certain engineering 
controls that must be installed above the action level but at or below 
the TWA PEL.
    More detailed discussion of Regulatory Alternative #6 appears in 
Section IX of this preamble and in Chapter VIII of the PEA (OSHA, 
2014). In addition, the discussion of paragraph (f) in Section XVIII of 
this preamble, Summary and Explanation, provides a more detailed 
explanation of the proposed methods of compliance, issues with the 
proposed methods of com pli ance, and Regulatory Alternative #6.
Ancillary Provisions
    The proposed rule contains several ancillary provisions, including 
requirements for exposure assessment, personal protective clothing and 
equipment (PPE), medical surveillance, medical removal, training, and 
regulated areas or access control. OSHA has examined a variety of 
regulatory alternatives involving changes to one or more of these 
ancillary provisions. OSHA has preliminarily determined that several of 
these ancillary provisions will increase the benefits of the proposed 
rule, for example, by helping to ensure the TWA PEL is not exceeded

[[Page 47570]]

or by lowering the risks to workers given the significant risk 
remaining at the proposed TWA PEL. However, except for Regulatory 
Alternative #7 (involving the elimination of all ancillary provisions), 
OSHA did not estimate changes in monetized benefits for the regulatory 
alternatives that affect ancillary provisions. Two regulatory 
alternatives that involve all ancillary provisions are presented below 
(#7 and #8), followed by regulatory alternatives for exposure 
monitoring (#9, #10, and #11), for regulated areas (#12), for personal 
protective clothing and equipment (#13), for medical surveillance (#14 
through #21), and for medical removal (#22).
All Ancillary Provisions
    During the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBREFA) process 
conducted in 2007, the SBAR Panel recommended that OSHA analyze a PEL-
only standard as a regulatory alternative. The Panel also recommended 
that OSHA consider applying ancillary provisions of the standard so as 
to minimize costs for small businesses where exposure levels are low 
(OSHA, 2008b). In response to these recommendations, OSHA analyzed 
Regulatory Alternative #7, a PEL-only standard, and Regulatory 
Alternative #8, which would only apply ancillary provisions of the 
beryllium standard at exposures above the proposed PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/
m\3\ or the proposed STEL of 2 [micro]g/m\3\. Regulatory Alternative #7 
would update the Z tables for Sec.  1910.1000, so that the proposed TWA 
PEL and STEL would apply to all workers in general industry. All other 
provisions of the proposed standard would be dropped.
    As indicated previously, OSHA has preliminarily determined that 
there is significant risk remaining at the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\. However, the available evidence on feasibility suggests that 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ may be the lowest feasible PEL (see Chapter IV of the PEA, 
OSHA 2014). Therefore, the Agency believes that it is necessary to 
include ancillary provisions in the proposed rule to further reduce the 
remaining risk. In addition, the recommended standard provided to OSHA 
by representatives of the primary beryllium manufacturing industry and 
the Steelworkers Union further supports the importance of ancillary 
provisions in protecting workers from the harmful effects of beryllium 
exposure (Materion and USW, 2012).
    Under Regulatory Alternative #8, several ancillary provisions that 
the current proposal would require under a variety of exposure 
conditions (e.g., dermal contact; any airborne exposure; exposure at or 
above the action level) would instead only apply where exposure levels 
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. Regulatory Alternative #8 affects the 
following provisions of the proposed standard:

--Exposure monitoring. Whereas the proposed standard requires annual 
monitoring where exposure levels are at or above the action level and 
at or below the TWA PEL, Alternative #8 would require annual exposure 
monitoring only where exposure levels exceed the TWA PEL or STEL;
-- Written exposure control plan. Whereas the proposed standard 
requires written exposure control plans to be maintained in any 
facility covered by the standard, Alternative #8 would require only 
facilities with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL to maintain a plan;
--PPE. Whereas the proposed standard requires PPE for employees under a 
variety of conditions, such as exposure to soluble beryllium or visible 
contamination with beryllium, Alternative #8 would require PPE only for 
employees exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL;
--Housekeeping. Whereas the proposed standard's housekeeping 
requirements apply across a wide variety of beryllium exposure 
conditions, Alternative #8 would limit housekeeping requirements to 
areas with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL.
--Medical Surveillance. Whereas the proposed standard's medical 
surveillance provisions require employers to offer medical surveillance 
to employees with signs or symptoms of beryllium-related health effects 
regardless of their exposure level, Alternative #8 would make 
surveillance available to such employees only if they were exposed 
above the TWA PEL or STEL.

More detailed discussions of Regulatory Alternatives #7 and #8, 
including a description of the considerations pertinent to these 
alternatives, appear in Section IX of this preamble and in Chapter VIII 
of the PEA (OSHA, 2014).
Exposure Monitoring
    OSHA has examined three regulatory alternatives that would modify 
the proposed standard's provisions on exposure monitoring, which 
require periodic monitoring annually where exposures are at or above 
the action level and at or below the TWA PEL. Under Regulatory 
Alternative #9, employers would be required to perform periodic 
exposure monitoring every 180 days where exposures are at or above the 
action level or above the STEL, and at or below the TWA PEL. Under 
Regulatory Alternative #10, employers would be required to perform 
periodic exposure monitoring every 180 days where exposures are at or 
above the action level or above the STEL, including where exposures 
exceed the TWA PEL. Under Regulatory Alternative #11, employers would 
be required to perform periodic exposure monitoring every 180 days 
where exposures are at or above the action level or above the STEL, and 
every 90 days where exposures exceed the TWA PEL. More detailed 
discussions of Regulatory Alternatives #9, #10, and #11 appear in 
Section IX of this preamble and in Chapter VIII of the PEA (OSHA, 
2014). In addition, the discussion of proposed paragraph (d) in Section 
XVIII of this preamble, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed 
Standard, provides a more detailed explanation of the proposed 
requirements for exposure monitoring, issues with exposure monitoring, 
and the considerations pertinent to Regulatory Alternatives #9, #10, 
and #11.
Regulated Areas
    The proposed standard would require employers to establish and 
maintain two types of areas: beryllium work areas, wherever employees 
are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to any level of 
airborne beryllium; and regulated areas, wherever employees are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at levels 
above the TWA PEL or STEL. Employers are required to demarcate 
beryllium work areas, but are not required to restrict access to 
beryllium work areas or provide respiratory protection or other forms 
of PPE within work areas that are not also regulated areas. Employers 
must demarcate regulated areas, restrict access to them, post warning 
signs and provide respiratory protection and other PPE within regulated 
areas, as well as medical surveillance for employees who work in 
regulated areas for more than 30 days in a 12-month period. During the 
SBREFA process conducted in 2007, the SBAR Panel recommended that OSHA 
consider dropping or limiting the provision for regulated areas (OSHA, 
2008b). In response to this recommendation, OSHA analyzed Regulatory 
Alternative #12, which would not require employers to establish 
regulated areas. More detailed discussion of Regulatory Alternative #12 
appears in Section IX of this preamble and in Chapter VIII of the PEA 
(OSHA, 2014). In addition, the discussion of

[[Page 47571]]

paragraph (e) in Section XVIII of this preamble, Summary and 
Explanation, provides a more detailed explanation of the proposed 
requirements for regulated areas, issues with regulated areas, and 
considerations pertinent to Regulatory Alternative #12.
Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment (PPE)
    Regulatory Alternative #13 would modify the proposed requirements 
for PPE, which require PPE where exposure exceeds the TWA PEL or STEL; 
where employees' clothing or skin may become visibly contaminated with 
beryllium; and where employees may have skin contact with soluble 
beryllium compounds. The requirement to use PPE where work clothing or 
skin may become ``visibly contaminated'' with beryllium differs from 
prior standards that do not require contamination to be visible in 
order for PPE to be required. In the case of beryllium, which OSHA has 
preliminarily concluded can sensitize through dermal exposure, the 
exposure levels capable of causing adverse health effects and the PELs 
in effect are so low that beryllium surface contamination is unlikely 
to be visible (see this preamble at section V, Health Effects). OSHA is 
therefore considering Regulatory Alternative #13, which would require 
appropriate PPE wherever there is potential for skin contact with 
beryllium or beryllium-contaminated surfaces. More detailed discussion 
of Regulatory Alternative #13 is provided in Section IX of this 
preamble and in Chapter VIII of the PEA (OSHA, 2014). In addition, the 
discussion of paragraph (h) in Section XVIII of this preamble, Summary 
and Explanation, provides a more detailed explanation of the proposed 
requirements for PPE, issues with PPE, and the considerations pertinent 
to Regulatory Alternative #13.
Medical Surveillance
    The proposed requirements for medical surveillance include: (1) 
Medical examinations, including a test for beryllium sensitization, for 
employees who are exposed to beryllium above the proposed PEL for 30 
days or more per year, who are exposed to beryllium in an emergency, or 
who show signs or symptoms of CBD; and (2) low-dose helical tomography 
(low-dose computed tomography, hereafter referred to as ``CT scans''), 
for employees who were exposed above the proposed PEL for more than 30 
days in a 12-month period for 5 years or more. This type of CT scan is 
a method of detecting tumors, and is commonly used to diagnose lung 
cancer. The proposed standard would require periodic medical exams to 
be provided for employees in the medical surveillance program annually, 
while tests for beryllium sensitization and CT scans would be provided 
to eligible employees biennially.
    OSHA has examined eight regulatory alternatives (#14 through #21) 
that would modify the proposed rule's requirements for employee 
eligibility, the types of exam that must be offered, and the frequency 
of periodic exams. Medical surveillance was a subject of special 
concern to SERs during the SBREFA process, and the SBREFA Panel offered 
many comments and recommendations related to medical surveillance for 
OSHA's consideration. Some of the Panel's concerns have been addressed 
in this proposal, which was modified since the SBREFA Panel was 
convened (see this preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation 
of the Proposed Standard, for more detailed discussion). Several of the 
alternatives presented here (#16, #18, and #20) also respond to 
recommendations by the SBREFA Panel to reduce burdens on small 
businesses by dropping or reducing the frequency of medical 
surveillance requirements. OSHA also seeks to ensure that the 
requirements of the final standard offer workers adequate medical 
surveillance while limiting the costs to employers. Thus, OSHA requests 
feedback on several additional alternatives and on a variety of issues 
raised later in this section of the preamble.
    Regulatory Alternatives #14, #15, and #21 would expand eligibility 
for medical surveillance to a broader group of employees than would be 
eligible in the proposed standard. Under Regulatory Alternative #14, 
medical surveillance would be available to employees who are exposed to 
beryllium above the proposed PEL, including employees exposed for fewer 
than 30 days per year. Regulatory Alternative #15 would expand 
eligibility for medical surveillance to employees who are exposed to 
beryllium above the proposed action level, including employees exposed 
for fewer than 30 days per year. Regulatory Alternative #21 would 
extend eligibility for medical surveillance as set forth in proposed 
paragraph (k) to all employees in shipyards, construction, and general 
industry who meet the criteria of proposed paragraph (k)(1) (or any of 
the alternative criteria under consideration). However, all other 
provisions of the standard would be in effect only for employers and 
employees that fall within the scope of the proposed rule.
    Regulatory Alternatives #16 and #17 would modify the proposed 
standard's requirements to offer beryllium sensitization testing to 
eligible employees. Under Regulatory Alternative #16, employers would 
not be required to offer employees testing for beryllium sensitization. 
Regulatory Alternative #17 would increase the frequency of periodic 
sensitization testing, from the proposed standard's biennial 
requirement to annual testing. Regulatory Alternatives #18 and #19 
would similarly modify the proposed standard's requirements to offer CT 
scans to eligible employees. Regulatory Alternative #18 would drop the 
CT scan requirement from the proposed rule, whereas Regulatory 
Alternative #19 would increase the frequency of periodic CT scans from 
biennial to annual scans. Finally, under Regulatory Alternative #20, 
all periodic components of the medical surveillance exams would be 
available biennially to eligible employees. Instead of requiring 
employers to offer eligible employees a medical examination every year, 
employers would be required to offer eligible employees a medical 
examination every other year. The frequency of testing for beryllium 
sensitization and CT scans would also be biennial for eligible 
employees, as in the proposed standard.
    More detailed discussions of Regulatory Alternatives #14, #15, #16, 
#17, #18, #19, #20, and #21 appear in Section IX of this preamble and 
in Chapter VIII of the PEA (OSHA, 2014). In addition, Section XVIII of 
this preamble, Summary and Explanation, paragraph (k) provides a more 
detailed explanation of the proposed requirements for medical 
surveillance, issues with medical surveillance, and the considerations 
pertinent to Regulatory Alternatives #14 through #21.
Medical Removal Protection (MRP)
    The proposed requirements for medical removal protection provide an 
option for medical removal to an employee who is working in a job with 
exposure at or above the action level and is diagnosed with CBD or 
confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization. If the employee chooses 
removal, the employer must either remove the employee to comparable 
work in a work environment where exposure is below the action level, or 
if comparable work is not available, must place the employee on paid 
leave for 6 months or until such time as comparable work becomes 
available. In either case, the employer must maintain for 6 months the 
employee's base earnings, seniority,

[[Page 47572]]

and other rights and benefits that existed at the time of removal. 
During the SBREFA process, the Panel recommended that OSHA give careful 
consideration to the impacts that an MRP requirement could have on 
small businesses (OSHA, 2008b). In response to this recommendation, 
OSHA analyzed Regulatory Alternative #22, which would not require 
employers to offer MRP. More detailed discussion of Regulatory 
Alternative #22 appears in Section IX of this preamble and in Chapter 
VIII of the PEA (OSHA, 2014). In addition, the discussion of paragraph 
(l) in section XVIII of this preamble, Summary and Explanation, 
provides a more detailed explanation of the proposed requirements for 
MRP, issues with MRP, and considerations pertinent to Regulatory 
Alternative #22.
Timing of the Standard
    The proposed standard would become effective 60 days following 
publication of the final standard in the Federal Register. The 
effective date is the date on which the standard imposes compliance 
obligations on employers. However, the standard would not become 
enforceable by OSHA until 90 days following the effective date for 
exposure monitoring, work areas and regulated areas, written exposure 
control plan, respiratory protection, other personal protective 
clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices (except change 
rooms), housekeeping, medical surveillance, and medical removal. The 
proposed requirement for change rooms would not be enforceable until 
one year after the effective date, and the requirements for engineering 
controls would not be enforceable until two years after the effective 
date. In summary, employers will have some period of time after the 
standard becomes effective to come into compliance before OSHA will 
begin enforcing it: 90 days for most provisions, one year for change 
rooms, and two years for engineering controls. Beginning 90 days 
following the effective date, during periods necessary to install or 
implement feasible engineering controls where exposure exceed the TWA 
PEL or STEL, employers must provide employees with respiratory 
protection as described in the proposed standard under section (g), 
Respiratory Protection.
    OSHA invites comment and suggestions for phasing in requirements 
for engineering controls, medical surveillance, and other provisions of 
the standard. A longer phase-in time would have several advantages, 
such as reducing initial costs of the standard or allowing employers to 
coordinate their environmental and occupational safety and health 
control strategies to minimize potential costs. However, a longer 
phase-in would also postpone and reduce the benefits of the standard. 
Suggestions for alternatives may apply to specific industries (e.g., 
industries where first-year or annualized cost impacts are highest), 
specific size-classes of employers (e.g., employers with fewer than 20 
employees), combinations of these factors, or all firms covered by the 
rule.
    OSHA requests comments on these regulatory alternatives, including 
the Agency's choice of regulatory alternatives (and whether there are 
other regulatory alternatives the Agency should consider) and the 
Agency's analysis of them. In addition, OSHA requests comments and 
information on a number of specific topics and issues pertinent to the 
proposed standard. These are summarized below.

Regulatory Issues

    In this section, we solicit public feedback on issues associated 
with the proposed standard and request information that would help the 
Agency craft the final standard. In addition to the issues specified 
here, OSHA also raises issues for comment on technical questions and 
discussions of economic issues in the PEA (OSHA, 2014). OSHA requests 
comment on all relevant issues, including health effects, risk 
assessment, significance of risk, technological and economic 
feasibility, and the provisions of the proposed regulatory text. In 
addition, OSHA requests comments on all of the issues raised by the 
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, as summarized in the SBAR 
report (OSHA, 2008b)
    We present these issues and requests for information in the first 
chapter of the preamble to assist readers as they review the preamble 
and consider any comments they may want to submit. The issues are 
presented here in summary form. However, to fully understand the 
questions in this section and provide substantive input in response to 
them, the sections of the preamble relevant to these issues should be 
reviewed. These include: Section V, Health Effects; Section VI, the 
Preliminary Risk Assessment; Section VIII, Significance of Risk; 
Section IX, Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; and Section XVIII, Summary and 
Explanation of the Proposed Standard.
    OSHA requests that comments be organized, to the extent possible, 
around the following issues and numbered questions. Comment on 
particular provisions should contain a heading setting forth the 
section and the paragraph in the proposed standard that the comment 
addresses. Comments addressing more than one section or paragraph will 
have correspondingly more headings.
    Submitting comments in an organized manner and with clear reference 
to the issue raised will enable all participants to easily see what 
issues the commenter addressed and how they were addressed. Many 
commenters, especially small businesses, are likely to confine their 
comments to the issues that affect them, and they will benefit from 
being able to quickly identify comments on these issues in others' 
submissions. The Agency welcomes comments concerning all aspects of 
this proposal. However, OSHA is especially interested in responses, 
supported by evidence and reasons, to the following questions:

Health Effects

    1. OSHA has described a variety of studies addressing the major 
adverse health effects that have been associated with exposure to 
beryllium. Using currently available epidemiologic and experimental 
studies, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that beryllium 
presents risks of lung cancer; sensitization; CBD at 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\; 
and at higher exposures acute beryllium disease, and hepatic, renal, 
cardiovascular and ocular diseases. Is this determination correct? Are 
there additional studies or other data OSHA should consider in 
evaluating any of these health outcomes?
    2. Has OSHA adequately identified and documented all critical 
health impairments associated with occupational exposure to beryllium? 
If not, what other adverse health effects should be added? Are there 
additional studies or other data OSHA should consider in evaluating any 
of these health outcomes?
    3. Are there any additional studies, other data, or information 
that would affect the information discussed or significantly change the 
determination of material health impairment?
    Please submit any relevant information, data, or additional studies 
(or citations to studies), and explain your reasons for recommending 
any studies you suggest.

Risk Assessment and Significance of Risk

    4. OSHA has developed an analysis of health risks associated with 
occupational beryllium exposure, including an analysis of sensitization 
and CBD based on a selection of recent

[[Page 47573]]

studies in the epidemiological literature, a data set on a population 
of beryllium machinists provided by the National Jewish Medical 
Research Center (NJMRC), and an assessment of lung cancer risk using an 
analysis provided by NIOSH. Did OSHA rely on the best available 
evidence in its risk assessment? Are there additional studies or other 
data OSHA should consider in evaluating risk for these health outcomes? 
Please provide the studies, citations to studies, or data you suggest.
    5. OSHA preliminarily concluded that there is significant risk of 
material health impairment (lung cancer or CBD) from a working lifetime 
of occupational exposure to beryllium at the current TWA PEL of 2 
[micro]g/m\3\, which would be substantially reduced by the proposed TWA 
PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and the alternative TWA PEL of 0.1 [micro]g/
m\3\. OSHA's preliminary risk assessment also concludes that there is 
still significant risk of CBD and lung cancer at the proposed PEL and 
the alternative PELs, although substantially less than at the current 
PEL. Are these preliminary conclusions reasonable, based on the best 
available evidence? If not, please provide a detailed explanation of 
your position, including data to support your position and a detailed 
analysis of OSHA's risk assessment if appropriate.
    6. Please provide comment on OSHA's analysis of risk for beryllium 
sensitization, CBD and lung cancer. Are there important gaps or 
uncertainties in the analysis, such that the Agency's preliminary 
conclusions regarding significance of risk at the current, proposed, 
and alternative PELs may be in error? If so, please provide a detailed 
explanation and suggestions for how OSHA's analysis should be corrected 
or improved.
    7. OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the available 
data are not sufficient or suitable for risk analysis of effects other 
than beryllium sensitization, CBD and lung cancer. Do you have, or are 
you aware of, studies or data that would be suitable for a risk 
assessment for these adverse health effects? Please provide the 
studies, citations to studies, or data you suggest.

(a) Scope

    8. Has OSHA defined the scope of the proposed standard 
appropriately? Does it currently include employers who should not be 
covered, or exclude employers who should be covered by a comprehensive 
beryllium standard? Are you aware of employees in construction or 
maritime, or in general industry who deal with beryllium only as a 
trace contaminant, who may be at significant risk from occupational 
beryllium exposure? Please provide the basis for your response and any 
applicable supporting information.

(b) Definitions

    9. Has OSHA defined the Beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test 
appropriately? If not, please provide the definition that you believe 
is appropriate. Please provide rationale and citations supporting your 
comments.
    10. Has OSHA defined CBD Diagnostic Center appropriately? In 
particular, should a CBD diagnostic center be required to analyze 
biological samples on-site, or should diagnostic centers be allowed to 
send samples off-site for analysis? Is the list of tests and procedures 
a CBD Diagnostic Center is required to be able to perform appropriate? 
Should any of the tests or procedures be removed from the definition? 
Should other tests or procedures be added to the definition? Please 
provide rationale and information supporting your comments.

(d) Exposure Monitoring

    11. Do you currently monitor for beryllium exposures in your 
workplace? If so, how often? Please provide the reasoning for the 
frequency of your monitoring. If periodic monitoring is performed at 
your workplace for exposures other than beryllium, with what frequency 
is it repeated?
    12. Is it reasonable to allow discontinuation of monitoring based 
on one sample below the action level? Should more than one result below 
the action level be required to discontinue monitoring?

(e) Work Areas and Regulated Areas

    The proposed standard would require employers to establish and 
maintain two types of areas: beryllium work areas, wherever employees 
are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to any level of 
airborne beryllium; and regulated areas, wherever employees are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at levels 
above the TWA PEL or STEL. Employers are required to demarcate 
beryllium work areas, but are not required to restrict access to 
beryllium work areas or provide respiratory protection or other forms 
of PPE within work areas with exposures at or below the TWA PEL or 
STEL. Employers must also demarcate regulated areas, including posting 
warning signs; restrict access to regulated areas; and provide 
respiratory protection and other PPE within regulated areas.
    13. Does your workplace currently have regulated areas? If so, how 
are regulated areas demarcated?
    14. Please describe work settings where establishing regulated 
areas could be problematic or infeasible. If establishing regulated 
areas is problematic, what approaches might be used to warn employees 
in such work settings of high risk areas?

(f) Methods of Compliance

    Paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed standard would require employers 
to implement engineering and work practice controls to reduce 
employees' exposures to or below the TWA PEL and STEL. Where 
engineering and work practice controls are insufficient to reduce 
exposures to or below the TWA PEL and STEL, employers would still be 
required to implement them to reduce exposure as much as possible, and 
to supplement them with a respiratory protection program. In addition, 
for each operation where there is airborne beryllium exposure, the 
employer must ensure that at least one of the engineering and work 
practice controls listed in paragraph (f)(2) is in place, unless all of 
the listed controls are infeasible, or the employer can demonstrate 
that exposures are below the action level based on no fewer than two 
samples taken seven days apart.
    15. Do you usually use engineering or work practices controls 
(local exhaust ventilation, isolation, substitution) to reduce 
beryllium exposures? If so, which controls do you use?
    16. Are the controls and processes listed in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) 
appropriate for controlling beryllium exposures? Are there additional 
controls or processes that should be added to paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A)?

(g) Respiratory Protection

    17. OSHA's asbestos standard (CFR 1910.1001) requires employers to 
provide each employee with a tight-fitting, powered air-purifying 
respirator (PAPR) instead of a negative pressure respirator when the 
employee chooses to use a PAPR and it provides adequate protection to 
the employee. Should the beryllium standard similarly require employers 
to provide PAPRs (instead of allowing a negative pressure respirator) 
when requested by the employee? Are there other circumstances where a 
PAPR should be specified as the appropriate respiratory protection? 
Please provide the basis for your response and any applicable 
supporting information.

[[Page 47574]]

(h) Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment

    18. Do you currently require specific PPE or respirators when 
employees are working with beryllium? If so, what type?
    19. The proposal requires PPE wherever work clothing or skin may 
become visibly contaminated with beryllium; where employees' skin can 
reasonably be expected to be exposed to soluble beryllium compounds; or 
where employee exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed 
the TWA PEL or STEL. The requirement to use PPE where work clothing or 
skin may become ``visibly contaminated'' with beryllium differs from 
prior standards which do not require contamination to be visible in 
order for PPE to be required. Is ``visibly contaminated'' an 
appropriate trigger for PPE? Is there reason to require PPE where 
employees' skin can be exposed to insoluble beryllium compounds? Please 
provide the basis for your response and any applicable supporting 
information.

(i) Hygiene Areas and Practices

    20. The proposal requires employers to provide showers in their 
facilities if (A) Exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected to 
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL; and (B) Beryllium can reasonably be 
expected to contaminate employees' hair or body parts other than hands, 
face, and neck. Is this requirement reasonable and adequately 
protective of beryllium-exposed workers? Should OSHA amend the 
provision to require showers in facilities where exposures exceed the 
PEL or STEL, without regard to areas of bodily contamination?

(j) Housekeeping

    21. The proposed rule prohibits dry sweeping or brushing for 
cleaning surfaces in beryllium work areas unless HEPA-filtered 
vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood and level of 
exposure have been tried and were not effective. Please comment on this 
provision. What methods do you use to clean work surfaces at your 
facility? Are HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other methods to minimize 
beryllium exposure used to clean surfaces at your facility? Have they 
been effective? Are there any circumstances under which dry sweeping or 
brushing are necessary? Please explain your response.
    22. The proposed rule requires that materials designated for 
recycling that are visibly contaminated with beryllium particulate 
shall be cleaned to remove visible particulate, or placed in sealed, 
impermeable enclosures. However, small particles (<10 [mu]g) may not be 
visible to the naked eye, and there are studies suggesting that small 
particles may penetrate the skin, beyond which beryllium sensitization 
can occur (Tinkle et al., 2003). OSHA requests feedback on this 
provision. Should OSHA require that all material to be recycled be 
decontaminated regardless of perceived surface cleanliness? Should OSHA 
require that all material disposed or discarded be in enclosures 
regardless of perceived surface cleanliness? Please provide explanation 
or data to support your comments.

 (k) Medical Surveillance

    The proposed requirements for medical surveillance include: (1) 
Medical examinations, including a test for beryllium sensitization, for 
employees who are exposed to beryllium above the proposed PEL for 30 
days or more per year, who are exposed to beryllium in an emergency, or 
who show signs or symptoms of CBD; and (2) CT scans for employees who 
were exposed above the proposed PEL for more than 30 days in a 12-month 
period for 5 years or more. The proposed standard would require 
periodic medical exams to be provided for employees in the medical 
surveillance program annually, while tests for beryllium sensitization 
and CT scans would be provided to eligible employees biennially.
    23. Is medical surveillance being provided for beryllium-exposed 
employees at your worksite? If so:
    a. Do you provide medical surveillance to employees under another 
OSHA standard or as a matter of company policy? What OSHA standard(s) 
does the program address?
    b. How many employees are included, and how do you determine which 
employees receive medical surveillance (e.g., by exposure level, other 
factors)?
    c. Who administers and implements the medical surveillance (e.g., 
company doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or nurse; or 
outside doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or nurse)?
    d. What examinations, tests, or evaluations are included in the 
medical surveillance program, and with what frequency are they 
administered? Does your program include a surveillance program 
specifically for beryllium-related health effects (e.g., the BeLPT or 
other tests for beryllium sensitization)?
    e. If your facility offers the BeLPT, please provide feedback and 
data on your experience with the BeLPT, including the analytical or 
interpretive procedure you use and its role in your facility's exposure 
control program. Has identification of sensitized workers led to 
interventions to reduce exposures to sensitized individuals, or in the 
facility generally? If a worker is found to be sensitized, do you track 
worker health and possible progression of disease beyond sensitization? 
If so, how is this done?
    f. What difficulties and benefits (e.g., health, reduction in 
absenteeism, or financial) have you experienced with your medical 
surveillance program? If applicable, please discuss benefits and 
difficulties you have experienced with the use of the BeLPT, providing 
detailed information or examples if possible.
    g. What are the costs of your medical surveillance program? How do 
your costs compare with OSHA's estimated unit costs for the physical 
examination and employee time involved in the medical surveillance 
program? Are OSHA's baseline assumptions and cost estimates for medical 
surveillance consistent with your experiences providing medical 
surveillance to your employees?
    24. Please review paragraph (k) of the proposed rule, Medical 
Surveillance, and comment on the frequency and contents of medical 
surveillance in the proposed rule. Is 30 days from initial assignment a 
reasonable time at which to provide a medical exam? Should there be a 
requirement for beryllium sensitization testing at time of employment? 
Should there be a requirement for beryllium sensitization testing at an 
employee's exit exam, regardless of when the employee's most recent 
sensitization test was administered? Are the tests required and the 
testing frequencies specified appropriate? Should sensitized employees 
have the opportunity to be examined at a CBD Diagnostic Center more 
than once following a confirmed positive BeLPT? Are there additional 
tests or alternate testing schedules you would suggest? Should the skin 
be examined for signs and symptoms of beryllium exposure or other 
medical issues, as well as for breaks and wounds? Please explain the 
basis for your position and provide data or studies if applicable.
    25. Please provide comments on the proposed requirements regarding 
referral of a sensitized employee to a CBD diagnostic center, which 
specify referral to a diagnostic center ``mutually agreed upon'' by the 
employer and employee. Is this requirement for mutual agreement 
necessary and appropriate? How should a diagnostic center be chosen if 
the employee and employer cannot come to agreement? Should OSHA 
consider alternate language, such as referral for CBD

[[Page 47575]]

evaluation at a diagnostic center in a reasonable location?
    26. In the proposed rule, OSHA specifies that all medical 
examinations and procedures required by the standard must be performed 
by or under the direction of a licensed physician. Are physicians 
available in your geographic area to provide medical surveillance to 
workers who are covered by the proposed rule? Are other licensed health 
care professionals available to provide medical surveillance? Do you 
have access to other qualified personnel such as qualified X-ray 
technicians, and pulmonary specialists? Should the proposal be amended 
to allow examination by, or under the direction of, a physician or 
other licensed health care professional (PLHCP)? Please explain your 
position. Please note what you consider your geographic area in 
responding to this question.
    27. The proposed standard requires the employer to obtain the 
Licensed Physician's Written Medical Opinion from the PLHCP within 30 
days of the examination. Should OSHA revise the medical surveillance 
provisions of the proposed standard to allow employees to choose what, 
if any, medical information goes to the employer from the PLHCP? For 
example, the employer could instead be required to obtain a 
certification from the PLCHP within 30 days of the examination stating 
(1) when the examination took place, (2) that the examination complied 
with the standard, and (3) that the PLHCP provided the employee a copy 
of the Licensed Physician's Written Medical Opinion required by the 
standard. The PLHCP would need the employee's written consent to send 
the employer the Licensed Physician's Written Medical Opinion or any 
other medical information about the employee. This approach might lead 
to corresponding changes in proposed paragraphs (f)(1) (written 
exposure control program), (l) (medical removal) and (n) 
(recordkeeping) to reflect that employers will not automatically be 
receiving any medical information about employees as a result of the 
medical surveillance required by the proposed standard, but would 
instead only receive medical information the employee chooses to share 
with the employer. Please comment on the relative merits of the 
proposed standard's requirement that employers obtain the PLHCP's 
written opinion or an alternative that would provide employees with 
greater discretion over the information that goes to employers, and 
explain the basis for your position and the potential impact on the 
benefits of medical surveillance.
    28. Appendix A to the proposed standard reviews procedures for 
conducting and interpreting the results of BeLPT testing for beryllium 
sensitization. Is there now, or should there be, a standard method for 
BeLPT laboratory procedure? If yes, please describe the existing or 
proposed method. Is there now, or should there be, a standard algorithm 
for interpreting BeLPT results to determine sensitization? Please 
describe the existing or proposed laboratory method or interpretation 
algorithm. Should OSHA require that BeLPTs performed to comply with the 
medical surveillance provisions of this rule adhere to the Department 
of Energy (DOE) analytical and interpretive specifications issued in 
2001? Should interpretation of laboratory results be delegated to the 
employee's occupational physician or PLHCP?
    29. Should OSHA require the clinical laboratories performing the 
BeLPT to be accredited by the College of American Pathologists or 
another accreditation organization approved under the Clinical 
Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)? What other standards, if any, 
should be required for clinical laboratories providing the BeLPT?
    30. Are there now, or are there being developed, alternative tests 
to the BeLPT you would suggest? Please explain the reasons for your 
suggestion. How should alternative tests for beryllium sensitization be 
evaluated and validated? How should OSHA determine whether a test for 
beryllium sensitization is more reliable and accurate than the BeLPT? 
Please see Appendix A to the proposed standard for a discussion of the 
accuracy of the BeLPT.
    31. The proposed rule requires employers to provide OSHA with the 
results of BeLPTs performed to comply with the medical surveillance 
provisions upon request, provided that the employer obtains a release 
from the tested employee. Will this requirement be unduly burdensome 
for employers? Are there alternative organizations that would be 
appropriate to send test results to?

 (l) Medical Removal Protection

    The proposed requirements for medical removal protection provide an 
option for medical removal to an employee who is working in a job with 
exposure at or above the action level and is diagnosed with CBD or 
confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization. If the employee chooses 
removal, the employer must remove the employee to comparable work in a 
work environment where exposure is below the action level, or if 
comparable work is not available, must place the employee on paid leave 
for 6 months or until such time as comparable work becomes available. 
In either case, the employer must maintain for 6 months the employee's 
base earnings, seniority, and other rights and benefits that existed at 
the time of removal.
    32. Do you provide MRP at your facility? If so, please comment on 
the program's benefits, difficulties, and costs, and the extent to 
which eligible employees make use of MRP.
    33. OSHA has included requirements for medical removal protection 
(MRP) in the proposed rule, which includes provisions for medical 
removal for employees with beryllium sensitization or CBD, and an 
extension of removed employees' rights and benefits for six months. Are 
beryllium sensitization and CBD appropriate triggers for medical 
removal? Are there other medical conditions or findings that should 
trigger medical removal? For what amount of time should a removed 
employee's benefits be extended?

(p) Appendices

    34. Some OSHA health standards include appendices that address 
topics such as the hazards associated with the regulated substance, 
health screening considerations, occupational disease questionnaires, 
and PLHCP obligations. In this proposed rule, OSHA has included a non-
mandatory appendix to describe and discuss the BeLPT (Appendix A), and 
a non-mandatory appendix presenting a non-exhaustive list of 
engineering controls employers may use to comply with paragraph (f) 
(Appendix B). What would be the advantages and disadvantages of 
including each appendix in the final rule? What would be the advantages 
and disadvantages of providing this information in guidance materials?
    35. What additional information, if any, should be included in the 
appendices? What additional information, if any, should be provided in 
guidance materials?

General

    36. The current beryllium proposal includes triggers that require 
employers to initiate certain provisions, programs, and activities to 
protect workers from beryllium exposure. All employers covered under an 
OSHA health standard are required to initiate certain activities such 
as initial monitoring to evaluate the potential hazard to employees. 
OSHA health standards typically include ancillary provisions with 
various triggers indicating when an

[[Page 47576]]

employer covered under the standard would need to comply with a 
provision. The most common triggers are ones based an exposure level 
such as the PEL or action level. These exposure level triggers are 
sometimes combined with a minimum duration of exposure (e.g., >= 30 
days per year). Other triggers may include reasonably anticipated 
exposure, medical surveillance findings, certain work activities, or 
simply the presence of the regulated substance in the workplace.
    For the current Proposal, exposures to beryllium above the TWA PEL 
or STEL trigger the provisions for regulated areas, additional or 
enhanced engineering or work practice controls to reduce airborne 
exposures to or below the TWA PEL and STEL, personal protective 
clothing and equipment, medical surveillance, showers, and respiratory 
protection if feasible engineering and work practice controls cannot 
reduce airborne exposures to or below the TWA PEL and STEL. Exposures 
at or above the action level in turn trigger the provisions for 
periodic exposure monitoring, and medical removal eligibility (along 
with a diagnosis of CBD or confirmed positive for beryllium 
sensitization). Finally, an employer covered under the scope of the 
proposed standard must establish a beryllium work area where employees 
are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium 
regardless of the level of exposure. In beryllium work areas, employers 
must implement a written exposure control plan, provide washing 
facilities and change rooms (change rooms are only necessary if 
employees are required to remove their personal clothing), and follow 
housekeeping provisions. The employers must also implement at least one 
of the engineering and work practice controls listed in paragraph 
(f)(2) of the proposed standard. An employer is exempt from this 
requirement if he or she can demonstrate that such controls are not 
feasible or that exposures are below the action level.
    Certain provisions are triggered by one condition and other 
provisions are triggered only if multiple conditions are present. For 
example, medical removal is only triggered if an employee has CBD or is 
confirmed positive AND the employee is exposed at or above the action 
level.
    OSHA is requesting comment on the triggers in the proposed 
beryllium standard. Are the triggers OSHA has proposed appropriate? 
OSHA is also requesting comment on these triggers relative to the 
regulatory alternatives affecting the scope and PELs as described in 
this preamble in section I, Issues and Alternatives. For example, are 
the triggers in the proposed standard appropriate for Alternative #1a, 
which would expand the scope of the proposed standard to include all 
operations in general industry where beryllium exists only as a trace 
contaminant (less than 0.1% beryllium by weight)? Are the triggers 
appropriate for the alternatives that change the TWA PEL, STEL, and 
action level? Please specify the trigger and the alternative, if 
applicable, and why you agree or disagree with the trigger.

Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With 
the Proposed Rule

    37. In Section IX--Preliminary Economic Analysis under the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, OSHA identifies, to the extent 
practicable, all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, 
or conflict with the proposed rule. One potential area of overlap is 
with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) beryllium program. In 1999, 
DOE established a chronic beryllium disease prevention program (CBDPP) 
to reduce the number of workers (DOE employees and DOE contractors) 
exposed to beryllium at DOE facilities (10 CFR part 850, published at 
64 FR 68854-68914 (Dec. 8, 1999)). In establishing this program, DOE 
has exercised its statutory authority to prescribe and enforce 
occupational safety and health standards. Therefore pursuant to section 
4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1), the DOE facilities are 
exempt from OSHA jurisdiction.
    Nevertheless, under 10 CFR 850.22, DOE has included in its CBDPP 
regulation a requirement for compliance with the current OSHA 
permissible exposure limit (PEL), and any lower PEL that OSHA 
establishes in the future. Thus, although DOE has preempted OSHA's 
standard from applying at DOE facilities and OSHA cannot exercise any 
authority at those facilities, DOE relies on OSHA's PEL in implementing 
its own program. However, DOE's decision to tie its own standard to 
OSHA's PEL has little consequence to this rulemaking because the 
requirements in DOE's beryllium program (controls, medical 
surveillance, etc.) are triggered by DOE's action level of 0.2 
[micro]g/m\3\, which is much lower than DOE's existing PEL and the same 
as OSHA's proposed PEL. DOE's action level is not tied to OSHA's 
standard, so 10 CFR 850.22 would not require the CBDPP's action level 
or any non-PEL requirements to be automatically adjusted as a result of 
OSHA's rulemaking. For this reason, DOE has indicated to OSHA that 
OSHA's proposed rule would not have any impact on DOE's CBDPP, 
particularly since 10 CFR 850.25(b), Exposure reduction and 
minimization, requires DOE contractors to reduce exposures to below the 
DOE's action level of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, if practicable.
    DOE has expressed to OSHA that DOE facilities are already in 
compliance with 10 CFR 850 and its action level of 0.2 [micro]g/
m\3\,\2\ so the only potential impact on DOE's CBDPP that could flow 
from OSHA's rulemaking would be if OSHA ultimately adopted a PEL of 0.1 
[micro]g/m\3\, as discussed in alternative #4, instead of the proposed 
PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, and DOE did not make any additional 
adjustments to its standards. Even in that hypothetical scenario, the 
impact would still be limited because of the odd result that DOE's PEL 
would drop below its own action level, while the action level would 
continue to serve as the trigger for most of DOE's program 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This would mean the prevailing beryllium exposures at DOE 
facilities are at or below 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also has noted some potential overlap with a separate DOE 
provision in 10 CFR part 851, which requires its contractors to comply 
with DOE's CBDPP (10 CFR 851.23(a)(1)) and also with all OSHA standards 
under 29 CFR part 1910 except ``Ionizing Radiation'' (Sec.  1910.1096) 
(10 CFR 851.23(a)(3)). These requirements, which DOE established in 
2006 (71 FR 6858 (February 9, 2006)), make sense in light of OSHA's 
current regulation because OSHA's only beryllium protection is a PEL, 
so compliance with 10 CFR 851.23(a)(1) and (3) merely make OSHA's 
current PEL the relevant level for purposes of the CBDPP. However, its 
function would be less clear if OSHA adopts a beryllium standard as 
proposed. OSHA's proposed beryllium standard would establish additional 
substantive protections beyond the PEL. Consequently, notwithstanding 
the CBDPP's preemptive effect on the OSHA beryllium standard as a 
result of 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1), 10 CFR 851.23(a)(3) could be read to 
require DOE contractors to comply with all provisions in OSHA's 
proposal (if finalized), including the ancillary provisions, creating a 
dual regulatory scheme for beryllium protection at DOE facilities.
    DOE officials have indicated that this is not their intent. 
Instead, their intent is that DOE contractors comply solely with the 
CBDPP provisions in 10 CFR part 850 for protection from beryllium.

[[Page 47577]]

Based on its discussions with DOE officials, OSHA anticipates that DOE 
will clarify that its contractors do not need to comply with any 
ancillary provisions in a beryllium standard that OSHA may promulgate.
    OSHA can envision several potential scenarios developing from its 
rulemaking, ranging from OSHA retaining the proposed PEL of 0.2 
[micro]g/m\3\ and action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ in the final rule 
to adopting the PEL of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\, as discussed in alternative 
#4. Because OSHA's beryllium standard does not apply directly to DOE 
facilities, and the only impact of its rules on those facilities is the 
result of DOE's regulatory choices, there is also a range of actions 
that DOE could take to minimize any potential impact of any change to 
OSHA's rules, including (1) taking no action at all, (2) simply 
clarifying the CBDPP, as described above, to mean that OSHA's beryllium 
standard (other than its PEL) does not apply to contractors, or (3) 
revising both parts 850 and 851 to completely disassociate DOE's 
regulation of beryllium at DOE facilities from OSHA's regulation of 
beryllium.
    OSHA is aware that, in the preamble to its 1999 CBDPP rule, DOE 
analyzed the costs for implementing the CBDPP for action levels of 0.1 
[micro]g/m\3\, 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, and 0.5 [micro]g/m\3\ (64 FR 68875, 
December 8, 1999). DOE estimated costs for periodic exposure 
monitoring, notifying workers of the results of such monitoring, 
exposure reduction and minimization, regulated areas, change rooms and 
showers, respiratory protection, protective clothing, and disposal of 
protective clothing. All of these provisions are triggered by DOE's 
action level (64 FR 68874, December 8, 1999). Although DOE's rule is 
not identical to OSHA's proposed standard, OSHA believes that DOE's 
costs are sufficiently representative to form the basis of a 
preliminary estimate of the costs that could flow from OSHA's standard, 
if finalized.
    Based on the range of potential scenarios and the prior DOE cost 
estimates, OSHA estimates that the annual cost impact on DOE facilities 
could range from $0 to $4,065,768 (2010 dollars). The upper end of the 
cost range would reflect the unlikely scenario in which OSHA 
promulgates a final PEL of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\, 10 CFR 851.23(a)(3) is 
found to compel DOE contractors to comply with OSHA's comprehensive 
beryllium standard in addition to DOE's CBDPP, and DOE takes no action 
to clarify that OSHA's beryllium standard does not apply to DOE 
contractors. The lower end of the cost range assumes OSHA promulgates 
its rule as proposed with a PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and action level 
of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\, and DOE clarifies that it intends its contractors 
to follow DOE's CBDPP and not OSHA's beryllium standard, so that the 
ancillary provisions of OSHA's beryllium standard do not apply to DOE 
facilities. Additionally, OSHA assumes that DOE contractors are in 
compliance with DOE's current rule and therefore took the difference in 
cost between implementation of an action level of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and 
an action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ for the above estimates. Finally, 
OSHA used the GDP price deflator to present the cost estimate in 2010 
dollars.
    OSHA requests comment on the potential overlap of DOE's rule with 
OSHA's proposed rule.

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 
651 et seq. (``the Act''), is to ``. . . assure so far as possible 
every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working 
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b).
    To achieve this goal Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor 
(the Secretary) to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and 
health standards. 29 U.S.C. 654(b) (requiring employers to comply with 
OSHA standards), 655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing 
consensus and federal standards within two years of the Act's 
enactment), and 655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or 
revocation of standards pursuant to notice and comment).
    The Act provides that in promulgating health standards dealing with 
toxic materials or harmful physical agents, such as this proposed 
standard regulating occupational exposure to beryllium, the Secretary, 
shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent 
feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence that no employee 
will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even 
if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such 
standard for the period of his working life. See 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).
    The Supreme Court has held that before the Secretary can promulgate 
any permanent health or safety standard, he must make a threshold 
finding that significant risk is present and that such risk can be 
eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. Industrial Union 
Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 641-42 
(1980) (plurality opinion) (``The Benzene case''). Thus, section 
6(b)(5) of the Act requires health standards to reduce significant risk 
to the extent feasible. Id.
    The Court further observed that what constitutes ``significant 
risk'' is ``not a mathematical straitjacket'' and must be ``based 
largely on policy considerations.'' The Benzene case, 448 U.S. at 655. 
The Court gave the example that if,

    . . . the odds are one in a billion that a person will die from 
cancer . . . the risk clearly could not be considered significant. 
On the other hand, if the odds are one in one thousand that regular 
inhalation of gasoline vapors that are 2% benzene will be fatal, a 
reasonable person might well consider the risk significant. [Id.]

    OSHA standards must be both technologically and economically 
feasible. United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1264 (D.C. 
Cir. 1980) (``The Lead I case''). The Supreme Court has defined 
feasibility as ``capable of being done.'' Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. 
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509-510 (1981) (``The Cotton Dust case''). The 
courts have further clarified that a standard is technologically 
feasible if OSHA proves a reasonable possibility,

    . . . within the limits of the best available evidence . . . 
that the typical firm will be able to develop and install 
engineering and work practice controls that can meet the PEL in most 
of its operations. [See The Lead I case, 647 F.2d at 1272]

    With respect to economic feasibility, the courts have held that a 
standard is feasible if it does not threaten massive dislocation to or 
imperil the existence of the industry. Id. at 1265. A court must 
examine the cost of compliance with an OSHA standard,

    . . . in relation to the financial health and profitability of 
the industry and the likely effect of such costs on unit consumer 
prices . . . [T]he practical question is whether the standard 
threatens the competitive stability of an industry, . . . or whether 
any intra-industry or inter-industry discrimination in the standard 
might wreck such stability or lead to undue concentration. [Id. 
(citing Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467 (D.C. 
Cir. 1974))]

The courts have further observed that granting companies reasonable 
time to comply with new PELs may enhance economic feasibility. The Lead 
I case at 1265. While a standard must be economically feasible, the 
Supreme Court has held that a cost-benefit analysis of health standards 
is not required by the Act because a feasibility analysis is required. 
The Cotton Dust case, 453 U.S. at 509.

    Finally, sections 6(b)(7) and 8(c) of the Act authorize OSHA to 
include among a standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical 
testing, and other information-gathering and -transmittal provisions. 
29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7), 657(c).

[[Page 47578]]

III. Events Leading to the Proposed Standards

    The first occupational exposure limit for beryllium was set in 1949 
by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which required that beryllium 
exposure in the workplaces under its jurisdiction be limited to 2 
[micro]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), and 25 
[micro]g/m\3\ as a peak exposure never to be exceeded (Department of 
Energy, 1999). These exposure limits were adopted by all AEC 
installations handling beryllium, and were binding on all AEC 
contractors involved in the handling of beryllium.
    In 1956, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) 
published a Hygienic Guide which supported the AEC exposure limits. In 
1959, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
(ACGIH[supreg]) also adopted a Threshold Limit Value (TLV[supreg]) of 2 
[micro]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA (Borak, 2006).
    In 1971, OSHA adopted, under Section 6(a) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970, and made applicable to general industry, 
a national consensus standard (ANSI Z37.29-1970) for beryllium and 
beryllium compounds. The standard set a permissible exposure limit 
(PEL) for beryllium and beryllium compounds at 2 [micro]g/m\3\ as an 8-
hour TWA; 5 [micro]g/m\3\ as an acceptable ceiling concentration; and 
25 [micro]g/m\3\ as an acceptable maximum peak above the acceptable 
ceiling concentration for a maximum duration of 30 minutes in an 8-hour 
shift (OSHA, 1971).
    Section 6(a) stipulated that in the first two years after the 
effective date of the Act, OSHA was to promulgate ``start-up'' 
standards, on an expedited basis and without public hearing or comment, 
based on national consensus or established Federal standards that 
improved employee safety or health. Pursuant to that authority, in 
1971, OSHA promulgated approximately 425 PELs for air contaminants, 
including beryllium, derived principally from Federal standards 
applicable to government contractors under the Walsh-Healey Public 
Contracts Act, 41 U.S.C. 35, and the Contract Work Hours and Safety 
Standards Act (commonly known as the Construction Safety Act), 40 
U.S.C. 333. The Walsh-Healey Act and Construction Safety Act standards, 
in turn, had been adopted primarily from ACGIH[supreg]'s TLV[supreg]s.
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
issued a document entitled Criteria for a Recommended Standard: 
Occupational Exposure to Beryllium (Criteria Document) in June 1972. 
OSHA reviewed the findings and recommendations contained in the 
Criteria Document along with the AEC control requirements for beryllium 
exposure. OSHA also considered existing data from animal and 
epidemiological studies, and studies of industrial processes of 
beryllium extraction, refinement, fabrication, and machining. In 1975, 
OSHA asked NIOSH to update the evaluation of the existing data 
pertaining to the carcinogenic potential of beryllium. In response to 
OSHA's request, the Director of NIOSH stated that, based on animal data 
and through all possible routes of exposure including inhalation, 
``beryllium in all likelihood represents a carcinogenic risk to man.''
    In October 1975, OSHA proposed a new beryllium standard for all 
industries based on information that beryllium caused cancer in animal 
experiments (40 FR 48814 (October 17, 1975)). Adoption of this proposal 
would have lowered the 8-hour TWA exposure limit from 2 [micro]g/m\3\ 
to 1 [micro]g/m\3\. In addition, the proposal included ancillary 
provisions for such topics as exposure monitoring, hygiene facilities, 
medical surveillance, and training related to the health hazards from 
beryllium exposure. The rulemaking was never completed.
    In 1977, NIOSH recommended an exposure limit of 0.5 [micro]g/m\3\ 
and identified beryllium as a potential occupational carcinogen. In 
December 1998, ACGIH published a Notice of Intended Change for its 
beryllium exposure limit. The notice proposed a lower TLV of 0.2 
[micro]g/m\3\ over an 8-hour TWA based on evidence of CBD and 
sensitization in exposed workers.
    In 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Chronic Beryllium 
Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) Final Rule for employees exposed to 
beryllium in its facilities (DOE, 1999). The DOE rule set an action 
level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and adopted OSHA's PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ or any 
more stringent PEL OSHA might adopt in the future. The DOE action level 
triggers workplace precautions and control measures such as periodic 
monitoring, exposure reduction or minimization, regulated areas, 
hygiene facilities and practices, respiratory protection, protective 
clothing and equipment, and warning signs (DOE, 1999).
    Also in 1999, OSHA was petitioned by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, 
Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE) (OSHA, 2002) and 
by Dr. Lee Newman and Ms. Margaret Mroz, from the National Jewish 
Medical Research Center (NJMRC) (OSHA, 2002), to promulgate an 
Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for beryllium in the workplace. In 
2001, OSHA was petitioned for an ETS by Public Citizen Health Research 
Group and again by PACE (OSHA, 2002). In order to promulgate an ETS, 
the Secretary of Labor must prove (1) that employees are exposed to 
grave danger from exposure to a hazard, and (2) that such an emergency 
standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger (29 U.S.C. 
655(c)). The burden of proof is on the Department and because of the 
difficulty of meeting this burden, the Department usually proceeds when 
appropriate with 6(b) rulemaking rather than a 6(c) ETS. Thus, instead 
of granting the ETS requests, OSHA instructed staff to further collect 
and analyze research regarding the harmful effects of beryllium.
    On November 26, 2002, OSHA published a Request for Information 
(RFI) for ``Occupational Exposure to Beryllium'' (OSHA, 2002). The RFI 
contained questions on employee exposure, health effects, risk 
assessment, exposure assessment and monitoring methods, control 
measures and technological feasibility, training, medical surveillance, 
and impact on small business entities. In the RFI, OSHA expressed 
concerns about health effects such as CBD, lung cancer, and beryllium 
sensitization. OSHA pointed to studies indicating that even short-term 
exposures below OSHA's PEL of 2 [micro]g/m\3\ could lead to CBD. The 
RFI also cited studies describing the relationship between beryllium 
sensitization and CBD (67 FR at 70708). In addition, OSHA stated that 
beryllium had been identified as a carcinogen by organizations such as 
NIOSH, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and cancer had been evidenced in 
animal studies (67 FR at 70709).
    On November 15, 2007, OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel for a draft proposed standard for occupational exposure to 
beryllium. OSHA convened this panel under Section 609(b) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.).
    The Panel included representatives from OSHA, the Solicitor's 
Office of the Department of Labor, the Office of Advocacy within the 
Small Business Administration, and the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. Small Entity 
Representatives (SERs) made oral and written comments on the

[[Page 47579]]

draft rule and submitted them to the panel.
    The SBREFA Panel issued a report which included the SERs' comments 
on January 15, 2008. SERs expressed concerns about the impact of the 
ancillary requirements such as exposure monitoring and medical 
surveillance. Their comments addressed potential costs associated with 
compliance with the draft standard, and possible impacts of the 
standard on market conditions, among other issues. In addition, many 
SERs sought clarification of some of the ancillary requirements such as 
the meaning of ``routine'' contact or ``contaminated surfaces.''
    The SBREFA Panel issued a number of recommendations, which OSHA 
carefully considered. In section XVIII of this preamble, Summary and 
Explanation, OSHA has responded to the Panel's recommendations and 
clarified the requirements about which SERs expressed confusion. OSHA 
also examined the regulatory alternatives recommended by the SBREFA 
Panel. The regulatory alternatives examined by OSHA are listed in 
section I of this preamble, Issues and Alternatives. The alternatives 
are discussed in greater detail in section XVIII of this preamble, 
Summary and Explanation, and in the PEA (OSHA, 2014). In addition, the 
Agency intends to develop interpretive guidance documents following the 
publication of a final rule.
    In 2010, OSHA hired a contractor to oversee an independent 
scientific peer review of a draft preliminary beryllium health effects 
evaluation (OSHA, 2010a) and a draft preliminary beryllium risk 
assessment (OSHA, 2010b). The contractor identified experts familiar 
with beryllium health effects research and ensured that these experts 
had no conflict of interest or apparent bias in performing the review. 
The contractor selected five experts with expertise in such areas as 
pulmonary and occupational medicine, CBD, beryllium sensitization, the 
BeLPT, beryllium toxicity and carcinogenicity, and medical 
surveillance. Other areas of expertise included animal modeling, 
occupational epidemiology, biostatistics, risk and exposure assessment, 
exposure-response modeling, beryllium exposure assessment, industrial 
hygiene, and occupational/environmental health engineering.
    Regarding the health effects evaluation, the peer reviewers 
concluded that the health effect studies were described accurately and 
in sufficient detail, and OSHA's conclusions based on the studies were 
reasonable. The reviewers agreed that the OSHA document covered the 
significant health endpoints related to occupational beryllium 
exposure. Peer reviewers considered the preliminary conclusions 
regarding beryllium sensitization and CBD to be reasonable and well 
presented in the draft health evaluation section. All reviewers agreed 
that the scientific evidence supports sensitization as a necessary 
condition in the development of CBD. In response to reviewers' 
comments, OSHA made revisions to more clearly describe certain sections 
of the health effects evaluation. In addition, OSHA expanded its 
discussion regarding the BeLPT.
    Regarding the preliminary risk assessment, the peer reviewers were 
highly supportive of the Agency's approach and major conclusions. The 
peer reviewers stated that the key studies were appropriate and their 
selection clearly explained in the document. They regarded the 
preliminary analysis of these studies to be reasonable and 
scientifically sound. The reviewers supported OSHA's conclusion that 
substantial risk of sensitization and CBD were observed in facilities 
where the highest exposure generating processes had median full-shift 
exposures around 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ or higher, and that the greatest 
reduction in risk was achieved when exposures for all processes were 
lowered to 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ or below.
    In February 2012 the Agency received for consideration a draft 
recommended standard for beryllium (Materion and USW, 2012). This draft 
proposal was the product of a joint effort between two stakeholders: 
Materion Corporation, a leading producer of beryllium and beryllium 
products in the United States, and the United Steelworkers, an 
international labor union representing workers who manufacture 
beryllium alloys and beryllium-containing products in a number of 
industries. The United Steelworkers and Materion sought to craft an 
OSHA-like model beryllium standard that would have support from both 
labor and industry. OSHA has considered this proposal along with other 
information submitted during the development of the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for beryllium.

IV. Chemical Properties and Industrial Uses

Chemical and Physical Properties

    Beryllium (Be; CAS Number 7440-41-7) is a silver-grey to greyish-
white, strong, lightweight, and brittle metal. It is a Group IIA 
element with an atomic weight of 9.01, atomic number of 4, melting 
point of 1,287 [deg]C, boiling point of 2,970[deg]C, and a density of 
1.85 at 20 [deg]C (NTP 2014). It occurs naturally in rocks, soil, coal, 
and volcanic dust (ATSDR, 2002). Beryllium is insoluble in water and 
soluble in acids and alkalis. It has two common oxidation states, Be(0) 
and Be(+2). There are several beryllium compounds with unique CAS 
numbers and chemical and physical properties. Table IV-1 describes the 
most common beryllium compounds.

                                              Table IV--1, Properties of Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Synonyms and     Molecular     Melting point
         Chemical name            CAS No.       trade names        weight        ([deg]C)         Description    Density  (g/cm3)        Solubility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beryllium metal...............    7440-41-7  Beryllium;              9.0122  1287............  Grey, close-      1.85 (20 [deg]C)  Soluble in most
                                              beryllium-9,                                      packed,                             dilute acids and
                                              beryllium                                         hexagonal,                          alkali; decomposes
                                              element;                                          brittle metal.                      in hot water;
                                              beryllium                                                                             insoluble in mercury
                                              metallic.                                                                             and cold water.
Beryllium chloride............    7787-47-5  Beryllium              79.92    399.2...........  Colorless to      1.899 (25         Soluble in water,
                                              dichloride.                                       slightly          [deg]C).          ethanol, diethyl
                                                                                                yellow;                             ether and pyridine;
                                                                                                orthorhombic,                       slightly soluble in
                                                                                                deliquescent                        benzene, carbon
                                                                                                crystal.                            disulfide and
                                                                                                                                    chloroform;
                                                                                                                                    insoluble in
                                                                                                                                    acetone, ammonia,
                                                                                                                                    and toluene.

[[Page 47580]]

 
Beryllium fluoride............    7787-49-7  Beryllium              47.01    555.............  Colorless or      1.986...........  Soluble in water,
                                (12323-05-6   difluoride.                                       white,                              sulfuric acid,
                                          )                                                     amorphous,                          mixture of ethanol
                                                                                                hygroscopic                         and diethyl ether;
                                                                                                solid.                              slightly soluble in
                                                                                                                                    ethanol; insoluble
                                                                                                                                    in hydrofluoric
                                                                                                                                    acid.
Beryllium hydroxide...........   13327-32-7  Beryllium              43.3     138 (decomposes   White,            1.92............  Soluble in hot
                                (1304-49-0)   dihydroxide.                    to beryllium      amorphous,                          concentrated acids
                                                                              oxide).           amphoteric                          and alkali; slightly
                                                                                                powder.                             soluble in dilute
                                                                                                                                    alkali; insoluble in
                                                                                                                                    water.
Beryllium sulfate.............   13510-49-1  Sulfuric acid,        105.07    550-600 [deg]C    Colorless         2.443...........  Forms soluble
                                              beryllium salt                  (decomposes to    crystal.                            tetrahydrate in hot
                                              (1:1).                          beryllium                                             water; insoluble in
                                                                              oxide).                                               cold water.
Beryllium sulfate tetrhydrate.    7787-56-6  Sulfuric acid;        177.14    100 [deg]C......  Colorless,        1.713...........  Soluble in water;
                                              beryllium salt                                    tetragonal                          slightly soluble in
                                              (1:1),                                            crystal.                            concentrated
                                              tetrahydrate.                                                                         sulfuric acid;
                                                                                                                                    insoluble in
                                                                                                                                    ethanol.
Beryllium Oxide...............    1304-56-9  Beryllia;              25.01    2508-2547 [deg]C  Colorless to      3.01 (20 [deg]C)  Soluble in
                                              beryllium                                         white,                              concentrated acids
                                              monoxide                                          hexagonal                           and alkali;
                                              thermalox TM.                                     crystal or                          insoluble in water.
                                                                                                amorphous,
                                                                                                amphoteric
                                                                                                powder.
Beryllium carbonate...........    1319-43-3  Carbonic acid,        112.05    No data.........  White powder....  No data.........  Soluble in acids and
                                              beryllium salt,                                                                       alkali; insoluble in
                                              mixture with                                                                          cold water;
                                              beryllium                                                                             decomposes in hot
                                              hydroxide.                                                                            water.
Beryllium nitrate trihydrate..    7787-55-5  Nitric acid,          187.97    60..............  White to faintly  1.56............  Very soluble in water
                                              beryllium salt,                                   yellowish,                          and ethanol.
                                              trihydrate.                                       deliquescent
                                                                                                mass.
Beryllium phosphate...........   13598-15-7  Phosphoric acid,      104.99    No data.........  Not reported....  Not reported....  Slightly soluble in
                                              beryllium salt                                                                        water.
                                              (1:1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSDR, 2002.

    The physical and chemical properties of beryllium were realized 
early in the 20th century, and it has since gained commercial 
importance in a wide range of industries. Beryllium is lightweight, 
hard, spark resistant, non-magnetic, and has a high melting point. It 
lends strength, electrical and thermal conductivity, and fatigue 
resistance to alloys (NTP, 2014). Beryllium also has a high affinity 
for oxygen in air and water, which can cause a thin surface film of 
beryllium oxide to form on the bare metal, making it extremely 
resistant to corrosion. These properties make beryllium alloys highly 
suitable for defense, nuclear, and aerospace applications (IARC, 1993).
    There are approximately 45 mineralized forms of beryllium. In the 
United States, the predominant mineral form mined commercially and 
refined into pure beryllium and beryllium alloys is bertrandite. 
Bertrandite, while containing less than 1% beryllium compared to 4% in 
beryl, is easily and efficiently processed into beryllium hydroxide 
(IARC, 1993). Imported beryl is also converted into beryllium hydroxide 
as the United States has very little beryl that can be economically 
mined (USGS, 2013a).

Industrial Uses

    Materion Corporation, formerly called Brush Wellman, is the only 
producer of primary beryllium in the United States. Beryllium is used 
in a variety of industries, including aerospace, defense, 
telecommunications, automotive, electronic, and medical specialty 
industries. Pure beryllium metal is used in a range of products such as 
X-ray transmission windows, nuclear reactor neutron reflectors, nuclear 
weapons, precision instruments, rocket propellants, mirrors, and 
computers (NTP, 2014). Beryllium oxide is used in components such as 
ceramics, electrical insulators, microwave oven components, military 
vehicle armor, laser structural components, and automotive ignition 
systems (ATSDR, 2002). Beryllium oxide ceramics are used to produce 
sensitive electronic items such as lasers and satellite heat sinks.
    Beryllium alloys, typically beryllium/copper or beryllium/aluminum, 
are manufactured as high beryllium content or low beryllium content 
alloys. High content alloys contain greater than 30% beryllium. Low 
content alloys are typically less than 3% beryllium. Beryllium alloys 
are used in automotive electronics (e.g., electrical connectors and 
relays and audio components), computer components, home appliance 
parts, dental appliances (e.g., crowns), bicycle frames, golf clubs, 
and other articles (NTP, 2014; Ballance et al., 1978; Cunningham et 
al., 1998; Mroz, et al., 2001). Electrical components and conductors 
are stamped and formed from beryllium alloys. Beryllium-copper

[[Page 47581]]

alloys are used to make switches in automobiles (Ballance et al., 1978, 
2002; Cunningham et al., 1998) and connectors, relays, and switches in 
computers, radar, satellite, and telecommunications equipment (Mroz et 
al., 2001). Beryllium-aluminum alloys are used in the construction of 
aircraft, high resolution medical and industrial X-ray equipment, and 
mirrors to measure weather patterns (Mroz et al., 2001). High content 
and low content beryllium alloys are precision machined for military 
and aerospace applications. Some welding consumables are also 
manufactured using beryllium.
    Beryllium is also found as a trace metal in materials such as 
aluminum ore, abrasive blasting grit, and coal fly ash. Abrasive 
blasting grits such as coal slag and copper slag contain varying 
concentrations of beryllium, usually less than 0.1% by weight. The 
burning of bituminous and sub-bituminous coal for power generation 
causes the naturally occurring beryllium in coal to accumulate in the 
coal fly ash byproduct. Scrap and waste metal for smelting and refining 
may also contain beryllium. A detailed discussion of the industries and 
job tasks using beryllium is included in the Preliminary Economic 
Analysis (OSHA, 2014).
    Occupational exposure to beryllium can occur from inhalation of 
dusts, fume, and mist. Beryllium dusts are created during operations 
where beryllium is cut, machined, crushed, ground, or otherwise 
mechanically sheared. Mists can also form during operations that use 
machining fluids. Beryllium fume can form while welding with or on 
beryllium components, and from hot processes such as those found in 
metal foundries.
    Occupational exposure to beryllium can also occur from skin, eye, 
and mucous membrane contact with beryllium particulate or solutions.

V. Health Effects

    Beryllium-associated health effects, including acute beryllium 
disease (ABD), beryllium sensitization (also referred to in this 
preamble as ``sensitization''), chronic beryllium disease (CBD), and 
lung cancer, can lead to a number of highly debilitating and life-
altering conditions including pneumonitis, loss of lung capacity 
(reduction in pulmonary function leading to pulmonary dysfunction), 
loss of physical capacity associated with reduced lung capacity, 
systemic effects related to pulmonary dysfunction, and decreased life 
expectancy (NIOSH, 1972).
    This Health Effects section presents information on beryllium and 
its compounds, the fate of beryllium in the body, research that relates 
to its toxic mechanisms of action, and the scientific literature on the 
adverse health effects associated with beryllium exposure, including 
ABD, sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer. OSHA considers CBD to be a 
progressive illness with a continuous spectrum of symptoms ranging from 
no symptomatology at its earliest stage following sensitization to mild 
symptoms such as a slight almost imperceptible shortness of breath, to 
loss of pulmonary function, debilitating lung disease, and, in many 
cases, death. This section also discusses the nature of these 
illnesses, the scientific evidence that they are causally associated 
with occupational exposure to beryllium, and the probable mechanisms of 
action with a more thorough review of the supporting studies.

A. Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds

1. Particle Physical/Chemical Properties
    Beryllium (Be; CAS No. 7440-41-7) is a steel-grey, brittle metal 
with an atomic number of 4 and an atomic weight of 9.01 (Group IIA of 
the periodic table). Because of its high reactivity, beryllium is not 
found as a free metal in nature; however, there are approximately 45 
mineralized forms of beryllium. Beryllium compounds and alloys include 
commercially valuable metals and gemstones.
    Beryllium has two oxidative states: Be(0) and Be(2\+\) Agency for 
Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2002). It is likely that 
the Be(2\+\) state is the most biologically reactive and able to form a 
bond with peptides leading to it becoming antigenic (Snyder et al., 
2003). This will be discussed in more detail in the Beryllium 
Sensitization section below. Beryllium has a high charge-to-radius 
ratio and in addition to forming various types of ionic bonds, 
beryllium has a strong tendency for covalent bond formation (e.g., it 
can form organometallic compounds such as 
Be(CH3)2 and many other complexes) (ATSDR, 2002; 
Greene et al., 1998). However, it appears that few, if any, toxicity 
studies exist for the organometallic compounds. Additional physical/
chemical properties for beryllium compounds that may be important in 
their biological response are summarized in Table 1 below. This 
information was obtained from their International Chemical Safety Cards 
(ICSC) (beryllium metal (ICSC 0226), beryllium oxide (ICSC 1325), 
beryllium sulfate (ICSC 1351), beryllium nitrate (ICSC 1352), beryllium 
carbonate (ICSC 1353), beryllium chloride (ICSC 1354), beryllium 
fluoride (ICSC 1355)) and from the hazardous substance data bank (HSDB) 
for beryllium hydroxide (CASRN: 13327-32-7), and beryllium phosphate 
(CASRN: 13598-15-7). Additional information on chemical and physical 
properties as well as industrial uses for beryllium can be found in 
this preamble at Section IV, Chemical Properties and Industrial Uses.

                                            Table 1--Physical/Chemical Properties of Beryllium and Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Solubility in water at
           Compound name              Physical  appearance      Chemical formula     Molecular mass     Acute physical hazards           20 [deg]C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beryllium Metal....................  Grey to White Powder..  Be....................             9.0  Combustible; Finely          None.
                                                                                                      dispersed particles--
                                                                                                      Explosive.
Beryllium Oxide....................  White Crystals or       BeO...................            25.0  Not combustible or           Very sparingly
                                      Powder.                                                         explosive.                   soluble.
Beryllium Carbonate................  White Powder..........  Be2CO3(OH)/Be2CO5H2...          181.07  Not combustible or           None.
                                                                                                      explosive.
Beryllium Sulfate..................  Colorless Crystals....  BeSO4.................           105.1  Not combustible or           Slightly soluble.
                                                                                                      explosive.
Beryllium Nitrate..................  White to Yellow Solid.  BeN2O6/Be(NO3)2.......           133.0  Enhances combustion of       Very soluble (1.66 x
                                                                                                      other substances.            10\6\ mg/L).
Beryllium Hydroxide................  White amorphous powder  Be(OH)2...............            43.0  Not reported...............  Slightly soluble 0.8 x
                                      or crystalline solid.                                                                        10-4 mol/L
                                                                                                                                  (3.44 mg/L).
Beryllium Chloride.................  Colorless to Yellow     BeCl2.................            79.9  Not combustible or           Soluble.
                                      Crystals.                                                       explosive.
Beryllium Fluoride.................  Colorless Lumps.......  BeF2..................            47.0  Not combustible or           Very soluble.
                                                                                                      explosive.

[[Page 47582]]

 
Beryllium Phosphate................  White solid...........  Be3(PO4)2.............           271.0  Not reported...............  Soluble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: International Chemical Safety Cards (except beryllium phosphate and hydroxide--HSDB).

    Beryllium shows a high affinity for oxygen in air and water, 
resulting in a thin surface film of beryllium oxide on the bare metal. 
If the surface film is disturbed, it may become airborne or dermal 
exposure may occur. The solubility, particle surface area, and particle 
size of some beryllium compounds are examined in more detail below. 
These properties have been evaluated in many toxicological studies. In 
particular, the properties related to the calcination (firing 
temperatures) and differences in crystal size and solubility are 
important aspects in their toxicological profile.
2. Factors Affecting Potency and Effect of Beryllium Exposure
    The effect and potency of beryllium and its compounds, as for any 
toxicant, immunogen, or immunotoxicant, may be dependent upon the 
physical state in which they are presented to a host. For occupational 
airborne materials and surface contaminants, it is especially critical 
to understand those physical parameters in order to determine the 
extent of exposure to the respiratory tract and skin since these are 
generally the initial target organs for either route of exposure.
    For example, large particles may have less of an effect in the lung 
than smaller particles due to reduced potential to stay airborne to be 
inhaled or be deposited along the respiratory tract. In addition, once 
inhalation occurs particle size is critical in determining where the 
particle will deposit along the respiratory tract. Solubility also has 
an important part in determining the toxicity and bioavailability of 
airborne materials as well. Respiratory tract retention and skin 
penetration are directly influenced by the solubility and reactivity of 
airborne material.
    These factors may be responsible, at least in part, for the process 
by which beryllium sensitization progresses to CBD in exposed workers. 
Other factors influencing beryllium-induced toxicity include the 
surface area of beryllium particles and their persistence in the lung. 
With respect to dermal exposure, the physical characteristics of the 
particle are important as well since they can influence skin absorption 
and bioavailability. This section addresses certain physical 
characteristics (i.e., solubility, particle size, particle surface 
area) that are important in influencing the toxicity of beryllium 
materials in occupational settings.
a. Solubility
    Solubility may be an important determinant of the toxicity of 
airborne materials, influencing the deposition and persistence of 
inhaled particles in the respiratory tract, their bioavailability, and 
the likelihood of presentation to the immune system. A number of 
chemical agents, including metals that contact and penetrate the skin, 
are able to induce an immune response, such as sensitization (Boeniger, 
2003; Mandervelt et al., 1997). Similar to inhaled agents, the ability 
of materials to penetrate the skin is also influenced by solubility 
since dermal absorption may occur at a greater rate for soluble 
materials than insoluble materials (Kimber et al., 2011).
    This section reviews the relevant information regarding solubility, 
its importance in a biological matrix and its relevance to 
sensitization and beryllium lung disease. The weight of evidence 
presented below suggests that both soluble and non-soluble forms of 
beryllium can induce a sensitization response and result in progression 
of lung disease.
    Beryllium salts, including the chloride (BeCl2), 
fluoride (BeF2), nitrate (Be(NO3)2), 
phosphate (Be3(PO4)2), and sulfate 
(tetrahydrate) (BeSO4 [middot] 4H2O) salts, are 
all water soluble. However, soluble beryllium salts can be converted to 
less soluble forms in the lung (Reeves and Vorwald, 1967). Aqueous 
solutions of the soluble beryllium salts are acidic as a result of the 
formation of Be(OH2)4 2\+\, the tetrahydrate, 
which will react to form insoluble hydroxides or hydrated complexes 
within the general physiological range of pH values (between 5 and 8) 
(EPA, 1998). This may be an important factor in the development of CBD 
since lower-solubility forms of beryllium have been shown to persist in 
the lung for longer periods of time and persistence in the lung may be 
needed in order for this disease to occur (NAS, 2008).
    Beryllium oxide (BeO), hydroxide (Be(OH)2), carbonate 
(Be2CO3(OH)2), and sulfate (anhydrous) 
(BeSO4) are either insoluble, slightly soluble, or 
considered to be sparingly soluble (almost insoluble or having an 
extremely slow rate of dissolution). The solubility of beryllium oxide, 
which is prepared from beryllium hydroxide by calcining (heating to a 
high temperature without fusing in order to drive off volatile 
chemicals) at temperatures between 500 and 1,750 [deg]C, has an inverse 
relationship with calcination temperature. Although the solubility of 
the low-fired crystals can be as much as 10 times that of the high-
fired crystals, low-fired beryllium oxide is still only sparingly 
soluble (Delic, 1992). In a study that measured the dissolution 
kinetics (rate to dissolve) of beryllium compounds calcined at 
different temperatures, Hoover et al., compared beryllium metal to 
beryllium oxide particles and found them to have similar solubilities. 
This was attributed to a fine layer of beryllium oxide that coats the 
metal particles (Hoover et al., 1989). A study conducted by Deubner et 
al., (2011) determined ore materials to be more soluble than beryllium 
oxide at pH 7.2 but similar in solubility at pH 4.5. Beryllium 
hydroxide was more soluble than beryllium oxide at both pHs (Deubner et 
al., 2011).
    Investigators have also attempted to determine how biological 
fluids can dissolve beryllium materials. In two studies, insoluble 
beryllium, taken up by activated phagocytes, was shown to be ionized by 
myeloperoxidases (Leonard and Lauwerys, 1987; Lansdown, 1995). The 
positive charge resulting from ionization enabled the beryllium to bind 
to receptors on the surface of cells such as lymphocytes or antigen-
presenting cells which could make it more biologically active (NAS, 
2008). In a study utilizing phagolysosomal-simulating fluid (PSF) with 
a pH of 4.5, both beryllium metal and beryllium oxide dissolved at a 
greater rate than that previously reported in water or SUF (simulant 
fluid) (Stefaniak et al., 2006), and the rate of dissolution of the 
multi-constituent (mixed) particles was greater than that of the 
single-constituent beryllium oxide powder. The authors speculated that 
copper in the particles rapidly dissolves, exposing the small 
inclusions of beryllium oxide, which have higher specific surface areas 
(SSA)

[[Page 47583]]

and therefore dissolve at a higher rate. A follow-up study by the same 
investigational team (Duling et al., 2012) confirmed dissolution of 
beryllium oxide by PSF and determined the release rate was biphasic 
(initial rapid diffusion followed by a latter slower surface reaction-
driven release). During the latter phase, dissolution half-times were 
1,400 to 2,000 days. The authors speculated this indicated bertrandite 
was persistent in the lung (Duling et al., 2012).
    In a recent study investigating the dissolution and release of 
beryllium ions for 17 beryllium-containing materials (ore, hydroxide, 
metal, oxide, alloys, and processing intermediates) using artificial 
human airway epithelial lining fluid, Stefaniak et al., (2011) found 
release of beryllium ions within 7 days (beryl ore melter dust). The 
authors calculated dissolution half-times ranging from 30 days 
(reduction furnace material) to 74,000 days (hydroxide). Stefaniak et 
al., (2011) speculated that despite the rapid mechanical clearance, 
billions of beryllium ions could be released in the respiratory tract 
via dissolution in airway lining fluid (ALF). Under this scenario 
beryllium-containing particles depositing in the respiratory tract 
dissolving in ALF could provide beryllium ions for absorption in the 
lung and interact with immune cells in the respiratory tract (Stefaniak 
et al., 2011).
    Huang et al., (2011) investigated the effect of simulated lung 
fluid (SLF) on dissolution and nanoparticle generation and beryllium-
containing materials. Bertrandite-containing ore, beryl-containing ore, 
frit (a processing intermediate), beryllium hydroxide (a processing 
intermediate) and silica (used as a control), were equilibrated in SLF 
at two pH values (4.5 and 7.2) to reflect inter- and intra-cellular 
environments in the lung tissue. Concentrations of beryllium, aluminum, 
and silica ions increased linearly during the first 20 days in SLF, 
rose slowly thereafter, reaching equilibrium over time. The study also 
found nanoparticle formation (in the size range of 10-100 nm) for all 
materials (Huang et al., 2011).
    In an in vitro skin model, Sutton et al., (2003) demonstrated the 
dissolution of beryllium compounds (insoluble beryllium hydroxide, 
soluble beryllium phosphate) in a simulated sweat fluid. This model 
showed beryllium can be dissolved in biological fluids and be available 
for cellular uptake in the skin. Duling et al., (2012) confirmed 
dissolution and release of ions from bertrandite ore in an artificial 
sweat model (pH 5.3 and pH 6.5).
b. Particle Size
    The toxicity of beryllium as exemplified by beryllium oxide also is 
dependent, in part, on the particle size, with smaller particles (<10 
[mu]m) able to penetrate beyond the larynx (Stefaniak et al., 2008). 
Most inhalation studies and occupational exposures involve quite small 
(<1-2 [mu]m) beryllium oxide particles that can penetrate to the 
pulmonary regions of the lung (Stefaniak et al., 2008). In inhalation 
studies with beryllium ores, particle sizes are generally much larger, 
with deposition occurring in several areas throughout the respiratory 
tract for particles <10 [mu]m.
    The temperature at which beryllium oxide is calcined influences its 
particle size, surface area, solubility, and ultimately its toxicity 
(Delic, 1992). Low-fired (500 [deg]C) beryllium oxide is predominantly 
made up of poorly crystallized small particles, while higher firing 
temperatures (1000--1750 [deg]C) result in larger particle sizes 
(Delic, 1992).
    In order to determine the extent to which particle size plays a 
role in the toxicity of beryllium in occupational settings, several key 
studies are reviewed and detailed below. The findings on particle size 
have been related, where possible, to work process and biologically 
relevant toxicity endpoints of either sensitization or CBD.
    Numerous studies have been conducted evaluating the particle size 
generated during basic industrial and machining operations. In a study 
by Cohen et al., (1983), a multi-cyclone sampler was utilized to 
measure the size mass distribution of the beryllium aerosol at a 
beryllium-copper alloy casting operation. Briefly, Cohen et al., (1983) 
found variable particle size generation based on the operations being 
sampled with particle size ranging from 3 to 16 [mu]m. Hoover et al., 
(1990) also found variable particle sizes being generated based on 
operations. In general, Hoover et al., (1990) found that milling 
operations generated smaller particle sizes than sawing operations. 
Hoover et al., (1990) also found that beryllium metal generated higher 
concentrations than metal alloys. Martyny et al., (2000) characterized 
generation of particle size during precision beryllium machining 
processes. The study found that more than 50 percent of the beryllium 
machining particles collected in the breathing zone of machinists were 
less than 10 [mu]m in aerodynamic diameter with 30 percent of that 
fraction being particles of less than 0.6 [mu]m. A study by Thorat et 
al., (2003) found similar results with ore mixing, crushing, powder 
production and machining ranging from 5.0 to 9.5 [mu]m. Kent et al., 
(2001) measured airborne beryllium using size-selective samplers in 
five furnace areas at a beryllium processing facility. A statistically 
significant linear trend was reported between the above alveolar-
deposited particle mass concentration and prevalence of CBD and 
sensitization in the furnace production areas. The study authors 
suggested that the concentration of alveolar-deposited particles (e.g., 
<3.5 [mu]m) may be a better predictor of sensitization and CBD than the 
total mass concentration of airborne beryllium.
    A recent study by Virji et al. (2011) evaluated particle size 
distribution, chemistry and solubility in areas with historically 
elevated risk of sensitization and CBD at a beryllium metal powder, 
beryllium oxide, and alloy production facility. The investigators 
observed that historically, exposure-response relationships have been 
inconsistent when using mass concentration to identify process-related 
risk, possibly due to incomplete particle characterization. Two 
separate exposure surveys were conducted in March 1999 and June-August 
1999 using multi-stage personal impactor samplers (to determine 
particle size distribution) and personal 37 mm closed face cassette 
(CFC) samplers, both located in workers' breathing zones. One hundred 
and ninety eight time-weighted-average (TWA) personal impactor samples 
were analyzed for representative jobs and processes. A total of 4,026 
CFC samples were collected over the 5-month collection period and 
analyzed for mass concentration, particle size, chemical content and 
solubility and compared to process areas with high risk of 
sensitization and CBD. The investigators found that total beryllium 
concentration varied greatly between workers and among process areas. 
Analysis of chemical form and solubility also revealed wide variability 
among process areas, but high risk process areas had exposures to both 
soluble and insoluble forms of beryllium. Analysis of particle size 
revealed most process areas had particles ranging from 5-14 [micro]m 
mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD). Rank order correlating jobs to 
particle size showed high overall consistency (Spearman r=0.84) but 
moderate correlation (Pearson r=0.43). The investigators concluded that 
consideration of relevant aspects of exposure such as particle size

[[Page 47584]]

distribution, chemical form, and solubility will likely improve 
exposure assessments (Virji et al., 2011)
c. Particle Surface Area.
    Particle surface area has been postulated as an important metric 
for beryllium exposure. Several studies have demonstrated a 
relationship between the inflammatory and tumorigenic potential of 
ultrafine particles and their increased surface area (Driscoll, 1996; 
Miller, 1995; Oberdorster et al., 1996). While the exact mechanism 
explaining how particle surface area influences its biological activity 
is not known, a greater particle surface area has been shown to 
increase inflammation, cytokine production, anti-oxidant defenses and 
apoptosis (Elder et al., 2005; Carter et al., 2006; Refsne et al., 
2006).
    Finch et al., (1988) found that beryllium oxide calcined at 500 
[deg]C had 3.3 times greater specific surface area (SSA) than beryllium 
oxide calcined at 1000 [deg]C, although there was no difference in size 
or structure of the particles as a function of calcining temperature. 
The beryllium-metal aerosol (airborne beryllium particles), although 
similar to the beryllium oxide aerosols in aerodynamic size, had an SSA 
about 30 percent that of the beryllium oxide calcined at 1000 [deg]C. 
As discussed above, a later study by Delic (1992) found calcining 
temperatures had an effect on SSA as well as particle size.
    Several studies have investigated the lung toxicity of beryllium 
oxide calcined at different temperatures and generally had found that 
those calcined at lower temperatures have greater toxicity and effect 
than materials calcined at higher temperatures. This may be because 
beryllium oxide fired at the lower temperature has a loosely formed 
crystalline structure with greater specific surface area than the fused 
crystal structure of beryllium oxide fired at the higher temperature. 
For example, beryllium oxide calcined at 500 [deg]C has been found to 
have stronger pathogenic effects than material calcined at 1,000 
[deg]C, as shown in several of the beagle dog, rat, mouse and guinea 
pig studies discussed in the section on CBD pathogenesis that follows 
(Finch et al., 1988; Polak et al., 1968; Haley et al., 1989; Haley et 
al., 1992; Hall et al., 1950). Finch et al. have also observed higher 
toxicity of beryllium oxide calcined at 500 [deg]C, an observation they 
attribute to the greater surface area of beryllium particles calcined 
at the lower temperature (Finch et al., 1988). These authors found that 
the in vitro cytotoxicity to Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells and 
cultured lung epithelial cells of 500 [deg]C beryllium oxide was 
greater than that of 1,000 [deg]C beryllium oxide, which in turn was 
greater than that of beryllium metal. However, when toxicity was 
expressed in terms of particle surface area, the cytotoxicity of all 
three forms was similar. Similar results were observed in a study 
comparing the cytotoxicity of beryllium metal particles of various 
sizes to cultured rat alveolar macrophages, although specific surface 
area did not entirely predict cytotoxicity (Finch et al., 1991).
    Stefaniak et al., (2003b) investigated the particle structure and 
surface area of particles (powder and process-sampled) of beryllium 
metal, beryllium oxide, and copper-beryllium alloy. Each of these 
samples was separated by aerodynamic size, and their chemical 
compositions and structures were determined with x-ray diffraction and 
transmission electron microscopy, respectively. In summary, beryllium-
metal powder varied remarkably from beryllium oxide powder and alloy 
particles. The metal powder consisted of compact particles, in which 
SSA decreases with increasing surface diameter. In contrast, the alloys 
and oxides consisted of small primary particles in clusters, in which 
the SSA remains fairly constant with particle size. SSA for the metal 
powders varied based on production and manufacturing process with 
variations among samples as high as a factor of 37. Stefaniak et al. 
(2003b) found lesser variation in SSA for the alloys or oxides. This is 
consistent with data from other studies summarized above showing that 
process may affect particle size and surface area. Particle size and/or 
surface area may explain differences in the rate of BeS and CBD 
observed in some epidemiological studies. However, these properties 
have not been consistently characterized in most studies.

B. Kinetics and Metabolism of Beryllium

    Beryllium enters the body by inhalation, ingestion, or absorption 
through the skin. For occupational exposure, the airways and the skin 
are the primary routes of uptake.
 1. Exposure via the Respiratory System
    The respiratory tract, especially the lung, is the primary target 
of inhalation exposure in workers. Inhaled beryllium particles are 
deposited along the respiratory tract in a size dependent manner. In 
general, particles larger than 10 [mu]m tend to deposit in the upper 
respiratory tract or nasal region and do not appreciably penetrate 
lower in the tracheobronchial or pulmonary regions (Figure 1). 
Particles less than 10 [mu]m increasingly penetrate and deposit in the 
tracheobronchial and pulmonary regions with peak deposition in the 
pulmonary region occurring below 5 [mu]m in particle diameter. The CBD 
pathology of concern is found in the pulmonary region. For particles 
below 1 [mu]m, regional deposition changes dramatically. Ultrafine 
particles (generally considered to be 100 nm or lower) have a higher 
rate of deposition along the entire respiratory system (ICRP model, 
1994). Those particles depositing in the lung and along the entire 
respiratory tract may encounter immunologic cells or may move into the 
vascular system where they are free to leave the lung and can 
contribute to systemic beryllium concentrations.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

[[Page 47585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.000

    Beryllium is removed from the respiratory tract by various 
clearance mechanisms. Soluble beryllium is removed from the respiratory 
tract via absorption. Sparingly soluble or insoluble beryllium may 
remain in the lungs for many years after exposure, as has been observed 
in workers (Schepers, 1962). Clearance mechanisms for sparingly soluble 
or insoluble beryllium particles include: In the nasal passage, 
sneezing, mucociliary transport to the throat, or dissolution; in the 
tracheobronchial region, mucociliary transport, coughing, phagocytosis, 
or dissolution; in the pulmonary or alveolar region, phagocytosis, 
movement through the interstitium (translocation), or dissolution 
(Schlesinger, 1997).
    Clearance mechanisms may occur slowly in humans, which is 
consistent with some animal studies. For example, subjects in the 
Beryllium Case Registry (BCR), which identifies and tracks cases of 
acute and chronic beryllium diseases, had elevated concentrations of 
beryllium in lung tissue (e.g., 3.1 [mu]g/g of dried lung tissue and 
8.5 [mu]g/g in a mediastinal node) more than 20 years after termination 
of short-term (generally between 2 and 5 years) occupational exposure 
to beryllium (Sprince et al., 1976).
    Clearance rates may depend on the solubility, dose, and size of the 
beryllium particles inhaled as well as the sex and species of the 
animal tested. As reviewed in a WHO Report (2001), more soluble 
beryllium compounds generally tend to be cleared from the respiratory 
system and absorbed into the bloodstream more rapidly than less soluble 
compounds (Van Cleave and Kaylor, 1955; Hart et al., 1980; Finch et 
al., 1990). Animal inhalation or intratracheal instillation studies 
administering soluble beryllium salts demonstrated significant 
absorption of approximately 20 percent of the initial lung burden, 
while sparingly soluble compounds such as beryllium oxide demonstrated 
that absorption was slower and less significant (Delic, 1992). 
Additional animal studies have demonstrated that clearance of soluble 
and sparingly soluble beryllium compounds was biphasic: A more rapid 
initial mucociliary transport phase of particles from the 
tracheobronchial tree to the gastrointestinal tract, followed by a 
slower phase via translocation to tracheobronchial lymph nodes, 
alveolar macrophages uptake, and beryllium particles dissolution 
(Camner et al., 1977; Sanders et al., 1978; Delic, 1992; WHO, 2001). 
Confirmatory studies in rats have shown the half-time for the rapid 
phase between 1-60 days, while the slow phase ranged from 0.6-2.3 
years. It was also shown that this process was influenced by the 
solubility of the beryllium compounds: Weeks/months for soluble 
compounds, months/years for sparingly soluble compounds (Reeves and 
Vorwald, 1967; Reeves et al., 1967; Zorn et al., 1977; Rhoads and 
Sanders, 1985). Studies in guinea-pigs and rats indicate that 40-50 
percent of the inhaled soluble beryllium salts are retained in the 
respiratory tract. Similar data could not be found for the sparingly or 
less soluble beryllium compounds or metal administered by this exposure 
route. (WHO, 2001; ATSDR, 2002).
    Evidence from animal studies suggests that greater amounts of 
beryllium deposited in the lung may result in slower clearance times. A 
comparative study of rats and mice using a single dose of inhaled 
aerosolized beryllium metal demonstrated that an acute inhalation 
exposure to beryllium metal can slow particle clearance and induce lung 
damage in rats (Haley et al., 1990) and mice (Finch et al., 1998a). In 
another study Finch et al. (1994) exposed male F344/N rats to beryllium 
metal at concentrations resulting in beryllium lung burdens of 1.8, 10, 
and 100 [micro]g. These exposure levels resulted in an estimated 
clearance half-life ranging

[[Page 47586]]

from 250-380 days for the three concentrations. For mice (Finch et al., 
1998a), lung clearance half-lives were 91-150 days (for 1.7- and 2.6-
[mu]g lung burden groups) or 360-400 days (for 12- and 34-[mu]g lung 
burden groups). While the lower exposure groups were quite different 
for rats and mice, the highest groups were similar in clearance half-
lives for both species.
    Beryllium absorbed from the respiratory system is mainly 
distributed to the tracheobronchial lymph nodes via the lymph system, 
bloodstream, and skeleton, which is the ultimate site of beryllium 
storage (Stokinger et al., 1953; Clary et al., 1975; Sanders et al., 
1975; Finch et al., 1990). Trace amounts are distributed throughout the 
body (Zorn et al., 1977; WHO, 2001). Studies in rats have demonstrated 
accumulation of beryllium chloride in the skeletal system following 
intraperitoneal injection (Crowley et al., 1949; Scott et al., 1950) 
and accumulation of beryllium phosphate and beryllium sulfate in both 
nonparenchymal and parenchymal cells of the liver after intravenous 
administration in rats (Skilleter and Price, 1978). Studies have also 
demonstrated intracellular accumulation of beryllium oxide in bone 
marrow throughout the skeletal system after intravenous administration 
to rabbits (Fodor, 1977; WHO, 2001).
    Systemic distribution of the more soluble compounds appears to be 
greater than that of the insoluble compounds (Stokinger et al., 1953). 
Distribution has also been shown to be dose dependent in research using 
intravenous administration of beryllium in rats; small doses were 
preferentially taken up in the skeleton, while higher doses were 
initially distributed preferentially to the liver. Beryllium was later 
mobilized from the liver and transferred to the skeleton (IARC, 1993). 
A half-life of 450 days has been estimated for beryllium in the human 
skeleton (ICRP, 1960). This indicates the skeleton may serve as a 
repository for beryllium that may later be reabsorbed by the 
circulatory system, making beryllium available to the immunological 
system.
2. Dermal Exposure
    Beryllium compounds have been shown to cause skin irritation and 
sensitization in humans and certain animal models (Van Orstrand et al., 
1945; de Nardi et al., 1953; Nishimura 1966; Epstein 1990; Belman, 
1969; Tinkle et al., 2003; Delic, 1992). The Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) estimated that less than 0.1 
percent of beryllium compounds are absorbed through the skin (ATSDR, 
2002). However, even minute contact and absorption across the skin may 
directly elicit an immunological sensitization response (Deubner et 
al., 2001; Toledo et al., 2011). Recent studies by Tinkle et al. (2003) 
showed that penetration of beryllium oxide particles was possible ex 
vivo for human intact skin at particle sizes of <= 1[mu]m, as confirmed 
by scanning electron microscopy. Using confocal microscopy, Tinkle et 
al. demonstrated that surrogate fluorescent particles up to 1 [mu]m in 
size could penetrate the mouse epidermis and dermis layers in a model 
designed to mimic the flexing and stretching of human skin in motion. 
Other poorly soluble particles, such as titanium dioxide, have been 
shown to penetrate normal human skin (Tan et al., 1996) suggesting the 
flexing and stretching motion as a plausible mechanism for dermal 
penetration of beryllium as well. As earlier summarized, insoluble 
forms of beryllium can be solubilized in biological fluids (e.g., 
sweat) making them available for absorption through intact skin (Sutton 
et al., 2003; Stefaniak et al., 2011; Duling et al., 2012).
    Although its precise role remains to be elucidated, there is 
evidence to indicate that dermal exposure can contribute to beryllium 
sensitization. As early as the 1940s it was recognized that dermatitis 
experienced by workers in primary beryllium production facilities was 
linked to exposures to the soluble beryllium salts. Except in cases of 
wound contamination, dermatitis was rare in workers whose exposures 
were restricted to exposure to poorly soluble beryllium-containing 
particles (Van Ordstrand et al., 1945). Further investigation by McCord 
in 1951 indicated that direct skin contact with soluble beryllium 
compounds, but not beryllium hydroxide or beryllium metal, caused 
dermal lesions (reddened, elevated, or fluid-filled lesions on exposed 
body surfaces) in susceptible persons. Curtis, in 1951, demonstrated 
skin sensitization to beryllium with patch testing using soluble and 
insoluble forms of beryllium in beryllium-na[iuml]ve subjects. These 
subjects later developed granulomatous skin lesions with the classical 
delayed-type contact dermatitis following repeat challenge (Curtis, 
1951). These lesions appeared after a latent period of 1-2 weeks, 
suggesting a delayed allergic reaction. The dermal reaction occurred 
more rapidly and in response to smaller amounts of beryllium in those 
individuals previously sensitized (Van Ordstrand et al., 1945). 
Contamination of cuts and scrapes with beryllium can result in the 
beryllium becoming embedded within the skin causing a granuloma to 
develop in the skin (Epstein, 1991). Introduction of soluble or 
insoluble beryllium compounds into or under the skin as a result of 
abrasions or cuts at work has been shown to result in chronic 
ulcerations with granuloma formation (Van Orstrand et al., 1945; 
Lederer and Savage, 1954). Beryllium absorption through bruises and 
cuts has been demonstrated as well (Rossman et al., 1991). In a study 
by Invannikov et al., (1982), beryllium chloride was applied directly 
to the skin of live animals with three types of wounds: abrasions 
(superficial skin trauma), cuts (skin and superficial muscle trauma), 
and penetration wounds (deep muscle trauma). The percentage of the 
applied dose absorbed into the systemic circulation during a 24-hour 
exposure was significant, ranging from 7.8 percent to 11.4 percent for 
abrasions, from 18.3 percent to 22.9 percent for cuts, and from 34 
percent to 38.8 percent for penetration wounds (WHO, 2001).
    A study by Deubner et al., (2001) concluded that exposure across 
damaged skin can contribute as much systemic loading of beryllium as 
inhalation (Deubner et al., 2001). Deubner et al., (2001) estimated 
dermal loading (amount of particles penetrating into the skin) in 
workers as compared to inhalation exposure. Deubner's calculations 
assumed a dermal loading rate for beryllium on skin of 0.43 [mu]g/
cm\2\, based on the studies of loading on skin after workers cleaned up 
(Sanderson et al., 1999), multiplied by a factor of 10 to approximate 
the workplace concentrations and the very low absorption rate of 0.001 
percent (taken from EPA estimates). It should be noted that these 
calculations did not take into account absorption of soluble beryllium 
salts that might occur across nasal mucus membranes, which may result 
from contact between contaminated skin and the nose (EPA, 1998).
    A study conducted by Day et al. (2007) evaluated the effectiveness 
of a dermal protection program implemented in a beryllium alloy 
facility in 2002. The investigators evaluated levels of beryllium in 
air, on workplace surfaces, on cotton gloves worn over nitrile gloves, 
and on the necks and faces of workers over a six day period. The 
investigators found a good correlation between air samples and work 
surface contamination at this facility. The investigators also found 
measurable levels of beryllium on the skin of workers as a result of 
work processes even from workplace areas

[[Page 47587]]

promoted as ``visually clean'' by the company housekeeping policy. 
Importantly, the investigators found that the beryllium contamination 
could be transferred from body region to body region (e.g., hand to 
face, neck to face). The investigators demonstrated multiple pathways 
of exposure which could lead to sensitization, increasing risk for 
developing CBD (Day, et al., 2007).
    The same group of investigators (Armstrong et al., 2014) extended 
their work on investigating multiple exposure pathways contributing to 
sensitization and CBD. The investigators evaluated four different 
beryllium manufacturing and processing facilities to assess the 
contribution of various exposure pathways on worker exposure. Airborne, 
work surface and cotton glove beryllium concentrations were evaluated. 
The investigators found strong correlations between air-surface 
concentrations, glove-surface concentrations, and air-glove 
concentrations at this facility. This work confirms findings from Day 
et al. (2007) demonstrating the importance of airborne beryllium 
concentrations to surface contamination and dermal exposure even at 
exposures below the current OSHA PEL (Armstrong et al., 2014).
3. Oral and Gastrointestinal Exposure
    According to the WHO Report (2001), gastrointestinal absorption of 
beryllium can occur by both the inhalation and oral routes of exposure. 
Through inhalation exposure, a fraction of the inhaled material is 
transported to the gastrointestinal tract by the mucociliary escalator 
or by the swallowing of the insoluble material deposited in the upper 
respiratory tract (WHO, 2001). Gastrointestinal absorption of beryllium 
can occur by both the inhalation and oral routes of exposure. In the 
case of inhalation, a portion of the inhaled material is transported to 
the gastrointestinal tract by the mucociliary escalator or by the 
swallowing of the insoluble material deposited in the upper respiratory 
tract (Schlesinger, 1997). Animal studies have shown oral 
administration of beryllium compounds to result in very limited 
absorption and storage (as reviewed by U.S. EPA, 1998). In animal 
ingestion studies using radio-labeled beryllium chloride in rats, mice, 
dogs, and monkeys, the vast majority of the ingested dose passed 
through the gastrointestinal tract unabsorbed and was excreted in the 
feces. In most studies, <1 percent of the administered radioactivity 
was absorbed into the bloodstream and subsequently excreted in the 
urine (Crowley et al., 1949; Furchner et al., 1973; LeFevre and Joel, 
1986). Research using soluble beryllium sulfate has shown that as the 
compound passes into the intestine, which has a higher pH than the 
stomach (approximate pH of 6 to 8 for the intestine, pH of 1 or 2 for 
the stomach), the beryllium is precipitated as the insoluble phosphate 
and thus is no longer available for absorption (Reeves, 1965; WHO, 
2001).
    Urinary excretion of beryllium has been shown to correlate with the 
amount of occupational exposure (Klemperer et al., 1951). Beryllium 
that is absorbed into the bloodstream is excreted primarily in the 
urine (Crowley et al., 1949; Scott et al., 1950; Furchner et al., 1973; 
Stiefel et al., 1980), whereas excretion of unabsorbed beryllium is 
primarily via the fecal route (Hart et al., 1980; Finch et al., 1990). 
A far higher percentage of the beryllium administered parenterally in 
various animal species was eliminated in the urine than in the feces 
(Crowley et al., 1949; Scott et al., 1950; Furchner et al., 1973), 
confirming that beryllium found in the feces following oral exposure is 
primarily unabsorbed material. A study using percutaneous incorporation 
of soluble beryllium nitrate in rats similarly demonstrated that more 
than 90 percent of the beryllium in the bloodstream was eliminated via 
urine (Zorn et al., 1977; WHO, 2001). More than 99 percent of ingested 
beryllium chloride was excreted in the feces (Mullen et al., 1972). 
Elimination half-times of 890-1,770 days (2.4-4.8 years) were 
calculated for mice, rats, monkeys, and dogs injected intravenously 
with beryllium chloride (Furchner et al., 1973). Mean daily excretion 
of beryllium metal was 4.6 x 10-5 percent of the dose 
administered by intratracheal instillation in baboons and 3.1 x 
10-5 percent in rats (Andre et al., 1987).
4. Metabolism
    Beryllium and its compounds are not metabolized or biotransformed, 
but soluble beryllium salts may be converted to less soluble forms in 
the lung (Reeves and Vorwald, 1967). As stated earlier, solubility is 
an important factor for persistence of beryllium in the lung. Insoluble 
beryllium, engulfed by activated phagocytes, can be ionized by an 
acidic environment and by myeloperoxidases (Leonard and Lauwerys, 1987; 
Lansdown, 1995; WHO, 2001), and this positive charge could potentially 
make it more biologically reactive because it may allow the beryllium 
to bind to a peptide or protein and be presented to the T cell receptor 
or antigen-presenting cell (Fontenot, 2000).
5. Preliminary Conclusion for Particle Characterization and Kinetics of 
Beryllium
    The forms and concentrations of beryllium across the workplace vary 
substantially based upon location, process, production and work task. 
Many factors influence the potency of beryllium including 
concentration, composition, structure, size and surface area of the 
particle.
    Studies have demonstrated that beryllium sensitization can occur 
via the skin or inhalation from soluble or poorly soluble beryllium 
particles. Beryllium must be presented to a cell in a soluble form for 
activation of the immune system (NAS, 2008), and this will be discussed 
in more detail in the section to follow. Poorly soluble beryllium can 
be solubilized via intracellular fluid, lung fluid and sweat (Sutton et 
al., 2003; Stefaniak et al., 2011). For beryllium to persist in the 
lung it needs to be insoluble. However, soluble beryllium has been 
shown to precipitate in the lung to form insoluble beryllium (Reeves 
and Vorwald, 1967).
    Some animal and epidemiological studies suggest that the form of 
beryllium may affect the rate of development of BeS and CBD. Beryllium 
in an inhalable form (either as soluble or insoluble particles or mist) 
can deposit in the respiratory tract and interact with immune cells 
located along the entire respiratory tract (Scheslinger, 1997). 
However, more study is needed to precisely determine the physiochemical 
characteristics of beryllium that influence toxicity and 
immunogenicity.

C. Acute Beryllium Diseases

    Acute beryllium disease (ABD) is a relatively rapid onset 
inflammatory reaction resulting from breathing high airborne 
concentrations of beryllium. It was first reported in workers 
extracting beryllium oxide (Van Ordstrand et al., 1943). Since the 
Atomic Energy Commission's adoption of occupational exposure limits for 
beryllium beginning in 1949, cases of ABD have been rare. According to 
the World Health Organization (2001), ABD is generally associated with 
exposure to beryllium levels at or above 100 [mu]g/m\3\ and may be 
fatal in 10 percent of cases. However, cases have been reported with 
beryllium exposures below 100 [micro]g/m\3\ (Cummings et al., 2009). 
The disease involves an inflammatory reaction that may include the 
entire respiratory tract, involving the nasal passages, pharynx, 
bronchial airways and alveoli. Other tissues including skin and 
conjunctivae may be affected as well. The clinical features of

[[Page 47588]]

ABD include a nonproductive cough, chest pain, cyanosis, shortness of 
breath, low-grade fever and a sharp drop in functional parameters of 
the lungs. Pathological features of ABD include edematous distension, 
round cell infiltration of the septa, proteinaceous materials, and 
desquamated alveolar cells in the lung. Monocytes, lymphocytes and 
plasma cells within the alveoli are also characteristic of the acute 
disease process (Freiman and Hardy, 1970).
    Two types of acute beryllium disease have been characterized in the 
literature: a rapid and severe course of acute fulminating pneumonitis 
generally developing within 48 to 72 hours of a massive exposure, and a 
second form that takes several days to develop from exposure to lower 
concentrations of beryllium (still above the levels set by regulatory 
and guidance agencies) (Hall, 1950; DeNardi et al., 1953; Newman and 
Kreiss, 1992). Evidence of a dose-response relationship to the 
concentration of beryllium is limited (Eisenbud et al., 1948; 
Stokinger, 1950; Sterner and Eisenbud, 1951). Recovery from either type 
of ABD is generally complete after a period of several weeks or months 
(DeNardi et al., 1953). However, deaths have been reported in more 
severe cases (Freiman and Hardy, 1970). There have been documented 
cases of progression to CBD (ACCP, 1965; Hall, 1950) suggesting the 
possibility of an immune component to this disease (Cummings et al., 
2009) as well. According to the BCR, in the United States, 
approximately 17 percent of ABD patients developed CBD (BCR, 2010). The 
majority of ABD cases occurred between 1932 and 1970 (Eisenbud, 1983; 
Middleton, 1998). ABD is extremely rare in the workplace today due to 
more stringent exposure controls implemented following occupational and 
environmental standards set in 1970-1972 (OSHA, 1971; ACGIH, 1971; 
ANSI, 1970) and 1974 (EPA, 1974).

D. Chronic Beryllium Disease

    This section provides an overview of the immunology and 
pathogenesis of BeS and CBD, with particular attention to the role of 
skin sensitization, particle size, beryllium compound solubility, and 
genetic variability in individuals' susceptibility to beryllium 
sensitization and CBD.
    Chronic beryllium disease (CBD), formerly known as ``berylliosis'' 
or ``chronic berylliosis,'' is a granulomatous disorder primarily 
affecting the lungs. CBD was first described in the literature by Hardy 
and Tabershaw (1946) as a chronic granulomatous pneumonitis. It was 
proposed as early as 1951 that CBD could be a chronic disease resulting 
from an immune sensitization to beryllium (Sterner and Eisenbud, 1951; 
Curtis, 1959; Nishimura, 1966). However, for a time, there remained 
some controversy as to whether CBD was a delayed-onset hypersensitivity 
disease or a toxicant-induced disease (NAS, 2008). Wide acceptance of 
CBD as a hypersensitivity lung disease did not occur until bronchoscopy 
studies and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) studies were performed 
demonstrating that BAL cells from CBD patients responded to beryllium 
challenge (Epstein et al., 1982; Rossman et al., 1988; Saltini et al., 
1989).
    CBD shares many clinical and histopathological features with 
pulmonary sarcoidosis, a granulomatous lung disease of unknown 
etiology. This includes such debilitating effects as airway 
obstruction, diminishment of physical capacity associated with reduced 
lung function, possible depression associated with decreased physical 
capacity, and decreased life expectancy. Without appropriate 
information, CBD may be difficult to distinguish from sarcoidosis. It 
is estimated that up to 6 percent of all patients diagnosed with 
sarcoidosis may actually have CBD (Fireman et al., 2003; Rossman and 
Kreiber, 2003). Among patients diagnosed with sarcoidosis in which 
beryllium exposure can be confirmed, as many as 40 percent may actually 
have CBD (Muller-Quernheim et al., 2006; Cherry et al., 2015).
    Clinical signs and symptoms of CBD may include, but are not limited 
to, a simple cough, shortness of breath or dypsnea, fever, weight loss 
or anorexia, skin lesions, clubbing of fingers, cyanosis, night sweats, 
cor pulmonale, tachycardia, edema, chest pain and arthralgia. Changes 
or loss of pulmonary function also occur with CBD such as decrease in 
vital capacity, reduced diffusing capacity, and restrictive breathing 
patterns. The signs and symptoms of CBD constitute a continuum of 
symptoms that are progressive in nature with no clear demarcation 
between any stages in the disease (Rossman, 1996; NAS, 2008). Besides 
these listed symptoms from CBD patients, there have been reported cases 
of CBD that remained asymptomatic (Muller-Querheim, 2005; NAS, 2008).
    Unlike ABD, CBD can result from inhalation exposure to beryllium at 
levels below the current OSHA PEL, can take months to years after 
initial beryllium exposure before signs and symptoms of CBD occur 
(Newman 1996, 2005 and 2007; Henneberger, 2001; Seidler et al., 2012; 
Schuler et al., 2012), and may continue to progress following removal 
from beryllium exposure (Newman, 2005; Sawyer et al., 2005; Seidler et 
al., 2012). Patients with CBD can progress to a chronic obstructive 
lung disorder resulting in loss of quality of life and the potential 
for decreased life expectancy (Rossman, et al., 1996; Newman et al., 
2005). The NAS report (2008) noted the general lack of published 
studies on progression of CBD from an early asymptomatic stage to 
functionally significant lung disease (NAS, 2008). The report 
emphasized that risk factors and time course for clinical disease have 
not been fully delineated. However, for people now under surveillance, 
clinical progression from immunological sensitization and early 
pathological lesions (i.e., granulomatous inflammation) prior to onset 
of symptoms to symptomatic disease appears to be slow, although more 
follow-up is needed (NAS, 2008). A study by Newman (1996) emphasized 
the need for prospective studies to determine the natural history and 
time course from BeS and asymptomatic CBD to full-blown disease 
(Newman, 1996). Drawing from his own clinical experience, Newman was 
able to identify the sequence of events for those with symptomatic 
disease as follows: Initial determination of beryllium sensitization; 
gradual emergence of chronic inflammation of the lung; pathologic 
alterations with measurable physiologic changes (e.g., pulmonary 
function and gas exchange); progression to a more severe lung disease 
(with extrapulmonary effects such as clubbing and cor pulmonale in some 
cases); and finally death in some cases (reported between 5.8 to 38 
percent) (NAS, 2008; Newman, 1996).
    In contrast to some occupationally related lung diseases, the early 
detection of chronic beryllium disease may be useful since treatment of 
this condition can lead not only to regression of the signs and 
symptoms, but also may prevent further progression of the disease in 
certain individuals (Marchand-Adam, 2008; NAS, 2008). The management of 
CBD is based on the hypothesis that suppression of the hypersensitivity 
reaction (i.e., granulomatous process) will prevent the development of 
fibrosis. However, once fibrosis has developed, therapy cannot reverse 
the damage.
    To date, there have been no controlled studies to determine the 
optimal treatment for CBD (Rossman, 1996; NAS 2008; Sood, 2009). 
Management of CBD is generally modeled after sarcoidosis treatment. 
Oral corticosteroid treatment can be initiated in patients with

[[Page 47589]]

evidence of disease (either by bronchoscopy or other diagnostic 
measures before progression of disease or after clinical signs of 
pulmonary deterioration occur). This includes treatment with other 
anti-inflammatory agents (NAS, 2008; Maier et al., 2012; Salvator et 
al., 2013) as well. It should be noted, however, that treatment with 
corticosteroids has side-effects of their own that need to be measured 
against the possibility of progression of disease (Gibson et al., 1996; 
Zaki et al., 1987). Alternative treatments such as azathiopurine and 
infliximab, while successful at treating symptoms of CBD, have been 
demonstrated to have side-effects as well (Pallavicino et al., 2013; 
Freeman, 2012).
1. Development of Beryllium Sensitization
    Sensitization to beryllium is an essential step for worker 
development of CBD. Sensitization to beryllium can result from 
inhalation exposure to beryllium (Newman et al., 2005; NAS, 2008), as 
well as from skin exposure to beryllium (Curtis, 1951; Newman et al., 
1996; Tinkle et al., 2003). Sensitization is currently detected using a 
laboratory blood test described in Appendix A. Although there may be no 
clinical symptoms associated with BeS, a sensitized worker's immune 
system has been activated to react to beryllium exposures such that 
subsequent exposure to beryllium can progress to serious lung disease 
(Kreiss et al., 1996; Kreiss et al., 1997; Kelleher et al., 2001; and 
Rossman, 2001). Since the pathogenesis of CBD involves a beryllium-
specific, cell-mediated immune response, CBD cannot occur in the 
absence of sensitization (NAS, 2008). Various factors, including 
genetic susceptibility, have been shown to influence risk of developing 
sensitization and CBD (NAS 2008) and will be discussed later in this 
section.
    While various mechanisms or pathways may exist for beryllium 
sensitization, the most plausible mechanisms supported by the best 
available and most current science are discussed below. Sensitization 
occurs via the formation of a beryllium-protein complex (an antigen) 
that causes an immunological response. In some instances, onset of 
sensitization has been observed in individuals exposed to beryllium for 
only a few months (Kelleher et al., 2001; Henneberger et al., 2001). 
This suggests the possibility that relatively brief, short-term 
beryllium exposures may be sufficient to trigger the immune 
hypersensitivity reaction. Several studies (Newman et al., 2001; 
Henneberger et al., 2001; Rossman, 2001; Schuler et al., 2005; Donovan 
et al., 2007, Schuler et al., 2012) have detected a higher prevalence 
of sensitization among workers with less than one year of employment 
compared to some cross-sectional studies which, due to lack of 
information regarding initial exposure, cannot determine time of 
sensitization (Kreiss et al., 1996; Kreiss et al., 1997). While only 
very limited evidence has described humoral changes in certain patients 
with CBD (Cianciara et al., 1980), clear evidence exists for an immune 
cell-mediated response, specifically the T-cell (NAS, 2008). Figure 2 
delineates the major steps required for progression from beryllium 
contact to sensitization to CBD.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 47590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.001

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    Beryllium presentation to the immune system is believed to occur 
either by direct presentation or by antigen processing. It has been 
postulated that beryllium must be presented to the immune system in an 
ionic form for cell-mediated immune activation to occur (Kreiss et al., 
2007). Some soluble forms of beryllium are readily presented, since the 
soluble beryllium form disassociates into its ionic components. 
However, for insoluble forms, dissolution may need to occur. A study by 
Harmsen et al. (1986) suggested that a sufficient rate of dissolution 
of small amounts of poorly soluble beryllium compounds might occur in 
the lungs to allow persistent low-level beryllium presentation to the 
immune system. Stefaniak et al. (2005 and 2012) reported that insoluble 
beryllium particles phagocytized by macrophages were dissolved in 
phagolysomal fluid (Stefaniak et al., 2005; Stefaniak et al., 2012) and 
that the dissolution rate stimulated by phagolysomal fluid was 
different for various forms of beryllium (Stefaniak et al., 2006; 
Duling et al., 2012). Several studies have demonstrated that macrophage 
uptake of beryllium can induce aberrant apoptotic processes leading to 
the continued release of beryllium ions which will continually 
stimulate T-cell activation (Sawyer et al., 2000; Sawyer et al., 2004; 
Kittle et al., 2002). Antigen processing can be mediated by antigen-
presenting cells (APC). These may include macrophages, dendritic cells, 
or other antigen-presenting cells, although this has not been well 
defined in most studies (NAS, 2008).
    Because of their strong positive charge, beryllium ions have the 
ability to haptenate and alter the structure of peptides occupying the 
antigen-binding cleft of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class 
II on antigen-presenting cells (APC). The MHC class II antigen-binding 
molecule for beryllium is the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) with 
specific alleles (e.g.,

[[Page 47591]]

HLA-DP, HLA-DR, HLA-DQ) associated with the progression to CBD (NAS, 
2008; Yucesoy and Johnson, 2011). Several studies have also 
demonstrated that the electrostatic charge of HLA may be a factor in 
binding beryllium (Snyder et al., 2003; Bill et al., 2005; Dai et al., 
2010). The strong positive ionic charge of the beryllium ion would have 
a strong attraction for the negatively charged patches of certain HLA 
alleles (Snyder et al., 2008; Dai et al., 2010). Alternatively, 
beryllium oxide has been demonstrated to bind to the MHC class II 
receptor in a neutral pH. The six carboxylates in the amino acid 
sequence of the binding pocket provide a stable bond with the Be-O-Be 
molecule when the pH of the substrate is neutral (Keizer et al., 2005). 
The direct binding of BeO may eliminate the biological requirement for 
antigen processing or dissolution of beryllium oxide to activate an 
immune response.
    Next in sequence is the beryllium-MHC-APC complex binding to a T-
cell receptor (TCR) on a na[iuml]ve T-cell which stimulates the 
proliferation and accumulation of beryllium-specific CD4\+\ (cluster of 
differentiation 4\+\) T-cells (Saltini et al., 1989 and 1990; Martin et 
al., 2011) as depicted in Figure 3. Fontenot et al. (1999) demonstrated 
that diversely different variants of TCR were expressed by CD4\+\ T-
cells in peripheral blood cells of CBD patients. However, the CD4\+\ T-
cells from the lung were more homologous in expression of TCR variants 
in CBD patients, suggesting clonal expansion of a subset of T-cells in 
the lung (Fontenot et al., 1999). This may also indicate a pathogenic 
potential for subsets of T-cell clones expressing this homologous TCR 
(NAS, 2008). Fontenot et al. (2006) reported beryllium self-
presentation by HLA-DP expressing BAL CD4\+\ T-cells. Self-presentation 
by BAL T-cells in the lung granuloma may result in activation-induced 
cell death, which may then lead to oligoclonality of the T-cell 
population characteristic of CBD (NAS, 2008).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.002

    As CD4\+\ T-cells proliferate, clonal expansion of various subsets 
of the CD4\+\ beryllium specific T-cells occurs (Figure 3). In the 
peripheral blood, the beryllium-specific CD4\+\ T cells require co-
stimulation with a co-stimulant CD28 (cluster of differentiation 28). 
During the proliferation and differentiation process CD4\+\ T-cells 
secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines that may influence this process 
(Sawyer et al., 2004; Kimber et al., 2011).
2. Development of CBD
    The continued persistence of residual beryllium in the lung leads 
to a T-cell maturation process. A large portion of beryllium-specific 
CD4\+\ T cells were shown to cease expression of CD28 mRNA and protein, 
indicating these cells no longer required co-stimulation with the CD28 
ligand (Fontenot et al., 2003). This change in phenotype correlated 
with lung inflammation (Fontenot et al., 2003). The CD4\+\ independent 
cells continued to secrete cytokines necessary for additional 
recruitment of inflammatory and immunological cells; however, they were 
less proliferative and less susceptible to cell death compared to the 
CD28 dependent cells (Fontenot et al., 2005; Mack et al., 2008). These 
beryllium-specific CD4\+\ independent cells are considered to be mature 
memory effector cells (Ndejembi et al., 2006; Bian et al., 2005). 
Repeat exposure to beryllium in the lung resulting in a mature 
population of T cell development independent of co-stimulation by CD28 
and development of a population of T effector memory cells 
(Tem cells) may be one of the mechanisms that lead to the 
more severe reactions observed specifically in the lung (Fontenot et 
al., 2005).
    CD4\+\ T cells created in the sensitization process recognize the 
beryllium antigen, and respond by proliferating and secreting cytokines 
and inflammatory mediators, including IL-2, IFN-[gamma], and TNF-
[alpha] (Tinkle et al., 1997a and b; Fontenot et al., 2002) and MIP-
1[alpha] and GRO-1 (Hong-Geller, 2006). This also results in the 
accumulation of various types of inflammatory cells including 
mononuclear cells (mostly CD4\+\ T cells) in the bronchoalveolar lavage 
fluid (BAL fluid) (Saltini et al., 1989, 1990).
    The development of granulomatous inflammation in the lung of CBD 
patients has been associated with the accumulation of beryllium 
responsive CD4\+\ Tem cells in BAL fluid (NAS, 2008). The 
subsequent release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines and 
reactive oxygen species by these cells may lead to migration of 
additional inflammatory/immune cells and the development of a 
microenvironment that contributes to the development of CBD (Sawyer et 
al., 2005; Tinkle et al., 1996; Hong-Geller et al., 2006; NAS, 2008).
    The cascade of events described above results in the formation of a 
noncaseating granulomatous lesion.

[[Page 47592]]

Release of cytokines by the accumulating T cells leads to the formation 
of granulomatous lesions that are characterized by an outer ring of 
histiocytes surrounding non-necrotic tissue with embedded multi-
nucleated giant cells (Saltini et al., 1989, 1990).
    Over time, the granulomas spread and can lead to lung fibrosis and 
abnormal pulmonary function, with symptoms including a persistent dry 
cough and shortness of breath (Saber and Dweik, 2000). Fatigue, night 
sweats, chest and joint pain, clubbing of fingers (due to impaired 
oxygen exchange), loss of appetite or unexplained weight loss, and cor 
pulmonale have been experienced in certain patients as the disease 
progresses (Conradi et al., 1971; ACCP, 1965; Kriebel et al., 1988a and 
b). While CBD primarily affects the lungs, it can also involve other 
organs such as the liver, skin, spleen, and kidneys (ATSDR, 2002).
    As previously mentioned, the uptake of beryllium may lead to an 
aberrant apoptotic process with rerelease of beryllium ions and 
continual stimulation of beryllium-responsive CD4+ cells in 
the lung (Sawyer et al., 2000; Kittle et al., 2002; Sawyer et al., 
2004). Several research studies suggest apoptosis may be one mechanism 
that enhances inflammatory cell recruitment, cytokine production and 
inflammation, thus creating a scenario for progressive granulomatous 
inflammation (Palmer et al., 2008; Rana, 2008). Macrophages and 
neutrophils can phagocytize beryllium particles in an attempt to remove 
the beryllium from the lung (Ding, et al., 2009). Multiple studies 
(Sawyer et al., 2004; Kittle et al., 2002) using BAL cells (mostly 
macrophages and neutrophils) from patients with CBD found that in vitro 
stimulation with beryllium sulfate induced the production of TNF-
[alpha] (one of many cytokines produced in response to beryllium), and 
that production of TNF-[alpha] might induce apoptosis in CBD and 
sarcoidosis patients (Bost et al., 1994; Dai et al., 1999). The 
stimulation of CBD-derived macrophages by beryllium sulphate resulted 
in cells becoming apoptotic, as measured by propidium iodide. These 
results were confirmed in a mouse macrophage cell-line (p388D1) (Sawyer 
et al., 2000). However, other factors may influence the development of 
CBD and are outlined in the following section.
3. Genetic and Other Susceptibility Factors
    Evidence from a variety of sources indicates genetic susceptibility 
may play an important role in the development of CBD in certain 
individuals, especially at levels low enough not to invoke a response 
in other individuals. Early occupational studies proposed that CBD was 
an immune reaction based on the high susceptibility of some individuals 
to become sensitized and progress to CBD and the lack of CBD in others 
who were exposed to levels several orders of magnitude higher (Sterner 
and Eisenbud, 1951). Additional in vitro human research has identified 
genes coding for specific protein molecules on the surface of their 
immune cells that place carriers at greater risk of becoming sensitized 
to beryllium and developing CBD (McCanlies et al., 2004). Recent 
studies have confirmed genetic susceptibility to CBD involves either 
HLA variants, T-cell receptor clonality, tumor necrosis factor (TNF-
[alpha]) polymorphisms and/or transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-
[beta]) polymorphisms (Fontenot et al., 2000; Amicosante et al., 2005; 
Tinkle et al., 1996; Gaede et al., 2005; Van Dyke et al., 2011; 
Silveira et al., 2012).
    Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) have been studied with 
regard to genetic variations associated with increased risk of 
developing CBD. SNPs are the most abundant type of human genetic 
variation. Polymorphisms in MHC class II and pro-inflammatory genes 
have been shown to contribute to variations in immune responses 
contributing to the susceptibility and resistance in many diseases 
including auto-immunity, and beryllium sensitization and CBD (McClesky 
et al., 2009). Specific SNPs have been evaluated as a factor in Glu69 
variant from the HLA-DPB1 locus (Richeldi et al., 1993; Cai et al., 
2000; Saltini et al., 2001; Silviera et al., 2012; Dai et al., 2013), 
HLA-DRPhe[beta]47 (Amicosante et al., 2005).
    HLA-DPB1 with a glutamic acid at amino position 69 (Glu 69) has 
been shown to confer increased risk of beryllium sensitization and CBD 
(Richeldi et al., 1993; Saltini et al., 2001; Amicosante et al., 2005; 
Van Dyke et al., 2011; Silveira et al., 2012). Fontenot et al. (2000) 
demonstrated that beryllium presentation by certain alleles of the 
class II human leukocyte antigen-DP (HLA-DP) to CD4+ T cells is the 
mechanism underlying the development of CBD. Richeldi et al. (1993) 
reported a strong association between the MHC class II allele HLA-DP 1 
and the development of CBD in beryllium-exposed workers from a Tucson, 
AZ facility. This marker was found in 32 of the 33 workers who 
developed CBD, but in only 14 of 44 similarly exposed workers without 
CBD. The more common allele of the HLA-DP 1 variant is negatively 
charged at this site and could directly interact with the positively 
charged beryllium ion. The high percentage (~30 percent) of beryllium-
exposed workers without CBD who had this allele indicates that other 
factors also contribute to the development of CBD (EPA, 1998). 
Additional studies by Amicosante et al. (2005) using blood lymphocytes 
derived from beryllium-exposed workers found a high frequency of this 
gene in those sensitized to beryllium. In a study of 82 CBD patients 
(beryllium-exposed workers), Stubbs et al. (1996) also found a 
relationship between the HLA-DP 1 allele and BeS. The glutamate-69 
allele was present in 86 percent of sensitized subjects, but in only 48 
percent of beryllium-exposed, non-sensitized subjects. Some variants of 
the HLA-DPB1 allele convey higher risk of BeS and CBD than others. For 
example, HLA-DPB1*0201 yielded an approximately 3-fold increase in 
disease outcome relative to controls; HLA-DPB1*1901 yielded an 
approximately 5-fold increase, and HLA-DPB1*1701 an approximately 10-
fold increase (Weston et al., 2005; Snyder et al., 2008). By assigning 
odds ratios for specific alleles on the basis of previous studies 
discussed above, the researchers found a strong correlation (88 
percent) between the reported risk of CBD and the predicted surface 
electrostatic potential and charge of the isotypes of the genes. They 
were able to conclude that the alleles associated with the most 
negatively charged proteins carry the greatest risk of developing 
beryllium sensitization and CBD. This confirms the importance of 
beryllium charge as a key factor in haptogenic potential.
    In contrast, the HLA-DRB1 allele, which lacks Glu 69, has also been 
shown to increase the risk of developing sensitization and CBD 
(Amicosante et al., 2005; Maier et al., 2003). Bill et al. (2005) found 
that HLA-DR has a glutamic acid at position 71 of the [beta] chain, 
functionally equivalent to the Glu 69 of HLA-DP (Bill et al., 2005). 
Associations with BeS and CBD have also been reported with the HLA-DQ 
markers (Amicosante et al., 2005; Maier et al., 2003). Stubbs et al. 
also found a biased distribution of the MHC class II HLA-DR gene 
between sensitized and non-sensitized subjects. Neither of these 
markers was completely specific for CBD, as each study found beryllium 
sensitization or CBD among individuals without the genetic risk factor. 
While there remains uncertainty as to which of the MHC class II genes 
interact directly with the beryllium ion, antibody inhibition data 
suggest that the HLA-DR gene product may be involved in the

[[Page 47593]]

presentation of beryllium to T lymphocytes (Amicosante et al., 2002). 
In addition, antibody blocking experiments revealed that anti-HLA-DP 
strongly reduced proliferation responses and cytokine secretion by BAL 
CD4 T cells (Chou et al., 2005). In the study by Chou (2005), anti-HLA-
DR ligand antibodies mainly affected beryllium-induced proliferation 
responses with little impact on cytokines other than IL-2, thus 
implying that nonproliferating BAL CD4 T cells may still contribute to 
inflammation leading to the progression of CBD (Chou et al., 2005).
    TNF alpha (TNF-[alpha]) polymorphisms and TGF beta (TGF-[beta]) 
polymorphisms have also been shown to confer a genetic susceptibility 
for developing CBD in certain individuals. TNF-[alpha] is a pro-
inflammatory cytokine associated with a more severe pulmonary disease 
in CBD (NAS, 2008). Beryllium exposure has been shown to upregulate 
transcription factors AP-1 and NF-[kappa]B (Sawyer et al., 2007) 
inducing an inflammatory response by stimulating production of pro-
inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-[alpha] by inflammatory cells. 
Polymorphisms in the 308 position of the TNF-[alpha] gene have been 
demonstrated to increase production of the cytokine and increase 
severity of disease (Maier et al., 2001; Saltini et al., 2001; Dotti et 
al., 2004). While a study by McCanlies et al. (2007) found no 
relationship between TNF-[alpha] polymorphism and BeS or CBD, the 
inconsistency may be due to misclassification, exposure differences or 
statistical power (NAS, 2008).
    Other genetic variations have been shown to be associated with 
increased risk of beryllium sensitization and CBD (NAS, 2008). These 
include TGF-[beta] (Gaede et al., 2005), angiotensin-1 converting 
enzyme (ACE) (Newman et al., 1992; Maier et al., 1999) and an enzyme 
involved in glutathione synthesis (glutamate cysteine ligase) (Bekris 
et al., 2006). McCanlies et al. (2010) evaluated the association 
between polymorphisms in a select group of interleukin genes (IL-1A; 
IL-1B, IL-1RN, IL-2, IL-9, IL-9R) due to their role in immune and 
inflammatory processes. The study evaluated SNPs in three groups of 
workers from large beryllium manufacturing facilities in OH and AZ. The 
investigators found a significant association between variants IL-1A-
1142, IL-1A-3769 and IL-1A-4697 and CBD but not with beryllium 
sensitization. However, these still require confirmation in larger 
studies (NAS, 2008).
    In addition to the genetic factors which may contribute to the 
susceptibility and severity of disease, other factors such as smoking 
and gender may play a role in the development of CBD (NAS, 2008). A 
recent longitudinal cohort study by Mroz et al. (2009) of 229 
individuals identified with beryllium sensitization or CBD through 
workplace medical surveillance found that the prevalence of CBD among 
ever smokers was significantly lower than among never smokers (38.1 
percent versus 49.4 percent, p=0.025). BeS subjects that never smoked 
were found to be more likely to develop CBD over the course of the 
study compared to current smokers (12.6 percent versus 6.4 percent, 
p=0.10). The authors suggested smoking may confer a protective effect 
against development of lung granulomas as has been demonstrated with 
hypersensitivity pneumonitis (Mroz et al., 2009).
4. Beryllium Sensitization and CBD in the Workforce
    Sensitization to beryllium is currently detected in the workforce 
with the beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT), a laboratory 
blood test developed in the 1980s, also referred to as the LTT 
(Lymphocyte Transformation Test) or BeLT (Beryllium Lymphocyte 
Transformation Test). In this test, lymphocytes obtained from either 
bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (the BAL BeLPT) or from peripheral blood 
(the blood BeLPT) are cultured in vitro and exposed to beryllium 
sulfate to stimulate lymphocyte proliferation. The observation of 
beryllium-specific proliferation indicates beryllium sensitization. 
Hereafter, ``BeLPT'' generally refers to the blood BeLPT, which is 
typically used in screening for beryllium sensitization. This test is 
described in more detail in subsection D.5.b.
    CBD can be detected at an asymptomatic stage by a number of 
techniques including bronchoalveolar lavage and biopsy (Cordeiro et 
al., 2007; Maier, 2001). Bronchoalveolar lavage is a method of 
``washing'' the lungs with fluid inserted via a flexible fiberoptic 
instrument known as a bronchoscope, removing the fluid and analyzing 
the content for the inclusion of immune cells reactive to beryllium 
exposure, as described earlier in this section. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy 
can be used to detect granulomatous lung inflammation prior to the 
onset of CBD symptoms as well, and has been used in combination with 
the BeLPT to diagnose pre-symptomatic CBD in a number of recent 
screening studies of beryllium-exposed workers, which are discussed in 
the following section detailing diagnostic procedures. Of workers who 
were found to be sensitized and underwent clinical evaluation, 31-49 
percent of them were diagnosed with CBD (Kreiss et al., 1993; Newman et 
al., 1996, 2005, 2007; Mroz, 2009), however some estimate that with 
increased surveillance the percent could be much higher (Newman, 2005; 
Mroz, 2009). It has been estimated from ongoing surveillance studies of 
sensitized individuals with an average follow-up time of 4.5 years that 
31 percent of beryllium-sensitized employees were estimated to progress 
to CBD (Newman et al., 2005). A study of nuclear weapons facility 
employees enrolled in an ongoing medical surveillance program found 
that only 20 percent of sensitized workers employed less than 5 years 
eventually were diagnosed with CBD, while 40 percent of sensitized 
workers employed 10 years or more developed CBD (Stange et al., 2001). 
One limitation for all these studies is lack of long-term follow-up. It 
may be necessary to continue to monitor these workers in order to 
determine whether all BeS workers will develop CBD (Newman et al., 
2005).
    CBD has a clinical spectrum ranging from evidence of beryllium 
sensitization and granulomas in the lung with little symptomatology to 
loss of lung function and end stage disease which may result in the 
need for lung transplantation and decreased life expectancy. 
Unfortunately, there are very few published clinical studies describing 
the full range and progression of CBD from the beginning to the end 
stages and very few of the risk factors for progression of disease have 
been delineated (NAS, 2008). Clinical management of CBD is modeled 
after sarcoidosis where oral corticosteroid treatment is initiated in 
patients who have evidence of progressive lung disease, although 
progressive lung disease has not been well defined (NAS, 2008). In 
advanced cases of CBD, corticosteroids are the standard treatment (NAS, 
2008). No comprehensive studies have been published measuring the 
overall effect of removal of workers from beryllium exposure on 
sensitization and CBD (NAS, 2008) although this has been suggested as 
part of an overall treatment regime for CBD (Mapel et al., 2002; Sood 
et al., 2004; Maier et al., 2006; Sood, 2009; Maier et al., 2012). Sood 
et al. reported that cessation of exposure can sometimes have 
beneficial effects on lung function (Sood et al., 2004). However, this 
was based on anecdotal evidence from six patients with CBD, so more 
research is needed to better determine the relationship between

[[Page 47594]]

exposure duration and disease progression
5. Human Epidemiological Studies
    This section describes the human epidemiological data supporting 
the mechanistic overview of beryllium-induced disease in workers. It 
has been divided into reviews of epidemiological studies performed 
prior to development and implementation of the BeLPT in the late 1980s 
and after wide use of the BeLPT for screening purposes. Use of the 
BeLPT has allowed investigators to screen for beryllium sensitization 
and CBD prior to the onset of clinical symptoms, providing a more 
sensitive and thorough analysis of the worker population. The 
discussion of the studies has been further divided by manufacturing 
processes that may have similar exposure profiles. Table A.1 in the 
Appendix summarizes the prevalence of beryllium sensitization and CBD, 
range of exposure measurements, and other salient information from the 
key epidemiological studies.
    It has been well-established that beryllium exposure, either via 
inhalation or skin, may lead to beryllium sensitization, or, with 
inhalation exposure, may lead to the onset and progression of CBD. The 
available published epidemiological literature discussed below provides 
strong evidence of beryllium sensitization and CBD in workers exposed 
to airborne beryllium well below the current OSHA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Several studies demonstrate the prevalence of sensitization and CBD is 
related to the level of airborne exposure, including a cross-sectional 
survey of employees at a beryllium ceramics plant in Tucson, AZ 
(Henneberger et al., 2001), case-control studies of workers at the 
Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility (Viet et al., 2000), and workers 
from a beryllium machining plant in Cullman, AL (Kelleher et al., 
2001). The prevalence of beryllium sensitization also may be related to 
dermal exposure. An increased risk of CBD has been reported in workers 
with skin lesions, potentially increasing the uptake of beryllium 
(Curtis, 1951; Johnson et al., 2001; Schuler et al., 2005). Three 
studies describe comprehensive preventive programs, which included 
expanded respiratory protection, dermal protection, and improved 
control of beryllium dust migration, that substantially reduced the 
rate of beryllium sensitization among new hires (Cummings et al., 2007; 
Thomas et al., 2009; Bailey et al., 2010; Schuler et al., 2012).
    Some of the epidemiological studies presented in this review suffer 
from challenges common to many published epidemiological studies: 
Limitations in study design (particularly cross-sectional); small 
sample size; lack of personal and/or short-term exposure data, 
particularly those published before the late 1990s; and incomplete 
information regarding specific chemical form and/or particle 
characterization. Challenges that are specific to beryllium 
epidemiological studies include: uncertainty regarding the contribution 
of dermal exposure; use of various BeLPT protocols; a variety of case 
definitions for determining CBD; and use of various exposure sampling/
assessment methods (e.g., daily weighted average (DWA), lapel 
sampling). Even with these limitations, the epidemiological evidence 
presented in this section clearly demonstrates that beryllium 
sensitization and CBD are continuing to occur from present-day 
exposures below OSHA's PEL. The available literature also indicates 
that the rate of BeS can be substantially lowered by reducing 
inhalation exposure and minimizing dermal contact.
a. Studies Conducted Prior to the BeLPT
    First reports of CBD came from studies performed by Hardy and 
Tabershaw (1946). Cases were observed in industrial plants that were 
refining and manufacturing beryllium metal and beryllium alloys and in 
plants manufacturing fluorescent light bulbs (NAS, 2008). From the late 
1940s through the 1960s, clusters of non-occupational CBD cases were 
identified around beryllium refineries in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and 
outbreaks in family members of beryllium factory workers were assumed 
to be from exposure to contaminated clothes (Hardy, 1980). It had been 
established that the risk of disease among beryllium workers was 
variable and generally rose with the levels of airborne concentrations 
(Machle et al., 1948). And while there was a relationship between air 
concentrations of beryllium and risk of developing disease both in and 
surrounding these plants, the disease rates outside the plants were 
higher than expected and not very different from the rate of CBD within 
the plants (Eisenbud et al., 1949; Lieben and Metzner, 1959). There 
remained considerable uncertainty regarding diagnosis due to lack of 
well-defined cohorts, modern diagnostic methods, or inadequate follow-
up. In fact, many patients with CBD may have been misdiagnosed with 
sarcoidosis (NAS, 2008).
    The difficulties in distinguishing lung disease caused by beryllium 
from other lung diseases led to the establishment of the BCR in 1952 to 
identify and track cases of ABD and CBD. A uniform diagnostic criterion 
was introduced in 1959 as a way to delineate CBD from sarcoidosis. 
Patient entry into the BCR required either: documented past exposure to 
beryllium or the presence of beryllium in lung tissue as well as 
clinical evidence of beryllium disease (Hardy et al., 1967); or any 
three of the six criteria listed below (Hasan and Kazemi, 1974). 
Patients identified using the above criteria were registered and added 
to the BCR from 1952 through 1983 (Eisenbud and Lisson, 1983).
    The BCR listed the following criteria for diagnosing CBD (Eisenbud 
and Lisson, 1983):
    (1) Establishment of significant beryllium exposure based on sound 
epidemiologic history;
    (2) Objective evidence of lower respiratory tract disease and 
clinical course consistent with beryllium disease;
    (3) Chest X-ray films with radiologic evidence of interstitial 
fibronodular disease;
    (4) Evidence of restrictive or obstructive defect with diminished 
carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) by physiologic 
studies of lung function;
    (5) Pathologic changes consistent with beryllium disease on 
examination of lung tissue; and
    (6) Presence of beryllium in lung tissue or thoracic lymph nodes.
    Prevalence of CBD in workers during the time period between the 
1940s and 1950s was estimated to be between 1-10% (Eisenbud and Lisson, 
1983). In a 1969 study, Stoeckle et al. presented 60 case histories 
with a selective literature review utilizing the above criteria except 
that urinary beryllium was substituted for lung beryllium to 
demonstrate beryllium exposure. Stoeckle et al. (1969) were able to 
demonstrate corticosteroids as a successful treatment option in one 
case of confirmed CBD. This study also presented a 28 percent mortality 
rate from complications of CBD at the time of publication. However, 
even with the improved methodology for determining CBD based on the BCR 
criteria, these studies suffered from lack of well-defined cohorts, 
modern diagnostic techniques or adequate follow-up.
b. Criteria for Beryllium Sensitization and CBD Case Definition 
Following the Development of the BeLPT
    The criteria for diagnosis of CBD have evolved over time as more 
advanced

[[Page 47595]]

diagnostic technology, such as the (blood) BeLPT and BAL BeLPT, has 
become available. More recent diagnostic criteria have both higher 
specificity than earlier methods and higher sensitivity, identifying 
subclinical effects. Recent studies typically use the following 
criteria (Newman et al., 1989; Pappas and Newman, 1993; Maier et al., 
1999):
    (1) History of beryllium exposure;
    (2) Histopathological evidence of noncaseating granulomas or 
mononuclear cell infiltrates in the absence of infection; and
    (3) Positive blood or BAL BeLPT (Newman et al., 1989).
    The availability of transbronchial lung biopsy facilitates the 
evaluation of the second criterion, by making histopathological 
confirmation possible in almost all cases.
    A significant component for the identification of CBD is the 
demonstration of a confirmed abnormal BeLPT result in a blood or BAL 
sample (Newman, 1996). Since the development of the BeLPT in the 1980s, 
it has been used to screen beryllium-exposed workers for sensitization 
in a number of studies to be discussed below. The BeLPT is a non-
invasive in vitro blood test which measures the beryllium antigen-
specific T-cell mediated immune response and is the most commonly 
available diagnostic tool for identifying beryllium sensitization. The 
BeLPT measures the degree to which beryllium stimulates lymphocyte 
proliferation under a specific set of conditions, and is interpreted 
based upon the number of stimulation indices that exceed the normal 
value. The `cut-off' is based on the mean value of the peak stimulation 
index among controls plus 2 or 3 standard deviations. This methodology 
was modeled into a statistical method known as the ``least absolute 
values'' or ``statistical-biological positive'' method and relies on 
natural log modeling of the median stimulation index values (DOE, 2001; 
Frome, 2003). In most applications, two or more stimulation indices 
that exceed the cut-off constitute an abnormal test.
    Early versions of the BeLPT test had high variability, but the use 
of tritiated thymidine to identify proliferating cells has led to a 
more reliable test (Mroz et al., 1991; Rossman et al., 2001). In recent 
years, the peripheral blood test has been found to be as sensitive as 
the BAL assay, although larger abnormal responses have been observed 
with the BAL assay (Kreiss et al., 1993; Pappas and Newman, 1993). 
False negative results have also been observed with the BAL BeLPT in 
cigarette smokers who have marked excess of alveolar macrophages in 
lavage fluid (Kreiss et al., 1993). The BeLPT has also been a useful 
tool in animal studies to identify those species with a beryllium-
specific immune response (Haley et al., 1994).
    Screenings for beryllium sensitization have been conducted using 
the BeLPT in several occupational surveys and surveillance programs, 
including nuclear weapons facilities operated by the Department of 
Energy (Viet et al., 2000; Strange et al., 2001; DOE/HSS Report, 2006), 
a beryllium ceramics plant in Arizona (Kreiss et al., 1996; Henneberger 
et al., 2001; Cummings et al., 2007), a beryllium production plant in 
Ohio (Kreiss et al., 1997; Kent et al., 2001), a beryllium machining 
facility in Alabama (Kelleher et al., 2001; Madl et al., 2007), a 
beryllium alloy plant (Schuler et al., 2005, Thomas et al., 2009), and 
another beryllium processing plant (Rosenman et al., 2005) in 
Pennsylvania. In most of these studies, individuals with an abnormal 
BeLPT result were retested and were identified as sensitized (i.e., 
confirmed positive) if the abnormal result was repeated.
    There has been criticism regarding the reliability and specificity 
of the BeLPT as a screening tool (Borak et al., 2006). Stange et al. 
(2004) studied the reliability and laboratory variability of the BeLPT 
by splitting blood samples and sending samples to two laboratories 
simultaneously for BeLPT analysis. Stange et al. found the range of 
agreement on abnormal (positive BeLPT) results was 26.2--61.8 percent 
depending upon the labs tested (Stange et al., 2004). Borak et al. 
(2006) contended that the positive predictive value (PPV) (PPV is the 
portion of patients with positive test result correctly diagnosed) is 
not high enough to meet the criteria of a good screening tool. 
Middleton et al. (2008) used the data from the Stange et al. (2004) 
study to estimate the PPV and determined that the PPV of the BeLPT 
could be improved from 0.383 to 0.968 when an abnormal BeLPT result is 
confirmed with a second abnormal result (Middleton et al., 2008). 
However, an apparent false positive can occur in people not 
occupationally exposed to beryllium (NAS, 2008). An analysis of survey 
data from the general workforce and new employees at a beryllium 
manufacturer was performed to assess the reliability of the BeLPT 
(Donovan et al. 2007). Donovan et al. analyzed more than 10,000 test 
results from nearly 2400 participants over a 12-year period. Donovan et 
al. found that approximately 2 percent of new employees had at least 
one positive BeLPT at the time of hire and 1 percent of new hires with 
no known occupational exposure were confirmed positive at the time of 
hire with two BeLPTs. Since there are currently no alternatives to the 
BeLPT in a screening program many programs rely on a second test to 
confirm a positive result (NAS, 2008).
    The epidemiological studies presented in this section utilized the 
BeLPT as either a surveillance tool or a screening tool for determining 
sensitization status and/or sensitization/CBD prevalence in workers for 
inclusion in the published studies. Most epidemiological studies have 
reported rates of sensitization and disease based on a single screening 
of a working population (`cross-sectional' or 'population prevalence' 
rates). Studies of workers in a beryllium machining plant and a nuclear 
weapons facility have included follow-up of the population originally 
screened, resulting in the detection of additional cases of 
sensitization over several years (Newman et al., 2001, Stange et al., 
2001). OSHA regards the BeLPT as a reliable medical surveillance tool. 
The BeLPT is discussed in more detail in Non-Mandatory Appendix A to 
the proposed standard, Immunological Testing for the Determination of 
Beryllium Sensitization.
c. Beryllium Mining and Extraction
    Mining and extraction of beryllium usually involves the two major 
beryllium minerals, beryl (an aluminosilicate containing up to 4 
percent beryllium) and bertrandite (a beryllium silicate hydrate 
containing generally less than 1 percent beryllium) (WHO, 2001). The 
United States is the world leader in beryllium extraction and also 
leads the world in production and use of beryllium and its alloys (WHO, 
2001). Most exposures from mining and extraction come in the form of 
beryllium ore, beryllium salts, beryllium hydroxide (NAS 2008) or 
beryllium oxide (Stefaniak et al., 2008).
    Deubner et al. published a study of 75 workers employed at a 
beryllium mining and extraction facility in Delta, UT (Deubner et al., 
2001b). Of the 75 workers surveyed for sensitization with the BeLPT, 
three were identified as sensitized by an abnormal BeLPT result. One of 
those found to be sensitized was diagnosed with CBD. Exposures at the 
facility included primarily beryllium ore and salts. General area (GA), 
breathing zone (BZ), and personal lapel (LP) exposure samples were 
collected from 1970 to 1999. Jobs involving beryllium hydrolysis and 
wet-grinding activities had the highest air concentrations, with an 
annual median GA concentration ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Median BZ concentrations

[[Page 47596]]

were higher than either LP or GA. The average duration of exposure for 
beryllium sensitized workers was 21.3 years (27.7 years for the worker 
with CBD), compared to an average duration for all workers of 14.9 
years. However, these exposures were less than either the Elmore, OH, 
or Tucson, AZ, facilities described below, which also had higher 
reported rates of BeS and CBD. A study by Stefaniak et al. (2008) 
demonstrated that beryllium was present at the mill in three forms: 
mineral, poorly crystalline oxide, and hydroxide.
    There was no sensitization or CBD among those who worked only at 
the mine where exposure to beryllium resulted solely from working with 
bertrandite ore. The authors concluded that the results of this study 
indicated that beryllium ore and salts may pose less of a hazard than 
beryllium metal and beryllium hydroxide. These results are consistent 
with the previously discussed animal studies examining solubility and 
particle size.
d. Beryllium Metal Processing and Alloy Production
    Kreiss et al. (1997) conducted a study of workers at a beryllium 
production facility in Elmore, OH. The plant, which opened in 1953 and 
initially specialized in production of beryllium-copper alloy, later 
expanded its operations to include beryllium metal, beryllium oxide, 
and beryllium-aluminum alloy production; beryllium and beryllium alloy 
machining; and beryllium ceramics production, which was moved to a 
different factory in the early 1980s. Production operations included a 
wide variety of jobs and processes, such as work in arc furnaces and 
furnace rebuilding, alloy melting and casting, beryllium powder 
processing, and work in the pebble plant. Non-production work included 
jobs in the analytical laboratory, engineering research and 
development, maintenance, laundry, production-area management, and 
office-area administration. While the publication refers to the use of 
respiratory protection in some areas, such as the pebble plant, the 
extent of its use across all jobs or time periods was not reported. Use 
of dermal PPE was not reported.
    The authors characterized exposures at the plant using industrial 
hygiene (IH) samples collected between 1980 and 1993. The exposure 
samples and the plant's formulas for estimating workers' DWA exposures 
were used, together with study participants' work histories, to 
estimate their cumulative and average beryllium exposure levels. 
Exposure concentrations reflected the high exposures found historically 
in beryllium production and processing. Short-term BZ measurements had 
a median of 1.4, with 18.5 percent of samples exceeding OSHA's STEL of 
5.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Particularly high beryllium concentrations were 
reported in the areas of beryllium powder production, laundry, alloy 
arc furnace (approximately 40 percent of DWA estimates over 2.0 [mu]g/
m\3\) and furnace rebuild (28.6 percent of short-term BZ samples over 
the OSHA STEL of 5 [mu]g/m\3\). LP samples (n = 179), which were 
available from 1990 to 1992, had a median value of 1 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Of 655 workers employed at the time of the study, 627 underwent 
BeLPT screening. Blood samples were divided and split between two labs 
for analysis, with repeat testing for results that were abnormal or 
indeterminate. Thirty-one workers had an abnormal blood test upon 
initial testing and at least one of two subsequent tests was classified 
as sensitized. These workers, together with 19 workers who had an 
initial abnormal result and one subsequent indeterminate result, were 
offered clinical evaluation for CBD including the BAL-BeLPT and 
transbronchial lung biopsy. Nine with an initial abnormal test followed 
by two subsequent normal tests were not clinically evaluated, although 
four were found to be sensitized upon retesting in 1995. Of 47 workers 
who proceeded with evaluation for CBD (3 of the 50 initial workers with 
abnormal results declined to participate), 24 workers were diagnosed 
with CBD based on evidence of granulomas on lung biopsy (20 workers) or 
on other findings consistent with CBD (4 workers) (Kreiss et al., 
1997). After including five workers who had been diagnosed prior to the 
study, a total of 29 (4.6 percent) current workers were found to have 
CBD. In addition, the plant medical department identified 24 former 
workers diagnosed with CBD before the study.
    Kreiss et al. reported that the highest prevalence of sensitization 
and CBD occurred among workers employed in beryllium metal production, 
even though the highest airborne total mass concentrations of beryllium 
were generally among employees operating the beryllium alloy furnaces 
in a different area of the plant (Kreiss et al., 1997). Preliminary 
follow-up investigations of particle size-specific sampling at five 
furnace sites within the plant determined that the highest respirable 
(e.g., particles <10 [mu]m in diameter as defined by the authors) and 
alveolar-deposited (e.g., particles <1 [mu]m in diameter as defined by 
the authors) beryllium mass and particle number concentrations, as 
collected by a general area impactor device, were measured at the 
beryllium metal production furnaces rather than the beryllium alloy 
furnaces (Kent et al., 2001; McCawley et al., 2001). A statistically 
significant linear trend was reported between the above alveolar-
deposited particle mass concentration and prevalence of CBD and 
sensitization in the furnace production areas. The authors concluded 
that alveolar-deposited particles may be a more relevant exposure 
metric for predicting the incidence of CBD or sensitization than the 
total mass concentration of airborne beryllium.
    Bailey et al. (2010) evaluated the effectiveness of a workplace 
preventive program in lowering BeS at the beryllium metal, oxide, and 
alloy production plant studied by Kreiss et al. (1997). The preventive 
program included use of administrative and PPE controls (e.g., improved 
training, skin protection and other PPE, half-mask or air-purified 
respirators, medical surveillance, improved housekeeping standards, 
clean uniforms) as well as engineering controls (e.g., migration 
controls, physical separation of administrative offices from production 
facilities) implemented over the course of five years.
    In a cross-sectional/longitudinal hybrid study, Bailey et al. 
compared rates of sensitization in pre-program workers to those hired 
after the preventive program began. Pre-program workers were surveyed 
cross-sectionally in 1993-1994, and again in 1999 using the BeLPT to 
determine sensitization and CBD prevalence rates. The 1999 cross-
sectional survey was conducted to determine if improvements in 
engineering and administrative controls were successful, however, 
results indicated no improvement in reducing rates of sensitization or 
CBD.
    An enhanced preventive program including particle migration 
control, respiratory and dermal protection, and process enclosure was 
implemented in 2000, with continuing improvements made to the program 
in 2001, 2002-2004, and 2005. Workers hired during this period were 
longitudinally surveyed for sensitization using the BeLPT. Both the 
pre-program and program survey of worker sensitization status utilized 
split-sample testing to verify positive test results using the BeLPT. 
Of the total 660 workers employed at the production plant, 258 workers 
participated from the pre-program group while 290 participated from the 
program group (206 partial program, 84 full program). Prevalence 
comparisons of the pre-program and

[[Page 47597]]

program groups (partial and full) were performed by calculating 
prevalence ratios. A 95 percent confidence interval (95 percent CI) was 
derived using a cohort study method that accounted for the variance in 
survey techniques (cross-sectional versus longitudinal) (Bailey et al., 
2010). The sensitization prevalence of the pre-program group was 3.8 
times higher (95 percent CI, 1.5-9.3) than the program group, 4.0 times 
higher (95 percent CI, 1.4-11.6) than the partial program subgroup, and 
3.3 times higher (95 percent CI, 0.8-13.7) than the full program 
subgroup indicating that a comprehensive preventive program can reduce, 
but not eliminate, occurrence of sensitization among non-sensitized 
workers (Bailey et al., 2010).
    Rosenman et al. (2005) studied a group of several hundred workers 
who had been employed at a beryllium production and processing facility 
that operated in eastern Pennsylvania between 1957 and 1978. Of 715 
former workers located, 577 were screened for BeS with the BLPT and 544 
underwent chest radiography to identify cases of BeS and CBD. Workers 
were reported to have exposure to beryllium dust and fume in a variety 
of chemical forms including beryl ore, beryllium metal, beryllium 
fluoride, beryllium hydroxide, and beryllium oxide.
    Rosenman et al. used the plant's DWA formulas to assess workers' 
full-shift exposure levels, based on IH data collected between 1957-
1962 and 1971-1976, to calculate exposure metrics including cumulative, 
average, and peak for each worker in the study. The DWA was calculated 
based on air monitoring that consisted of GA and short-term task-based 
BZ samples. Workers' exposures to specific chemical and physical forms 
of beryllium were assessed, including insoluble beryllium (metal and 
oxide), soluble beryllium (fluoride and hydroxide), mixed soluble and 
insoluble beryllium, beryllium dust (metal, hydroxide, or oxide), fume 
(fluoride), and mixed dust and fume. Use of respiratory or dermal 
protection by workers was not reported. Exposures in the plant were 
high overall. Representative task-based IH samples ranged from 0.9 [mu] 
g/m\3\ to 84 [mu] g/m\3\ in the 1960s, falling to a range of 0.5-16.7 
[mu] g/m\3\ in the 1970s. A large number of workers' mean DWA estimates 
(25 percent) were above the OSHA PEL of 2.0 [mu] g/m\3\, while most 
workers had mean DWA exposures between 0.2 and 2.0 [mu] g/m\3\ (74 
percent) or below 0.02 [mu] g/m\3\ (1 percent) (Rosenman et al., Table 
11; revised erratum April, 2006).
    Blood samples for the BeLPT were collected from the former workers 
between 1996 and 2001 and were evaluated at a single laboratory. 
Individuals with an abnormal test result were offered repeat testing, 
and were classified as sensitized if the second test was also abnormal. 
Sixty workers with two positive BeLPTs and 50 additional workers with 
chest radiography suggestive of disease were offered clinical 
evaluation, including bronchoscopy with bronchial biopsy and BAL-BeLPT. 
Seven workers met both criteria. Only 56 (51 percent) of these workers 
proceeded with clinical evaluation, including 57 percent of those 
referred on the basis of confirmed abnormal BeLPT and 47 percent of 
those with abnormal radiographs.
    Of those workers who underwent bronchoscopy, 32 (5.5 percent) with 
evidence of granulomas were classified as ``definite'' CBD cases. 
Twelve (2.1 percent) additional workers with positive BAL-BeLPT or 
confirmed positive BeLPT and radiographic evidence of upper lobe 
fibrosis were classified as ``probable'' CBD cases. Forty workers (6.9 
percent) without upper lobe fibrosis who had confirmed abnormal BeLPT, 
but who were not biopsied or who underwent biopsy with no evidence of 
granuloma, were classified as sensitized without disease. It is not 
clear how many of the 40 workers underwent biopsy. Another 12 (2.1 
percent) workers with upper lobe fibrosis and negative or unconfirmed 
positive BeLPT were classified as ``possible'' CBD cases. Nine 
additional workers who were diagnosed with CBD before the screening 
were included in some parts of the authors' analysis.
    The authors reported a total prevalence of 14.5 percent for CBD 
(definite and probable) and sensitization. This rate, considerably 
higher than the overall prevalence of sensitization and disease in 
several other worker cohorts as described earlier in this section, 
reflects in part the very high exposures experienced by many workers 
during the plant's operation in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. A total of 
115 workers had mean DWAs above the OSHA PEL of 2 [mu] g/m\3\. Of 
those, 7 (6.0 percent) had definite or probable CBD and another 13 (11 
percent) were classified as sensitized without disease. The true 
prevalence of CBD in the group may be higher than reported, due to the 
low rate of clinical evaluation among sensitized workers.
    Although most of the workers in this study had high exposures, 
sensitization and CBD also were observed within the small subgroup of 
participants believed to have relatively low beryllium exposures. 
Thirty-three cases of CBD and 24 additional cases of sensitization 
occurred among 339 workers with mean DWA exposures below OSHA's PEL of 
2.0 [mu] g/m\3\ (Rosenman et al., Table 11, erratum 2006). Ten cases of 
sensitization and five cases of CBD were found among office and 
clerical workers, who were believed to have low exposures (levels not 
reported).
    Follow-up time for sensitization screening of workers in this study 
who became sensitized during their employment had a minimum of 20 years 
to develop CBD prior to screening. In this sense the cohort is 
especially well suited to compare the exposure patterns of workers with 
CBD and those sensitized without disease, in contrast to several other 
studies of workers with only recent beryllium exposures. Rosenman et 
al. characterized and compared the exposures of workers with definite 
and probable CBD, sensitization only, and no disease or sensitization 
using chi-squared tests for discrete outcomes and analysis of variance 
(ANOVA) for continuous variables (cumulative, mean, and peak exposure 
levels). Exposure-response relationships were further examined with 
logistic regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders 
including smoking, age, and beryllium exposure from outside of the 
plant. The authors found that cumulative, peak, and duration of 
exposure were significantly higher for workers with CBD than for 
sensitized workers without disease (p <0.05), suggesting that the risk 
of progressing from sensitization to CBD is related to the level or 
extent of exposure a worker experiences. The risk of developing CBD 
following sensitization appeared strongly related to exposure to 
insoluble forms of beryllium, which are cleared slowly from the lung 
and increase beryllium lung burden more rapidly than quickly mobilized 
soluble forms. Individuals with CBD had higher exposures to insoluble 
beryllium than those classified as sensitized without disease, while 
exposure to soluble beryllium was higher among sensitized individuals 
than those with CBD.
    Cumulative, mean, peak, and duration of exposure were found to be 
comparable for workers with CBD and workers without sensitization or 
CBD (``normal'' workers). Cumulative, peak, and duration of exposure 
were significantly lower for sensitized workers without disease than 
for normal workers. Rosenman et al. suggested that genetic 
predisposition to sensitization and CBD may have obscured an exposure-
response relationship in this study, and plan to control for genetic 
risk factors in future studies. Exposure misclassification from the 
1950s and 1960s may have been another limitation in this study, 
introducing bias that

[[Page 47598]]

could have influenced the lack of exposure response. It is also unknown 
if the 25 percent who died from CBD-related conditions may have had 
higher exposures.
    A follow-up was conducted of the cross-sectional study of a 
population of workers first evaluated by Kreiss et al. (1997) and 
Rosenman et al. (2005) at a beryllium production and processing 
facility in eastern Pennsylvania by Schuler et al. (2012), and in a 
companion study by Virji et al. (2012). Schuler et al. evaluated the 
worker population employed in 1999 with six years or less work tenure 
in a cross-sectional study. The investigators evaluated the worker 
population by administering a work history questionnaire with a follow-
up examination for sensitization and CBD. A job-exposure matrix (JEM) 
was combined with work histories to create individual estimates of 
average, cumulative, and highest-job-related exposure for total, 
respirable, and sub-micron beryllium mass concentration. Of the 291 
eligible workers, 90.7 percent (264) participated in the study. 
Sensitization prevalence was 9.8 percent (26/264) with CBD prevalence 
of 2.3 percent (6/264). The investigators found a general pattern of 
increasing sensitization prevalence as the exposure quartile increased 
indicating an exposure-response relationship. The investigators found 
positive associations with both total and respirable mass concentration 
with sensitization (average and highest job) and CBD (cumulative). 
Increased sensitization prevalence was observed with metal oxide 
production alloy melting and casting, and maintenance. CBD was 
associated with melting and casting. The investigators summarized that 
both total and respirable mass concentration were relevant predictors 
of risk (Schuler et al., 2012).
    In the companion study by Virji et al. (2012), the investigators 
reconstructed historical exposure from 1994 to 1999 utilizing the 
personal sampling data collected in 1999 as baseline exposure estimates 
(BEE). The study evaluated techniques for reconstructing historical 
data to evaluate exposure-response relationships for epidemiological 
studies. The investigators constructed JEMs using the BEE and estimates 
of annual changes in exposure for 25 different process areas. The 
investigators concluded these reconstructed JEMs could be used to 
evaluate a range of exposure parameters from total, respirable and 
submicron mass concentration including cumulative, average, and highest 
exposure. These two studies demonstrate that high-quality exposure 
estimates can be developed both for total mass and respirable mass 
concentrations.
e. Beryllium Machining Operations
    Newman et al. (2001) and Kelleher et al. (2001) studied a group of 
235 workers at a beryllium metal machining plant. Since the plant 
opened in 1969, its primary operations have been machining and 
polishing beryllium metal and high-beryllium content composite 
materials, with occasional machining of beryllium oxide/metal matrix 
(`E-metal'), and beryllium alloys. Other functions include machining of 
metals other than beryllium; receipt and inspection of materials; acid 
etching; final inspection, quality control, and shipping of finished 
materials; tool making; and engineering, maintenance, administrative 
and supervisory functions (Newman et al., 2001; Madl et al., 2007). 
Machining operations, including milling, grinding, lapping, deburring, 
lathing, and electrical discharge machining (EDM), were performed in an 
open-floor plan production area. Most non-machining jobs were located 
in a separate, adjacent area; however, non-production employees had 
access to the machining area.
    Engineering and administrative measures, rather than PPE, were 
primarily used to control beryllium exposures at the plant (Madl et 
al., 2007). Based on interviews with long-standing employees of the 
plant, Kelleher et al. reported that work practices were relatively 
stable until 1994, when a worker was diagnosed with CBD and a new 
exposure control program was initiated. Between 1995 and 1999 new 
engineering and work practice controls were implemented, including 
removal of pressurized air hoses and discouragement of dry sweeping 
(1995), enclosure of deburring processes (1996), mandatory uniforms 
(1997), and installation or updating of local exhaust ventilation (LEV) 
in EDM, lapping, deburring, and grinding processes (1998) (Madl et al., 
2007). Throughout the plant's history, respiratory protection was used 
mainly for ``unusually large, anticipated exposures'' to beryllium 
(Kelleher et al., 2001), and was not routinely used otherwise (Newman 
et al., 2001).
    All workers at the plant participated in a beryllium disease 
surveillance program initiated in 1994, and were screened for beryllium 
sensitization with the BeLPT beginning in 1995. A BeLPT result was 
considered abnormal if two or more of six stimulation indices exceeded 
the normal range (see section on BeLPT testing above), and was 
considered borderline if one of the indices exceeded the normal range. 
A repeat BeLPT was conducted for workers with abnormal or borderline 
initial results. Workers were identified as beryllium sensitized and 
referred for a clinical evaluation, including bronchoalveolar lavage 
(BAL) and transbronchial lung biopsy, if the repeat test was abnormal. 
CBD was diagnosed upon evidence of sensititization with granulomas or 
mononuclear cell infiltrates in the lung tissue (Newman et al., 2001). 
Following the initial plant-wide screening, plant employees were 
offered BeLPT testing at two-year intervals. Workers hired after the 
initial screening were offered a BeLPT within 3 months of their hire 
date, and at 2-year intervals thereafter (Madl et al., 2007).
    Kelleher et al. performed a nested case-control study of the 235 
workers evaluated in Newman et al. (2001) to evaluate the relationship 
between beryllium exposure levels and risk of sensitization and CBD 
(Kelleher et al., 2001). The authors evaluated exposures at the plant 
using IH samples they had collected between 1996 and 1999, using 
personal cascade impactors designed to measure the mass of beryllium 
particles less than 6 [mu] m, particles less than 1 [mu]m in diameter, 
and total mass. The great majority of workers' exposures were below the 
OSHA PEL of 2 [mu] g/m\3\. However, a few higher levels were observed 
in machining jobs including deburring, lathing, lapping, and grinding. 
Based on a statistical comparison between their samples and historical 
data provided by the plant, the authors concluded that worker beryllium 
exposures across all time periods could be approximated using the 1996-
1999 data. They estimated workers' cumulative and `lifetime weighted' 
(LTW) beryllium exposure based on the exposure samples they collected 
for each job in 1996-1999 and company records of each worker's job 
history.
    Twenty workers with beryllium sensitization or CBD (cases) were 
compared to 206 workers (controls) for the case-control analysis from 
the study evaluating workers originally conducted by Newman et al. 
Thirteen workers were diagnosed with CBD based on lung biopsy evidence 
of granulomas and/or mononuclear cell infiltrates (11) or positive BAL 
results with evidence of lymphocytosis (2). Seven were evaluated for 
CBD and found to be sensitized only, thus twenty composing the case 
group. Nine of the remaining 215 workers first identified in original 
study (Newman et al., 2001) were

[[Page 47599]]

excluded due to incomplete job history information, leaving 206 workers 
in the control group.
    Kelleher et al.'s analysis included comparisons of the case and 
control groups' median exposure levels; calculation of odds ratios for 
workers in high, medium, and low exposure groups; and logistic 
regression testing of the association of sensitization or CBD with 
exposure level and other variables. Median cumulative exposures for 
total mass, particles <6 [mu] m, and particles <1 [mu]m were 
approximately three times higher among the cases than controls, 
although the relationships observed were not statistically significant 
(p values ~ 0.2). No clear difference between cases and controls was 
observed for the median LTW exposures. Odds ratios with sensitization 
and CBD as outcomes were elevated in high (upper third) and 
intermediate exposure groups relative to low (lowest third) exposure 
groups for both cumulative and LTW exposure, though the results were 
not statistically significant (p > 0.1). In the logistic regression 
analysis, only machinist work history was a significant predictor of 
case status in the final model. Quantitative exposure measures were not 
significant predictors of sensitization or disease risk.
    Citing an 11.5 percent prevalence of beryllium sensitization or CBD 
among machinists as compared with 2.9 percent prevalence among workers 
with no machinist work history, the authors concluded that the risk of 
sensitization and CBD is increased among workers who machine beryllium. 
Although differences between cases and controls in median cumulative 
exposure did not achieve conventional thresholds for statistical 
significance, the authors noted that cumulative exposures were 
consistently higher among cases than controls for all categories of 
exposure estimates and for all particle sizes, suggesting an effect of 
cumulative exposure on risk. The levels at which workers developed CBD 
and sensitization were predominantly below OSHA's current PEL of 2 [mu] 
g/m\3\, and no cases of sensitization or CBD were observed among 
workers with LTW exposure <0.02 [mu]g/m\3\. Twelve (60 percent) of the 
20 sensitized workers had LTW exposures > 0.20 [mu] g/m\3\.
    In 2007, Madl et al. published an additional study of 27 workers at 
the machining plant who were found to be sensitized or diagnosed with 
CBD between the start of medical surveillance in 1995 and 2005. As 
previously described, workers were offered a BeLPT in the initial 1995 
screening (or within 3 months of their hire date if hired after 1995) 
and at 2-year intervals after their first screening. Workers with two 
positive BeLPTs were identified as sensitized and offered clinical 
evaluation for CBD, including bronchoscopy with BAL and transbronchial 
lung biopsy. The criteria for CBD in this study were somewhat stricter 
than those used in the Newman et al. study, requiring evidence of 
granulomas on lung biopsy or detection of X-ray or pulmonary function 
changes associated with CBD, in combination with two positive BeLPTs or 
one positive BAL-BeLPT.
    Based on the history of the plant's control efforts and their 
analysis of historical IH data, Madl et al. identified three ``exposure 
control eras'': A relatively uncontrolled period from 1980-1995; a 
transitional period from 1996 to 1999; and a relatively well-controlled 
``modern'' period from 2000-2005. They found that the engineering and 
work practice controls instituted in the mid-1990s reduced workers' 
exposures substantially, with nearly a 15-fold difference in reported 
exposure levels between the pre-control and the modern period (Madl et 
al., 2007). Madl et al. estimated workers' exposures using LP samples 
collected between 1980 and 2005, including those collected by Kelleher 
et al., and work histories provided by the plant. As described more 
fully in the study, they used a variety of approaches to describe 
individual workers' exposures, including approaches designed to 
characterize the highest exposures workers were likely to have 
experienced. Their exposure-response analysis was based primarily on an 
exposure metric they derived by identifying the year and job of each 
worker's pre-diagnosis work history with the highest reported 
exposures. They used the upper 95th percentile of the LP samples 
collected in that job and year (in some cases supplemented with data 
from other years) to characterize the worker's upper-level exposures.
    Based on their estimates of workers' upper level exposures, Madl et 
al. concluded that workers with sensitization or CBD were likely to 
have been exposed to airborne beryllium levels greater than 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA at some point in their history of employment in 
the plant. They also concluded that most sensitization and CBD cases 
were likely to have been exposed to levels greater than 0.4 [mu]g/m\3\ 
at some point in their work at the plant. Madl et al. did not 
reconstruct exposures for workers at the plant who did not have 
sensitization or CBD and therefore could not determine whether non-
cases had upper-bound exposures lower than these levels. They found 
that upper-bound exposure estimates were generally higher for workers 
with CBD than for those who were sensitized but not diagnosed with CBD 
at the conclusion of the study (Madl et al., 2007). Because CBD is an 
immunological disease and beryllium sensitization has been shown to 
occur within a year of exposure for some workers, Madl et al. argued 
that their estimates of workers' short-term upper-bound exposures may 
better capture the exposure levels that led to sensitization and 
disease than estimates of long-term cumulative or average exposures 
such as the LTW exposure measure constructed by Kelleher et al. (Madl 
et al., 2007).
f. Beryllium Oxide Ceramics
    Kreiss et al. (1993) conducted a screening of current and former 
workers at a plant that manufactured beryllium ceramics from beryllium 
oxide between 1958 and 1975, and then transitioned to metalizing 
circuitry onto beryllium ceramics produced elsewhere. Of the plant's 
1,316 current and 350 retired workers, 505 participated who had not 
previously been diagnosed with CBD or sarcoidosis, including 377 
current and 128 former workers. Although beryllium exposure was not 
estimated quantitatively in this survey, the authors conducted a 
questionnaire to assess study participants' exposures qualitatively. 
Results showed that 55 percent of participants reported working in jobs 
with exposure to beryllium dust. Close to 25 percent of participants 
did not know if they had exposure to beryllium, and just over 20 
percent believed they had not been exposed.
    BeLPT tests were administered to all 505 participants in the 1989-
1990 screening period and evaluated at a single lab. Seven workers had 
confirmed abnormal BeLPT results and were identified as sensitized; 
these workers were also diagnosed with CBD based on findings of 
granulomas upon clinical evaluation. Radiograph screening led to 
clinical evaluation and diagnosis of two additional CBD cases, who were 
among three participants with initially abnormal BeLPT results that 
could not be confirmed on repeat testing. In addition, nine workers had 
been previously diagnosed with CBD, and another five were diagnosed 
shortly after the screening period, in 1991-1992.
    Eight (3.7 percent of the screening population) of the nine CBD 
cases identified in the screening population were hired before the 
plant stopped producing beryllium ceramics in 1975, and were among the 
216 participants who had reported having been near or

[[Page 47600]]

exposed to beryllium dust. Particularly high CBD rates of 11.1-15.8 
percent were found among screening participants who had worked in 
process development/engineering, dry pressing, and ventilation 
maintenance jobs believed to have high or uncontrolled dust exposure. 
One case (0.6 percent) of CBD was diagnosed among the 171 study 
participants who had been hired after the plant stopped producing 
beryllium ceramics. Although this worker was hired eight years after 
the end of ceramics production, he had worked in an area later found to 
be contaminated with beryllium dust. The authors concluded that the 
study results suggested an exposure-response relationship between 
beryllium exposure and CBD, and recommended beryllium exposure control 
to reduce workers' risk of CBD.
    Kreiss et al. later published a study of workers at a second 
ceramics plant located in Tucson, AZ (Kreiss et al., 1996), which since 
1980 had produced beryllium ceramics from beryllium oxide powder 
manufactured elsewhere. IH measurements collected between 1981 and 
1992, primarily GA or short-term BZ samples and a few (<100) LP 
samples, were available from the plant. Airborne beryllium exposures 
were generally low. The majority of area samples were below the 
analytical detection limit of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, while LP and short-term 
BZ samples had medians of 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\. However, 3.6 percent of 
short-term BZ samples and 0.7 percent of GA samples exceeded 5.0 [mu]g/
mg\3\, while LP samples ranged from 0.1 to 1.8 [mu]g/m\3\. Machining 
jobs had the highest beryllium exposure levels among job tasks, with 
short-term BZ samples significantly higher for machining jobs than for 
non-machining jobs (median 0.6 [mu]g/m\3\ vs. 0.3 [mu]g/mg\3\, p = 
0.0001). The authors used DWA formulas provided by the plant to 
estimate workers' full-shift exposure levels, and to calculate 
cumulative and average beryllium exposures for each worker in the 
study. The median cumulative exposure was 591.7 mg-days/m\3\ and the 
median average exposure was 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\.
    One hundred thirty-six of the 139 workers employed at the plant at 
the time of the Kreiss et al. (1996) study underwent BeLPT screening 
and chest radiographs in 1992. Blood samples were split between two 
laboratories. If one or both test results were abnormal, an additional 
sample was collected and split between the labs. Seven workers with an 
abnormal result on two draws were initially identified as sensitized. 
Those with confirmed abnormal BeLPTs or abnormal chest X-rays were 
offered clinical evaluation for CBD, including transbronchial lung 
biopsy and BAL BeLPT. CBD was diagnosed based on observation of 
granulomas on lung biopsy, in five of the six sensitized workers who 
accepted evaluation. An eighth case of sensitization and sixth case of 
CBD were diagnosed in one worker hired in October 1991 whose initial 
BeLPT was normal, but who was confirmed as sensitized and found to have 
lung granulomas less than two years later, after sustaining a 
beryllium-contaminated skin wound. The plant medical department 
reported 11 additional cases of CBD among former workers (Kreiss et 
al., 1996). The overall prevalence of sensitization in the plant was 
5.9 percent, with a 4.4 percent prevalence of CBD.
    Kreiss et al. reported that six (75 percent) of the eight 
sensitized workers were exposed as machinists during or before the 
period October 1985-March 1988, when measurements were first available 
for machining jobs. The authors reported that 14.3 percent of 
machinists were sensitized, compared to 1.2 percent of workers who had 
never been machinists (p <0.01). Workers' estimated cumulative and 
average beryllium exposures did not differ significantly for machinists 
and non-machinists, or for cases and non-cases. As in the previous 
study of the same ceramics plant published by Kreiss et al. in 1993, 
one case of CBD was diagnosed in a worker who had never been employed 
in a production job. This worker was employed in administration, a job 
with a median DWA of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (range 0.1-0.3).
    In 1998, Henneberger et al. conducted a follow-up cross-sectional 
survey of 151 employees employed at the beryllium ceramics plant 
studied by Kreiss et al. (1996) (Henneberger et al., 2001). Employees 
were eligible who either had not participated in the Kreiss et al. 
survey (``short-term workers''--74 of those studied by Henneberger et 
al.), or who had participated and were not found to have sensitization 
or disease (``long-term workers''--77 of those studied by Henneberger 
et al.).
    The authors estimated workers' cumulative, average, and peak 
beryllium exposures based on the plant's formulas for estimating job-
specific DWA exposures, participants' work histories, and area and 
short-term task-specific BZ samples collected from the start of full 
production at the plant in 1981 to 1998. The long-term workers, who 
were hired before the 1992 study was conducted, had generally higher 
estimated exposures (median of average exposures--0.39 [mu]g/m\3\; 
mean--14.9 [mu]g/m\3\) than the short-term workers, who were hired 
after 1992 (median 0.28 [mu]g/m\3\, mean 6.1 [mu]g/m\3\).
    Fifteen cases of sensitization were found, including eight among 
short-term and seven among long-term workers. Eight of the 15 workers 
were found to have CBD. Of the workers diagnosed with CBD, seven (88 
percent) were long-term workers. One non-sensitized long-term worker 
and one sensitized long-term worker declined clinical examination.
    Henneberger et al. reported a higher prevalence of sensitization 
among long-term workers with ``high'' (greater than median) peak 
exposures compared to long-term workers with ``low'' exposures; 
however, this relationship was not statistically significant. No 
association was observed for average or cumulative exposures. The 
authors reported higher prevalence of sensitization (but not 
statistically significant) among short-term workers with ``high'' 
(greater than median) average, cumulative, and peak exposures compared 
to short-term workers with ``low'' exposures of each type.
    The cumulative incidence of sensitization and CBD was investigated 
in a cohort of 136 workers at the beryllium ceramics plant previously 
studied by the Kreiss and Henneberger groups (Schuler et al., 2008). 
The study cohort consisted of those who participated in the plant-wide 
BeLPT screening in 1992. Both current and former workers from this 
group were invited to participate in follow-up BeLPT screenings in 
1998, 2000, and 2002-03. A total of 106 of the 128 non-sensitized 
individuals in 1992 participated in the 11-year follow-up. 
Sensitization was defined as a confirmed abnormal BeLPT based on the 
split blood sample-dual laboratory protocol described earlier. CBD was 
diagnosed in sensitized individuals based on pathological findings from 
transbronchial biopsy and BAL fluid analysis. The 11-year crude 
cumulative incidence of sensitization and CBD was 13 percent (14 of 
106) and 8 percent (9 of 106) respectively. The cumulative prevalence 
was about triple the point prevalences determined in the initial 1992 
cross-sectional survey. The corrected cumulative prevalences for those 
that ever worked in machining were nearly twice that for non-
machinists. The data illustrate the value of longitudinal medical 
screening over time to obtain a more accurate estimate of the 
occurrence of sensitization and CBD among an exposed working 
population.
    Following the 1998 survey, the company continued efforts to reduce

[[Page 47601]]

exposures and risk of sensitization and CBD by implementing additional 
engineering, administrative, and PPE measures (Cummings et al., 2007). 
Respirator use was required in production areas beginning in 1999, and 
latex gloves were required beginning in 2000. The lapping area was 
enclosed in 2000, and enclosures were installed for all mechanical 
presses in 2001. Between 2000 and 2003, water-resistant or water-proof 
garments, shoe covers, and taped gloves were incorporated to keep 
beryllium-containing fluids from wet machining processes off the skin. 
The new engineering measures did not appear to substantially reduce 
airborne beryllium levels in the plant. LP samples collected between 
2000 and 2003 had a median of 0.18 [mu]g/m\3\, similar to the 1994-1999 
samples. However, respiratory protection requirements to control 
workers' airborne beryllium exposures were instituted prior to the 2000 
sample collections.
    To test the efficacy of the new measures instituted after 1998, in 
January 2000 the company began screening new workers for sensitization 
at the time of hire and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 months of employment. 
These more stringent measures appear to have substantially reduced the 
risk of sensitization among new employees. Of 126 workers hired between 
2000 and 2004, 93 completed BeLPT testing at hire and at least one 
additional test at 3 months of employment. One case of sensitization 
was identified at 24 months of employment (1 percent). This worker had 
experienced a rash after an incident of dermal exposure to lapping 
fluid through a gap between his glove and uniform sleeve, indicating 
that he may have become sensitized via the skin. He was tested again at 
48 months of employment, with an abnormal result.
    A second worker in the 2000-2004 group had two abnormal BeLPT tests 
at the time of hire, and a third had one abnormal test at hire and a 
second abnormal test at 3 months. Both had normal BeLPTs at 6 months, 
and were not tested thereafter. A fourth worker had one abnormal BeLPT 
result at the time of hire, a normal result at 3 months, an abnormal 
result at 6 months, and a normal result at 12 months. Four additional 
workers had one abnormal result during surveillance, which could not be 
confirmed upon repeat testing.
    Cummings et al. calculated two sensitization rates based on these 
screening results: (1) a rate using only the sensitized worker 
identified at 24 months, and (2) a rate including all four workers who 
had repeated abnormal results. They reported a sensitization incidence 
rate (IR) of 0.7 per 1,000 person-months to 2.7 per 1,000 person-months 
for the workers hired between 2000 and 2004, using the sum of 
sensitization-free months of employment among all 93 workers as the 
denominator.
    The authors also estimated an incidence rate (IR) of 5.6 per 1,000 
person-months for workers hired between 1993 and the 1998 survey. This 
estimated IR was based on one BeLPT screening, rather than BeLPTs 
conducted throughout the workers' employment. The denominator in this 
case was the total months of employment until the 1998 screening. 
Because sensitized workers may have been sensitized prior to the 
screening, the denominator may overestimate sensitization-free time in 
the legacy group, and the actual sensitization IR for legacy workers 
may be somewhat higher than 5.6 per 1,000 person-months. Based on 
comparison of the IRs, the authors concluded that the addition of 
respirator use, dermal protection, and housekeeping improvements 
appeared to have reduced the risk of sensitization among workers at the 
plant, even though airborne beryllium levels in some areas of the plant 
had not changed significantly since the 1998 survey.
g. Copper-Beryllium Alloy Processing and Distribution
    Schuler et al. (2005) studied a group of 152 workers at a facility 
processing copper-beryllium alloys and small quantities of nickel-
beryllium alloys, and converting semi-finished alloy strip and wire 
into finished strip, wire and rod. Production activities included 
annealing, drawing, straightening, point and chamfer, rod and wire 
packing, die grinding, pickling, slitting, and degreasing. Periodically 
in the plant's history, they also did salt baths, cadmium plating, 
welding and deburring. Since the late 1980s, rod and wire production 
processes were physically segregated from strip metal production. 
Production support jobs included mechanical maintenance, quality 
assurance, shipping and receiving, inspection, and wastewater 
treatment. Administration was divided into staff primarily working 
within the plant and personnel who mostly worked in office areas 
(Schuler, et al., 2005). Workers' respirator use was limited, mostly to 
occasional tasks where high exposures were anticipated.
    Following the 1999 diagnosis of a worker with CBD, the company 
surveyed the workforce, offering all current employees BeLPT testing in 
2000 and offering sensitized workers clinical evaluation for CBD, 
including BAL and transbronchial biopsy. Of the facility's 185 
employees, 152 participated in the BeLPT screening. Samples were split 
between two laboratories, with additional draws and testing for 
confirmation if conflicting tests resulted in the initial draw. Ten 
participants (7 percent) had at least two abnormal BeLPT results. The 
results of nine workers who had abnormal BeLPT results from only one 
laboratory were not included because the authors believed it was 
experiencing technical problems with the test (Schuler et al., 2005). 
CBD was diagnosed in six workers (4 percent) on evidence of pathogenic 
abnormalities (e.g., granulomas) or evidence of clinical abnormalities 
consistent with CBD based on pulmonary function testing, pulmonary 
exercise testing, and/or chest radiography. One worker diagnosed with 
CBD had been exposed to beryllium during previous work at another 
copper-beryllium processing facility.
    Schuler et al. evaluated airborne beryllium levels at the plant 
using IH samples collected between 1969 and 2000, including 4,524 GA 
samples, 650 LP samples and 815 short-duration (3-5 min) high volume 
(SD-HV) BZ task-specific samples. Occupational exposures to airborne 
beryllium were generally low. Ninety-nine percent of all LP 
measurements were below the current OSHA PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (8-hr 
TWA); 93 percent were below the DOE action level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\; and 
the median value was 0.02 [mu]g/m\3\. The SD-HV BZ samples had a median 
value of 0.44 [mu]g/m\3\, with 90 percent below the OSHA Short-Term 
Exposure Limit (STEL) of 5.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The highest levels of 
beryllium were found in rod and wire production, particularly in wire 
annealing and pickling, the only production job with a median personal 
sample measurement greater than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (median 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\; 
range 0.01-7.8 [mu]g/m\3\) (Schuler et al., Table 4). These 
concentrations were significantly higher than the exposure levels in 
the strip metal area (median 0.02, range 0.01-0.72 [mu]g/m\3\), in 
production support jobs (median 0.02, range <0.01-0.33 [mu]g/m\3\), 
plant administration (median 0.02, range <0.01-0.11 [mu]g/m\3\), and 
office administration jobs (median 0.01, range <0.01-0.06 [mu]g/m\3\).
    The authors reported that eight of the ten sensitized employees, 
including all six CBD cases, had worked in both major production areas 
during their tenure with the plant. The 7 percent prevalence (6 of 81 
workers) of CBD among employees who had ever worked in rod and wire was 
statistically

[[Page 47602]]

significantly elevated compared with employees who had never worked in 
rod and wire (p <0.05), while the 6 percent prevalence (6 of 94 
workers) among those who had worked in strip metal was not 
significantly elevated compared to non-strip metal workers (p > 0.1). 
Based on these results, together with the higher exposure levels 
reported for the rod and wire production area, Schuler et al. concluded 
that work in rod and wire was a key risk factor for CBD in this 
population. Schuler et al. also found a high prevalence (13 percent) of 
sensitization among workers who had been exposed to beryllium for less 
than a year at the time of the screening, a rate similar to that found 
by Henneberger et al. among beryllium ceramics workers exposed for one 
year or less (16 percent, Henneberger et al., 2001). All four workers 
who were sensitized without disease had been exposed 5 years or less; 
conversely, all six of the workers with CBD had first been exposed to 
beryllium at least five years prior to the screening (Schuler et al., 
Table 2).
    As has been seen in other studies, beryllium sensitization and CBD 
were found among workers who were typically exposed to low time-
weighted average airborne concentrations of beryllium. While jobs in 
the rod and wire area had the highest exposure levels in the plant, the 
median personal sample value was only 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\. However, workers 
may have occasionally been exposed to higher beryllium levels for short 
periods during specific tasks. A small fraction of personal samples 
recorded in rod and wire were above the OSHA PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and 
half of workers with sensitization or CBD reported that they had 
experienced a ``high-exposure incident'' at some point in their work 
history (Schuler et al., 2005). The only group of workers with no cases 
of sensitization or CBD, a group of 26 office administration workers, 
was the group with the lowest recorded exposures (median personal 
sample 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\, range <0.01-0.06 [mu]g/m\3\).
    After the BeLPT screening was conducted in 2000, the company began 
implementing new measures to further reduce workers' exposure to 
beryllium (Thomas et al., 2009). Requirements designed to minimize 
dermal contact with beryllium, including long-sleeve facility uniforms 
and polymer gloves, were instituted in production areas in 2000. In 
2001 the company installed LEV in die grinding and polishing. LP 
samples collected between June 2000 and December 2001 show reduced 
exposures plant-wide. Of 2,211 exposure samples collected, 98 percent 
were below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and 59 percent below the limit of detection 
(LOD), which was either 0.02 [micro]g/m\3\ or 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ 
depending on the method of sample analysis (Thomas et al., 2009). 
Median values below 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\ were reported for all processes 
except the wire annealing and pickling process. Samples for this 
process remained somewhat elevated, with a median of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. In 
January 2002, the plant enclosed the wire annealing and pickling 
process in a restricted access zone (RAZ), requiring respiratory PPE in 
the RAZ and implementing stringent measures to minimize the potential 
for skin contact and beryllium transfer out of the zone. While exposure 
samples collected by the facility were sparse following the enclosure, 
they suggest exposure levels comparable to the 2000-01 samples in areas 
other than the RAZ. Within the RAZ, required use of powered air-
purifying respirators indicates that respiratory exposure was 
negligible.
    To test the efficacy of the new measures in preventing 
sensitization and CBD, in June 2000 the facility began an intensive 
BeLPT screening program for all new workers. The company screened 
workers at the time of hire; at intervals of 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 
months; and at 3-year intervals thereafter. Among 82 workers hired 
after 1999, three (3.7 percent) cases of sensitization were found. Two 
(5.4 percent) of 37 workers hired prior to enclosure of the wire 
annealing and pickling process were found to be sensitized within 3 and 
6 months of beginning work at the plant. One (2.2 percent) of 45 
workers hired after the enclosure was confirmed as sensitized.
    Thomas et al. calculated a sensitization IR of 1.9 per 1,000 
person-months for the workers hired after the exposure control program 
was initiated in 2000 (``program workers''), using the sum of 
sensitization-free months of employment among all 82 workers as the 
denominator (Thomas et al., 2009). They calculated an estimated IR of 
3.8 per 1,000 person-months for 43 workers hired between 1993 and 2000 
who had participated in the 2000 BeLPT screening (``legacy workers''). 
This estimated IR was based on one BeLPT screening, rather than BeLPTs 
conducted throughout the legacy workers' employment. The denominator in 
this case is the total months of employment until the 2000 screening. 
Because sensitized workers may have been sensitized prior to the 
screening, the denominator may overestimate sensitization-free time in 
the legacy group, and the actual sensitization IR for legacy workers 
may be somewhat higher than 3.8 per 1,000 person-months. Based on 
comparison of the IRs and the prevalence rates discussed previously, 
the authors concluded that the combination of dermal protection, 
respiratory protection, housekeeping improvements and engineering 
controls implemented beginning in 2000 appeared to have reduced the 
risk of sensitization among workers at the plant. However, they noted 
that the small size of the study population and the short follow-up 
time for the program workers suggested that further research is needed 
to confirm the program's efficacy (Thomas et al., 2009).
    Stanton et al. (2006) conducted a study of workers in three 
different copper-beryllium alloy distribution centers in the United 
States. The distribution centers, including one bulk products center 
established in 1963 and strip metal centers established in 1968 and 
1972, sell products received from beryllium production and finishing 
facilities and small quantities of copper-beryllium, aluminum-
beryllium, and nickel-beryllium alloy materials. Work at distribution 
centers does not require large-scale heat treatment or manipulation of 
material typical of beryllium processing and machining plants, but 
involves final processing steps that can generate airborne beryllium. 
Slitting, the main production activity at the two strip product 
distribution centers, generates low levels of airborne beryllium 
particles, while operations such as tensioning and welding used more 
frequently at the bulk products center can generate somewhat higher 
levels. Non-production jobs at all three centers included shipping and 
receiving, palletizing and wrapping, production-area administrative 
work, and office-area administrative work.
    The authors estimated workers' beryllium exposures using IH data 
from company records and job history information collected through 
interviews conducted by a company occupational health nurse. Stanton et 
al. evaluated airborne beryllium levels in various jobs based on 393 
full-shift LP samples collected from 1996 to 2004. Airborne beryllium 
levels at the plant were generally very low, with 54 percent of all 
samples at or below the LOD, which ranged from 0.02 to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. 
The authors reported a median of 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\ and an arithmetic mean 
of 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 393 full-shift LP samples, where samples 
below the LOD were assigned a value of half the applicable LOD. Median 
and geometric mean values for specific jobs ranged from 0.01-0.07 and 
0.02-0.07 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively. All measurements were

[[Page 47603]]

below the OSHA PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and 97 percent were below the DOE 
action level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. The paper does not report use of 
respiratory or skin protection. Exposure conditions may have changed 
somewhat over the history of the plant due to changes in exposure 
control measures, including improvements to product and container 
cleaning practices instituted during the 1990s.
    Eighty-eight of the 100 workers (88 percent) employed at the three 
centers at the time of the study participated in screening for 
beryllium sensitization. Blood samples were collected between November 
2000 and March 2001 by the company's medical staff. Samples collected 
from employees of the strip metal centers were split and evaluated at 
two laboratories, while samples from the bulk product center workers 
were evaluated at a single laboratory. Participants were considered to 
be ``sensitized'' to beryllium if two or more BeLPT results, from two 
laboratories or from repeat testing at the same laboratory, were found 
to be abnormal. One individual was found to be sensitized and was 
offered clinical evaluation, including BAL and fiberoptic bronchoscopy. 
He was found to have lung granulomas and was diagnosed with CBD.
    The worker diagnosed with CBD had been employed at a strip metal 
distribution center from 1978 to 2000 as a shipper and receiver, 
loading and unloading trucks delivering materials from a beryllium 
production facility and to the distribution center's customers. 
Although the LP samples collected for his job between 1996 and 2000 
were generally low (n = 35, median 0.01, range < 0.02-0.13 [micro]g/
m\3\), it is not clear whether these samples adequately characterize 
his exposure conditions over the course of his work history. He 
reported that early in his work history, containers of beryllium oxide 
powder were transported on the trucks he entered. While he did not 
recall seeing any breaks or leaks in the beryllium oxide containers, 
some containers were known to have been punctured by forklifts on 
trailers used by the company during the period of his employment, and 
could have contaminated trucks he entered. With 22 years of employment 
at the facility, this worker had begun beryllium-related work earlier 
and performed it longer than about 90 percent of the study population 
(Stanton et al., 2006).
h. Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities & Cleanup of Former Facilities
    Primary exposure from nuclear weapons production facilities comes 
from beryllium metal and beryllium alloys. A study conducted by Kreiss 
et al. (1989) documented sensitization and CBD among beryllium-exposed 
workers in the nuclear industry. A company medical department 
identified 58 workers with beryllium exposure among a work force of 
500, of whom 51 (88 percent) participated in the study. Twenty-four 
workers were involved in research and development (R&D), while the 
remaining 27 were production workers. The R&D workers had a longer 
tenure with a mean time from first exposure of 21.2 years, compared to 
a mean time since first exposure of 5 years among the production 
workers. The number of workers with abnormal BeLPT readings was 6, with 
4 being diagnosed with CBD. This resulted in an estimated 11.8 percent 
prevalence of sensitization.
    Kreiss et al. (1993) expanded the work of Kreiss et al. (1989) by 
performing a cross-sectional study of 895 (current and former) 
beryllium workers in the same nuclear weapons plant. Participants were 
placed in qualitative exposure groups (``no exposure,'' ``minimal 
exposure,'' ``intermittent exposure,'' and ``consistent exposure'') 
based on questionnaire responses. The number of workers with abnormal 
BeLPT totaled 18 with 12 being diagnosed with CBD. Three additional 
workers with sensitization developed CBD over the next 2 years. 
Sensitization occurred in all of the qualitatively defined exposure 
groups. Individuals who had worked as machinists were statistically 
overrepresented among beryllium-sensitized cases, compared with non-
cases. Cases were more likely than non-cases to report having had a 
measured overexposure to beryllium (p = 0.009), a factor which proved 
to be a significant predictor of sensitization in logistic regression 
analyses, as was exposure to beryllium prior to 1970. Beryllium 
sensitized cases were also significantly more likely to report having 
had cuts that were delayed in healing (p = 0.02). The authors concluded 
that individual variability and susceptibility along with exposure 
circumstances are important factors in developing beryllium 
sensitization and CBD.
    In 1991, the Beryllium Health Surveillance Program (BHSP) was 
established at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Facility to offer BLPT 
screening to current and former employees who may have been exposed to 
beryllium (Stange et al., 1996). Participants received an initial BeLPT 
and follow-ups at one and three years. Based on histologic evidence of 
pulmonary granulomas and a positive BAL-BeLPT, Stange et al. published 
a study of 4,397 BHSP participants tested from June 1991 to March 1995, 
including current employees (42.8 percent) and former employees (57.2 
percent). Twenty-nine cases of CBD and 76 cases of sensitization were 
identified. The sensitization rate for the population was 2.43 percent. 
Available exposure data included fixed airhead (FAH) exposure samples 
collected between 1970 and 1988 (mean concentration 0.016 [micro]g/
m\3\) and personal samples collected between 1984 and 1987 (mean 
concentration 1.04 [micro]g/m\3\). Cases of CBD and sensitization were 
noted in individuals in all jobs classifications, including those 
believed to involve minimal exposure to beryllium. The authors 
recommended ongoing surveillance for workers in all jobs with potential 
for beryllium exposure.
    Stange et al. (2001) extended the previous study, evaluating 5,173 
participants in the Rocky Flats BHSP who were tested between June 1991 
and December 1997. Three-year serial testing was offered to employees 
who had not been tested for three years or more and did not show 
beryllium sensitization during the previous study. This resulted in 
2,891 employees being tested. Of the 5,173 workers participating in the 
study, 172 were found to have abnormal BeLPT. Ninety-eight (3.33 
percent) of the workers were found to be sensitized (confirmed abnormal 
BeLPT results) in the initial screening, conducted in 1991. Of these 
workers 74 were diagnosed with CBD (history of beryllium exposure, 
evidence of non-caseating granulomas or mononuclear cell infiltrates on 
lung biopsy, and a positive BeLPT or BAL-BeLPT). A follow-up survey of 
2,891 workers three years later identified an additional 56 sensitized 
workers and an additional seven cases of CBD. Sensitization and CBD 
rates were analyzed with respect to gender, building work locations, 
and length of employment. Historical employee data included hire date, 
termination date, leave of absences, and job title changes. Exposure to 
beryllium was determined by job categories and building or work area 
codes. Personal beryllium air monitoring results were used, when 
available, from employees with the same job title or similar job. 
However, no quantitative information was presented in the study. The 
authors conclude that for some individuals, exposure to beryllium at 
levels less that the OSHA PEL could cause sensitization and CBD.
    Viet et al. (2001) conducted a case-control study of the Rocky 
Flats worker population studied by Stange et al. (1996 and 2001) to 
examine the relationship between estimated

[[Page 47604]]

beryllium exposure level and risk of sensitization or CBD. The worker 
population included 74 beryllium-sensitized workers and 50 workers 
diagnosed with CBD. Beryllium exposure levels were estimated based on 
FAH airhead samples from one building, the beryllium machine shop. 
These were collected away from the BZ of the machine operator and 
likely underestimated exposure. To estimate levels in other locations, 
these air sample concentrations were used to construct a job exposure 
matrix that included the determination of the Building 444 exposure 
estimates for a 30-year period; each subject's work history by job 
location, task, and time period; and assignment of exposure estimates 
to each combination of job location, task, and time period as compared 
to Building 444 machinists. The authors adjusted the levels observed in 
the machine shop by factors based on interviews with former workers. 
Workers' estimated mean exposure concentrations ranged from 0.083 
[micro]g/m\3\ to 0.622 [micro]g/m\3\. Estimated maximum air 
concentrations ranged from 0.54 [micro]g/m\3\ to 36.8 [micro]g/m\3\. 
Cases were matched to controls of the same age, race, gender, and 
smoking status (Viet et al., 2001).
    Estimated mean and cumulative exposure levels and duration of 
employment were found to be significantly higher for CBD cases than for 
controls. Estimated mean exposure levels were significantly higher for 
sensitization cases than for controls. No significant difference was 
observed for estimated cumulative exposure or duration of exposure. 
Similar results were found using logistic regression analysis, which 
identified statistically significant relationships between CBD and both 
cumulative and mean estimated exposure, but did not find significant 
relationships between estimated exposure levels and sensitization 
without CBD. Comparing CBD with sensitization cases, Viet et al. found 
that workers with CBD had significantly higher estimated cumulative and 
mean beryllium exposure levels than workers who were sensitized, but 
did not have CBD.
    Johnson et al. (2001) conducted a review of personal sampling 
records and medical surveillance reports at an atomic weapons 
establishment in Cardiff, United Kingdom. The study evaluated airborne 
samples collected over the 36-year period of operation for the plant. 
Data included 367,757 area samples and 217,681 personal lapel samples 
from 194 workers over the time period from 1981-1997. Data was 
available prior to this time period but was not analyzed since this 
data was not available electronically. The authors estimated that over 
the 17 years of measurement data analyzed, airborne beryllium 
concentrations did exceed 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\, however, due to the 
limitations with regard to collection times it is difficult to assess 
the full reliability of this estimate. The authors noted that in the 
entire plant's history, only one case of CBD had been diagnosed. It was 
also noted that BeLPT has not been routinely conducted among any of the 
workers at this facility.
    Armojandi et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional study of 
workers at a nuclear weapons research and development (R&D) facility to 
determine the risk of developing CBD in sensitized workers at 
facilities with exposures much lower than production plants. Of the 
1875 current or former workers at the R&D facility, 59 were determined 
to be sensitized based on at least two positive BeLPTs (i.e., samples 
drawn on two separate occasions or on split samples tested in two 
separate DOE-approved laboratories) for a sensitization rate of 3.1 
percent. Workers found to have positive BeLPTs were further evaluated 
in an Occupational Medicine Clinic between 1999 through 2005. Armojandi 
et al. (2010) evaluated 50 of the sensitized workers who also had 
medical and occupational histories, physical examination, chest imaging 
with high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) (N = 49), and pulmonary 
function testing (nine of the 59 workers refused physical examinations 
so were not included in this study). Forty of the 50 workers chosen for 
this study underwent bronchoscopy for bronchoalveolar lavage and 
transbronchial biopsies in additional to the other testing. Five of the 
49 workers had CBD at the time of evaluation (based on histology or 
high-resolution computed tomography); three others had evidence of 
probable CBD; however, none of these cases were classified as severe at 
the time of evaluation. The rate of CBD at the time of study among 
sensitized individuals was 12.5 percent (5/40) for those using 
pathologic review of lung tissue, and 10.2 percent (5/49) for those 
using HRCT as a criteria for diagnosis. The rate of CBD among the 
entire population (5/1875) was 0.3 percent.
    The mean duration of employment at the facility was 18 years, and 
the mean latency period (from first possible exposure) to time of 
evaluation and diagnosis was 32 years. There was no available exposure 
monitoring in the breathing zone of workers at the facility but the 
beryllium levels were believed to be relatively low (possibly less than 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for most jobs). There was not an apparent exposure-
response relationship for sensitization or CBD. The sensitization 
prevalence was similar and the CBD prevalence higher among workers with 
the lower-exposure jobs. The authors concluded that these sensitized 
workers, who were subjected to an extended duration of low potential 
beryllium exposures over a long latency period, had a low prevalence of 
CBD (Armojandi et al., 2010).
i. Aluminum Smelting
    Bauxite ore, the primary source of aluminum, contains naturally 
occurring beryllium. Worker exposure to beryllium can occur at aluminum 
smelting facilities where aluminum extraction occurs via electrolytic 
reduction of aluminum oxide into aluminum metal. Characterization of 
beryllium exposures and sensitization prevalence rates were examined by 
Taiwo et al. (2010) in a study of nine aluminum smelting facilities 
from four different companies in the U.S., Canada, Italy and Norway.
    Of the 3,185 workers determined to be potentially exposed to 
beryllium, 1,932 agreed to participate in a medical surveillance 
program between 2000 and 2006 (60 percent participation rate). The 
medical surveillance program included serum BeLPT analysis, 
confirmation of an abnormal BeLPT with a second BeLPT, and follow-up of 
all confirmed positive responses by a pulmonary physician to evaluate 
for progression to CBD.
    Eight-hour TWAs were assessed utilizing 1,345 personal samples 
collected from the 9 smelters. The personal beryllium samples obtained 
showed a range of 0.01-13.00 [mu]g/m\3\ time-weighted average with an 
arithmetic mean of 0.25 [mu]g/m\3\ and geometric mean of 0.06 [mu]g/
m\3\. Exposure levels to beryllium observed in aluminum smelters are 
similar to those seen in other industries that utilize beryllium. Of 
the 1,932 workers surveyed by BeLPT, nine workers were diagnosed with 
sensitization (prevalence rate of 0.47 percent, 95% confidence interval 
= 0.21-0.88 percent) with 2 of these workers diagnosed with probable 
CBD after additional medical evaluations.
    The authors concluded that compared with beryllium-exposed workers 
in other industries, the rate of sensitization among aluminum smelter 
workers appears lower. The authors speculated that this lower observed 
rate could be related to a more soluble form of beryllium found in the 
aluminum smelting work environment as well as

[[Page 47605]]

the consistent use of respiratory protection. However, the authors also 
speculated that the 60 percent participation rate may have 
underestimated the sensitization rate in this worker population.
    A study by Nilsen et al. (2010) also found a low rate of 
sensitization among aluminum workers in Norway. Three-hundred sixty-two 
workers and thirty-one control individuals were tested for beryllium 
sensitization based on the BeLPT. The results found that one (0.28%) of 
the smelter workers had been sensitized. No borderline results were 
reported. The exposure estimated in this plant was 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ to 
0.31 [micro]g/m\3\ (Nilsen et al., 2010).
6. Animal Models of CBD
    This section reviews the relevant animal studies supporting the 
mechanisms outlined above. Researchers have attempted to identify 
animal models with which to further investigate the mechanisms 
underlying the development of CBD. A suitable animal model should 
exhibit major characteristics of CBD, including the demonstration of a 
beryllium-specific immune response, the formation of immune granulomas 
following inhalation exposure to beryllium, and mimicking the 
progressive nature of the human disease. While exposure to beryllium 
has been shown to cause chronic granulomatous inflammation of the lung 
in animal studies using a variety of species, most of the granulomatous 
lesions were formed by foreign-body reactions, which result from 
persistent irritation and consist predominantly of macrophages and 
monocytes, and small numbers of lymphocytes. Foreign-body granulomas 
are distinct from the immune granulomas of CBD, which are caused by 
antigenic stimulation of the immune system and contain large numbers of 
lymphocytes. Animal studies have been useful in providing biological 
plausibility for the role of immunological alterations and lung 
inflammation and in clarifying certain specific mechanistic aspects of 
beryllium disease. However, the lack of a dependable animal model that 
mimics all facets of the human response combined with study limitations 
in terms of single dose experiments, few animals, or abbreviated 
observation periods have limited the utility of the data. Currently, no 
single model has completely mimicked the disease process as it 
progresses in humans. The following is a discussion of the most 
relevant animal studies regarding the mechanisms of sensitization and 
CBD development in humans. Table A.2 in the Appendix summarizes 
species, route, chemical form of beryllium, dose levels, and 
pathological findings of the key studies.
    Harmsen et al. performed a study to assess whether the beagle dog 
could provide an adequate model for the study of beryllium-induced lung 
diseases (Harmsen et al., 1986). One group of dogs served as a control 
group (air inhalation only) and four other groups received high 
(approximately 50 [mu]g/kg) and low (approximately 20 [mu]g/kg) doses 
of beryllium oxide calcined at 500 [deg]C or 1,000[deg] C, administered 
as aerosols in a single exposure. As discussed above, calcining 
temperature controls the solubility and SSA of beryllium particles. 
Those particles calcined at higher temperatures (e.g., 1,000[deg] C) 
are less soluble and have lower SSA than particles calcined at lower 
temperatures (e.g., 500 [deg]C). Solubility and SSA are factors in 
determining the toxic potential of beryllium compounds or materials.
    Cells were collected from the dogs by BAL at 30, 60, 90, 180, and 
210 days after exposure, and the percentages of neutrophils and 
lymphocytes were determined. In addition, the mitogenic responses of 
blood lymphocytes and lavage cells collected at 210 days were 
determined with either phytohemagglutinin or beryllium sulfate as 
mitogen. The percentage of neutrophils in the lavage fluid was 
significantly elevated only at 30 days with exposure to either dose of 
500 [deg]C beryllium oxide. The percentage of lymphocytes in the fluid 
was significantly elevated in samples across all times with exposure to 
the high dose of this beryllium oxide form. Beryllium oxide calcined at 
1,000[deg] C elevated lavage lymphocytes only in high dose at 30 days. 
No significant effect of 1,000[deg] C beryllium oxide exposure on 
mitogenic response of any lymphocytes was seen. In contrast, peripheral 
blood lymphocytes from the 500 [deg]C beryllium oxide exposed groups 
were significantly stimulated by beryllium sulfate compared with the 
phytohemagglutinin exposed cells. The investigators in this study were 
able to replicate some of the same findings as those observed in human 
studies--specifically, that beryllium in soluble and insoluble forms 
can be mitogenic to immune cells, an important finding for progression 
of sensitization and proliferation of immune cells to developing full-
blown CBD.
    In another beagle study Haley et al. also found that the beagle dog 
appears to model some aspects of human CBD (Haley et al., 1989). The 
authors monitored lung pathologic effects, particle clearance, and 
immune sensitization of peripheral blood leukocytes following a single 
exposure to beryllium oxide aerosol generated from beryllium oxide 
calcined at 500 [deg]C or 1,000[deg] C. The aerosol was administered to 
the dogs perinasally to attain initial lung burdens of 6 or 18 [mu]g 
beryllium/kg body weight. Granulomatous lesions and lung lymphocyte 
responses consistent with those observed in humans with CBD were 
observed, including perivascular and peribronchiolar infiltrates of 
lymphocytes and macrophages, progressing to microgranulomas with areas 
of granulomatous pneumonia and interstitial fibrosis. Beryllium 
specificity of the immune response was demonstrated by positive results 
in the BeLPT, although there was considerable inter-animal variation. 
The lesions declined in severity after 64 days post-exposure. Thus, 
while this model was able to mimic the formation of Be-specific immune 
granulomas, it was not able to mimic the progressive nature of disease.
    This study also provided an opportunity to compare the effects of 
beryllium oxide calcination temperature on granulomatous disease in the 
beagle respiratory system. Haley et al. found an increase in the 
percentage and numbers of lymphocytes in BAL fluid at 3 months post-
exposure in dogs exposed to either dose of beryllium oxide calcined at 
500 [deg]C, but not in dogs exposed to the material calcined at the 
higher temperature. Although there was considerable inter-animal 
variation, lesions were generally more severe in the dogs exposed to 
material calcined at 500 [deg]C. Positive BeLPT results were observed 
with BAL lymphocytes only in the group with a high initial lung burden 
of the material calcined at 500 [deg]C, but positive results with 
peripheral blood lymphocytes were observed at both doses with material 
calcined at both temperatures.
    The histologic and immunologic responses of canine lungs to 
aerosolized beryllium oxide were investigated in another Haley et al. 
(1989) study. Beagle-dogs were exposed in a single exposure to high 
dose (50 [micro]g/kg of body weight) or low dose (l7 [micro]g/kg) 
levels of beryllium oxide calcined at either 500[deg] or 1000[deg] C. 
One group of dogs was examined up to 365 days after exposure for lung 
histology and biochemical assay to determine the fate of inhaled 
beryllium oxide. A second group underwent BAL for lung lymphocyte 
analysis for up to 22 months after exposure. Histopathologic 
examination revealed peribronchiolar and perivascular lymphocytic 
histiocytic

[[Page 47606]]

inflammation, peaking at 64 days after beryllium oxide exposure. 
Lymphocytes were initially well differentiated, but progressed to 
lymphoblastic cells and aggregated in lymphofollicular nodules or 
microgranulomas over time. Alveolar macrophages were large, and filled 
with intracytoplasmic material. Cortical and paracortical lymphoid 
hyperplasia of the tracheobronchial nodes was found. Lung lymphocyte 
concentrations were increased at 3 months and returned to normal in 
both dose groups given 500 [deg]C treated beryllium chloride. No 
significant elevations in lymphocyte concentrations were found in dogs 
given 1,000[deg] C treated beryllium oxide. Lung retention was higher 
in the 500 [deg]C treated beryllium oxide group. The lesions found in 
dog lungs closely resembled those found in humans with CBD: severe 
granulomas, lymphoblast transformation, increased pulmonary lymphocyte 
concentrations and variation in beryllium sensitivity. It was concluded 
that the canine model for berylliosis may provide insight into this 
disease.
    In a follow-up experiment, control dogs and those exposed to 
beryllium oxide calcined at 500 [deg]C were allowed to rest for 2.5 
years, and then re-exposed to filtered air (controls) or beryllium 
oxide calcined at 500 [deg]C for an initial lung burden (ILB) target of 
50 [mu]g beryllium oxide/kg body weight (Haley et al., 1992). Immune 
responses of blood and BAL lymphocytes, and lung lesions in dogs 
sacrificed 210 days post-exposure, were compared with results following 
the initial exposure. The severity of lung lesions was comparable under 
both conditions, suggesting that a 2.5-year interval was sufficient to 
prevent cumulative pathologic effects. Conradi et al. (1971) found no 
exposure-related histological alterations in the lungs of six beagle 
dogs exposed to a range of 3,300-4,380 [mu]g Be/m\3\ as beryllium oxide 
calcined at 1,400[deg] C for 30 min, once per month for 3 months. 
Because the dogs were sacrificed 2 years post-exposure, the long time 
period between exposure and response may have allowed for the reversal 
of any beryllium-induced changes (EPA, 1998).
    A 1994 study by Haley et al. showed that intra-bronchiolar 
instillation of beryllium induced immune granulomas and sensitization 
in monkeys. Haley et al. (1994) exposed male cynomolgus monkeys to 
either beryllium metal or beryllium oxide calcined at 500 [deg]C by 
intrabronchiolar instillation as a saline suspension. Lymphocyte counts 
in BAL fluid were observed, and were found to be significantly 
increased in monkeys exposed to beryllium metal on post-exposure days 
14 to 90, and on post-exposure day 60 in monkeys exposed to beryllium 
oxide. The lungs of monkeys exposed to beryllium metal had lesions 
characterized by interstitial fibrosis, Type II cell hyperplasia, and 
lymphocyte infiltration. Some monkeys also exhibited immune granulomas. 
Similar lesions were observed in monkeys exposed to beryllium oxide, 
but the incidence and severity were much less. BAL lymphocytes from 
monkeys exposed to beryllium metal, but not from monkeys exposed to 
beryllium oxide, proliferated in response to beryllium sulfate in the 
BeLPT (EPA, 1998).
    In an experiment similar to the one conducted with dogs, Conradi et 
al. (1971) found no effect in monkeys (Macaca irus) exposed via whole-
body inhalation for three 30-minute monthly exposures to a range of 
3,300-4,380 [mu]g Be/m\3\ as beryllium oxide calcined at 1,400[deg] C. 
The lack of effect may have been related to the long period (2 years) 
between exposure and sacrifice, or to low toxicity of beryllium oxide 
calcined at such a high temperature.
    As discussed earlier in this Health Effects section, at the 
cellular level, beryllium dissolution must occur for either a dendritic 
cell or a macrophage to present beryllium as an antigen to induce the 
cell-mediated CBD immune reactions (Stefaniak et al., 2006). Several 
studies have shown that low-fired beryllium oxide, which is 
predominantly made up of poorly crystallized small particles, is more 
immunologically reactive than beryllium oxide calcined at higher firing 
temperatures that result in less reactivity due to increasing crystal 
size. As discussed previously, Haley et al. (1989a) found more severe 
lung lesions and a stronger immune response in beagle dogs receiving a 
single inhalation exposure to beryllium oxide calcined at 500 [deg]C 
than in dogs receiving an equivalent initial lung burden of beryllium 
oxide calcined at 1,000[deg] C. Haley et al. found that beryllium oxide 
calcined at 1,000[deg] C elicited little local pulmonary immune 
response, whereas the much more soluble beryllium oxide calcined at 500 
[deg]C produced a beryllium-specific, cell-mediated immune response in 
dogs (Haley et al., 1991).
    In a later study, beryllium metal appeared to induce a greater 
toxic response than beryllium oxide following intrabronchiolar 
instillation in cynomolgus monkeys, as evidenced by more severe lung 
lesions, a larger effect on BAL lymphocyte counts, and a positive 
response in the BeLPT with BAL lymphocytes only after exposure to 
beryllium metal (Haley et al., 1994). Because an oxide layer may form 
on beryllium-metal surfaces after exposure to air (Mueller and 
Adolphson, 1979; Harmsen et al., 1986) dissolution of small amounts of 
poorly soluble beryllium compounds in the lungs might be sufficient to 
allow persistent low-level beryllium presentation to the immune system 
(NAS, 2008).
    Genetic studies in humans led to the creation of an animal model 
containing different human HLA-DP alleles inserted into FVB/N mice for 
mechanistic studies of CBD. Three strains of genetically engineered 
mice (transgenic mice) were created that conferred different risks for 
developing CBD based on human studies (Weston et al., 2005; Snyder et 
al., 2008): (1) the HLDPB1*401 transgenic strain, where the transgene 
codes for lysine residue at the 69th position of the B-chain conferred 
low risk of CBD; (2) the HLA-DPB1*201 mice, where the transgene codes 
for glutamic acid residue at the 69th position of the B-chain and 
glycine residues at positions 84 and 85 conferred medium risk of CBD; 
and (3) the HLA-DPB1*1701 mice, where the transgene codes for glutamic 
acid at the 69th position of the B-chain and aspartic acid and glutamic 
acid residues at positions 84 and 85, respectively, conferred high risk 
of CBD (Tarantino-Hutchinson et al., 2009).
    In order to validate the transgenic model, Tarantino-Hutchison et 
al. challenged the transgenic mice along with seven different inbred 
mouse strains to determine the susceptibility and sensitivity to 
beryllium exposure. Mice were dermally exposed with either saline or 
beryllium, then challenged with either saline or beryllium (as 
beryllium sulfate) using the MEST protocol (mouse ear-swelling test). 
The authors determined that the high risk HLA-DPB1*1701 transgenic 
strain responded 4 times greater (as measured via ear swelling) than 
control mice and at least 2 times greater than other strains of mice. 
The findings correspond to epidemiological study results reporting an 
enhanced CBD odds ratio for the HLA-DPB1*1701 in humans (Weston et al., 
2005; Snyder et al., 2008). Transgenic mice with the genes 
corresponding to the low and medium odds ratio study did not respond 
significantly over the control group. The authors concluded that while 
HLA-DPB1*1701 is important to beryllium sensitization and progression 
to CBD, other genetic and environmental factors contribute to the 
disease process as well.

[[Page 47607]]

7. Preliminary Beryllium Sensitization and CBD Conclusions
    It is well-established that skin and inhalation exposure to 
beryllium may lead to sensitization and that inhalation exposure, or 
skin exposure coupled with inhalation exposure, may lead to the onset 
and progression of CBD. This is supported by extensive human studies. 
While all facets of the biological mechanism for this complex disease 
have yet to be fully elucidated, many of the key events in the disease 
sequence have been identified and described in the previous sections. 
Sensitization is a necessary first step to the onset of CBD (NAS, 
2008). Sensitization is the process by which the immune system 
recognizes beryllium as a foreign substance and responds in a manner 
that may lead to development of CBD. It has been documented that a 
substantial proportion of sensitized workers exposed to airborne 
beryllium progress to CBD (Rosenman et al., 2005; NAS, 2008; Mroz et 
al., 2009). Animal studies, particularly in dogs and monkeys, have 
provided supporting evidence for T-cell lymphocyte proliferation in the 
development of granulomatous lung lesions after exposure to beryllium 
(Harmsen et al., 1986; Haley et al., 1989, 1992, 1994). The animal 
studies have also provided important insights into the roles of 
chemical form, genetic susceptibility, and residual lung burden in the 
development of beryllium lung disease (Harmsen et al., 1986; Haley et 
al., 1992; Tarantino-Hutchison et al., 2009). OSHA has made a 
preliminary determination to consider sensitization and CBD to be 
adverse events along the pathological continuum in the disease process, 
with sensitization being the necessary first step in the progression to 
CBD.
    The epidemiological evidence presented in this section demonstrates 
that sensitization and CBD are continuing to occur from present-day 
exposures below OSHA's PEL (Rosenman, 2005 with erratum published 
2006). The available literature discussed above shows that disease 
prevalence can be reduced by reducing inhalation exposure (Thomas et 
al., 2009). However, the available epidemiological studies also 
indicate that it may be necessary to minimize skin exposure to further 
reduce the incidence of sensitization (Bailey et al., 2010). The 
preliminary risk assessment further discusses the effectiveness of 
interventions to reduce beryllium exposures and the risk of 
sensitization and CBD (see section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment).
    Studies have demonstrated there remains a prevalence of 
sensitization and CBD in facilities with exposure levels below the 
current OSHA PEL (Rosenman et al., 2005; Thomas et al., 2009), that 
risk of sensitization and CBD appears to vary across industries and 
processes (Deubner et al., 2001; Kreiss et al., 1997; Newman et al., 
2001; Henneberger et al., 2001; Schuler et al., 2005; Stange et al., 
2001; Taiwo et al., 2010), and that efforts to reduce exposure have 
succeeded in reducing the frequency of beryllium sensitization and CBD 
(Bailey et al., 2010) (See Table A-1 in the Appendix).
    Of workers who were found to be sensitized and underwent clinical 
evaluation, 20-49 percent were diagnosed with CBD (Kreiss et al., 1993; 
Newman, 1996, 2005 and 2007; Stange et al., 2001). Overall prevalence 
of CBD in cross-sectional screenings ranges from 0.6 to 8 percent 
(Kreiss et al., 2007). A study by Newman (2005) estimated from ongoing 
surveillance of sensitized individuals, with an average follow-up time 
of 6 years, that 31 percent of beryllium-exposed employees progressed 
to CBD (Newman, 2005). However, Newman (2005) went on to suggest that 
if follow-up times were increased the rate of progression from 
sensitization to CBD could be much higher. A study of nuclear weapons 
facility employees enrolled in an ongoing medical surveillance program 
found that only about 20 percent of sensitized individuals employed 
less than five years eventually were diagnosed with CBD, while 40 
percent of sensitized employees employed ten years or more developed 
CBD (Stange et al., 2001) indicating length of exposure may play a role 
in further development of the disease. In addition, Mroz et al. (2009) 
conducted a longitudinal study of individuals clinically evaluated at 
National Jewish Health (between 1982 and 2002) who were identified as 
having sensitization and CBD through workforce medical surveillance. 
The authors identified 171 cases of CBD and 229 cases of sensitization; 
all individuals were identified through workplace screening using the 
BeLPT (Mroz et al., 2009). Over the 20-year study period, 8.8 percent 
(i.e., 22 cases out 251 sensitized) of individuals with sensitization 
went on to develop CBD. The findings from this study indicated that on 
the average span of time from initial beryllium exposure to CBD 
diagnosis was 24 years (Mroz et al., 2009).

E. Beryllium Lung Cancer Section

    Beryllium exposure has been associated with a variety of adverse 
health effects including lung cancer. The potential for beryllium and 
its compounds to cause cancer has been previously assessed by various 
other agencies (EPA, ATSDR, NAS, NIEHS, and NIOSH) with each agency 
identifying beryllium as a potential carcinogen. In addition, the 
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did an extensive 
evaluation in 1993 and reevaluation in April 2009 (IARC, 2012). In 
brief, IARC determined beryllium and its compounds to be carcinogenic 
to humans (Group 1 category), while EPA considers beryllium to be a 
probable human carcinogen (EPA, 1998), and the National Toxicology 
Program (NTP) has determined beryllium and its compounds to be known 
carcinogens (NTP, 2014). OSHA has conducted an independent evaluation 
of the carcinogenic potential of beryllium and these compounds as well. 
The following is a summary of the studies used to support the Agency 
findings that beryllium and its compounds are human carcinogens.
1. Genotoxicity Studies
    Genotoxicity can be an important indicator for screening the 
potential of a material to induce cancer and an important mechanism 
leading to tumor formation and carcinogenesis. In a review conducted by 
the National Academy of Science, beryllium and its compounds have 
tested positively in nearly 50 percent of the genotoxicity studies 
conducted without exogenous metabolic activity. However, they were 
found to be non-genotoxic in most bacterial assays (NAS, 2008).
    Gene mutations have been observed in mammalian cells cultured with 
beryllium chloride in a limited number of studies (EPA, 1998; ATSDR, 
2002; Gordon and Bowser, 2003). Culturing mammalian cells with 
beryllium chloride, beryllium sulfate, or beryllium nitrate has 
resulted in clastogenic alterations. However, most studies have found 
that beryllium chloride, beryllium nitrate, beryllium sulfate, and 
beryllium oxide did not induce gene mutations in bacterial assays with 
or without metabolic activation. In the case of beryllium sulfate, all 
mutagenicity studies (Ames (Simmon, 1979; Dunkel et al., 1984; 
Arlauskas et al., 1985; Ashby et al., 1990); E. coli pol A (Rosenkranz 
and Poirer, 1979); E. coli WP2 uvr A (Dunkel et al., 1984) and 
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Simmon, 1979)) were negative with the 
exception of results reported for Bacillus subtilis rec assay (Kada et 
al., 1980; Kanematsu et al., 1980; EPA, 1998). Beryllium sulfate did 
not induce unscheduled

[[Page 47608]]

DNA synthesis in primary rat hepatocytes and was not mutagenic when 
injected intraperitoneally in adult mice in a host-mediated assay using 
Salmonella typhimurium (Williams et al., 1982).
    Beryllium nitrate was negative in the Ames assay (Tso and Fung, 
1981; Kuroda et al., 1991) but positive in a Bacillus subtilis rec 
assay (Kuroda et al., 1991). Beryllium chloride was negative in a 
variety of studies (Ames (Ogawa et al., 1987; Kuroda et al., 1991); E. 
coli WP2 uvr A (Rossman and Molina, 1984); and Bacillus subtilis rec 
assay (Nishioka, 1975)). In addition, beryllium chloride failed to 
induce SOS DNA repair in E. coli (Rossman et al., 1984). However, 
positive results were reported for Bacillus subtilis rec assay using 
spores (Kuroda et al., 1991), E. coli KMBL 3835; lacI gene (Zakour and 
Glickman, 1984), and hprt locus in Chinese hamster lung V79 cells 
(Miyaki et al., 1979). Beryllium oxide was negative in the Ames assay 
and Bacillus subtilis rec assays (Kuroda et al., 1991; EPA, 1998).
    Gene mutations have been observed in mammalian cells (V79 and CHO) 
cultured with beryllium chloride (Miyaki et al., 1979; Hsie et al., 
1979a, b), and culturing of mammalian cells with beryllium chloride 
(Vegni-Talluri and Guiggiani, 1967), and beryllium sulfate (Brooks et 
al., 1989; Larramendy et al., 1981) has resulted in clastogenic 
alterations--producing breakage or disrupting chromosomes (EPA, 1998). 
Beryllium chloride evaluated in a mouse model indicated increased DNA 
strand breaks and the formation of micronuclei in bone marrow (Attia et 
al., 2013).
    Data on the in vivo genotoxicity of beryllium are limited to a 
single study that found beryllium sulfate (1.4 and 2.3 g/kg, 50 percent 
and 80 percent of median lethal dose) administered by gavage did not 
induce micronuclei in the bone marrow of CBA mice. However, a marked 
depression of erythropoiesis (red blood cell production) was suggestive 
of bone marrow toxicity which was evident 24 hours after dosing. No 
mutations were seen in p53 or c-raf-1 and only weak mutations were 
detected in K-ras in lung carcinomas from F344/N rats given a single 
nose-only exposure to beryllium metal (Nickell-Brady et al., 1994). The 
authors concluded that the mechanisms for the development of lung 
carcinomas from inhaled beryllium in the rat do not involve gene 
dysfunctions commonly associated with human non-small-cell lung cancer 
(EPA, 1998).
2. Human Epidemiological Studies
    This section reviews in greater detail the studies used to support 
the mechanistic findings for beryllium-induced cancer. Table A.3 in the 
Appendix summarizes the important features and characteristics of each 
study.
    a. Beryllium Case Registry (BCR).
    Two studies evaluated participants in the BCR (Infante et al., 
1980; Steenland and Ward, 1991). Infante et al. (1980) evaluated the 
mortality patterns of white male participants in the BCR diagnosed with 
non-neoplastic respiratory symptoms of beryllium disease. Of the 421 
cases evaluated, 7 of the participants had died of lung cancer. Six of 
the deaths occurred more than 15 years after initial beryllium 
exposure. The duration of exposure for 5 of the 7 participants with 
lung cancer was less than 1 year, with the time since initial exposure 
ranging from 12 to 29 years. One of the participants was exposed for 4 
years with a 26-year interval since the initial exposure. Exposure 
duration for one participant diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis could 
not be determined; however, it had been 32 years since the initial 
exposure. Based on BCR records, the participants were classified as 
being in the acute respiratory group (i.e., those diagnosed with acute 
respiratory illness at the time of entry in the registry) or the 
chronic respiratory group (i.e., those diagnosed with pulmonary 
fibrosis or some other chronic lung condition at the time of entry into 
the BCR). The 7 participants with lung cancer were in the BCR because 
of diagnoses of acute respiratory illness. For only one of those 
individuals was initial beryllium exposure less than 15 years prior. 
Only 1 of the 6 (with greater than 15 years since initial exposure to 
beryllium) had been diagnosed with chronic respiratory disease. The 
study did not report exposure concentrations or smoking habits. The 
authors concluded that the results of this cohort agreed with previous 
animal studies and with epidemiological studies demonstrating an 
increased risk of lung cancer in workers exposed to beryllium.
    Steenland and Ward (1991) extended the work of Infante et al. 
(1980) to include females and to include 13 additional years of follow-
up. At the time of entry in the BCR, 93 percent of the women in the 
study, but only 50 percent of the men, had been diagnosed with CBD. In 
addition, 61 percent of the women had worked in the fluorescent tube 
industry and 50 percent of the men had worked in the basic 
manufacturing industry. A total of 22 males and 6 females died of lung 
cancer. Of the 28 total deaths from lung cancer, 17 had been exposed to 
beryllium for less than 4 years and 11 had been exposed for greater 
than 4 years. The study did not report exposure concentrations. Survey 
data collected in 1965 provided information on smoking habits for 223 
cohort members (32 percent), on the basis of which the authors 
suggested that the rate of smoking among workers in the cohort may have 
been lower than U.S. rates. The authors concluded that there was 
evidence of increased risk of lung cancer in workers exposed to 
beryllium and diagnosed with beryllium disease.
b. Beryllium Manufacturing and/or Processing Plants (Extraction, 
Fabrication, and Processing)
    Several epidemiological cohort studies have reported excess lung 
cancer mortality among workers employed in U.S. beryllium production 
and processing plants during the 1930s to 1960s. The largest and most 
comprehensive study investigated the mortality experience of 9,225 
workers employed in seven different beryllium processing plants over a 
30-year period (Ward et al., 1992). The workers at the two oldest 
facilities (i.e., Lorain, OH, and Reading, PA) were found to have 
significant excess lung cancer mortality relative to the U.S. 
population. Of the seven plants in the study, these two plants were 
believed to have the highest exposure levels to beryllium. A different 
analysis of the lung cancer mortality in this cohort using various 
local reference populations and alternate adjustments for smoking 
generally found smaller, non-significant rates of excess mortality 
among the beryllium employees (Levy et al., 2002). Both cohort studies 
are limited by a lack of job history and air monitoring data that would 
allow investigation of mortality trends with beryllium exposure. The 
majority of employees at the Lorain, OH, and Reading, PA, facilities 
were employed for a relatively short period of less than one year.
    Bayliss et al. (1971) performed a nested cohort study of more than 
7,000 former workers from the beryllium processing industry employed 
from 1942-1967. Information for the workers was collected from the 
personnel files of participating companies. Of the more than 7,000 
employees, a cause of death was known for 753 male workers. The number 
of observed lung cancer deaths was 36 compared to 34.06 expected for a 
standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of 1.06. When evaluated by the 
number of years of employment, 24 of the 36 men were employed for less 
than 1 year in

[[Page 47609]]

the industry (SMR = 1.24), 8 were employed for 1 to 5 years (SMR 1.40), 
and 4 were employed for more than 5 years (SMR = 0.54). Half of the 
workers who died from lung cancer began employment in the beryllium 
production industry prior to 1947. When grouped by job classification, 
over two thirds of the workers with lung cancer were in production-
related jobs while the rest were classified as office workers. The 
authors concluded that while the lung cancer mortality rates were the 
highest of all other mortality rates, the SMR for lung cancer was still 
within range of the expected based on death rates in the United States. 
The limitations of this study included the lack of information 
regarding exposure concentrations, smoking habits, and the age and race 
of the participants.
    Mancuso (1970, 1979, 1980) and Mancuso and El-Attar (1969) 
performed a series of occupational cohort studies on a group of over 
3,685 workers (primarily white males) employed in the beryllium 
manufacturing industry during 1937-1948.\3\ The beryllium production 
facilities were located in Ohio and Pennsylvania and the records for 
the employees, including periods of employment, were obtained from the 
Social Security Administration. These studies did not include analyses 
of mortality by job title or exposure category. In addition, there were 
no exposure concentrations estimated or adjustments for smoking. The 
estimated duration of employment ranged from less than 1 year to 
greater than 5 years. In the most recent study (Mancuso, 1980), 
employees from the viscose rayon industry served as a comparison 
population. There was a significant excess of lung cancer deaths based 
on the total number of 80 observed lung cancer mortalities at the end 
of 1976 compared to an expected number of 57.06 based on the comparison 
population resulting in an SMR of 1.40 (p < 0.01) (Mancuso, 1980). 
There was a statistically significant excess in lung cancer deaths for 
the shortest duration of employment (< 12 months, p < 0.05) and the 
longest duration of employment (> 49 months, p < 0.01). Based on the 
results of this study, the author concluded that the ability of 
beryllium to induce cancer in workers does not require continuous 
exposure and that it is reasonable to assume that the amount of 
exposure required to produce lung cancer can occur within a few months 
of exposure regardless of the length of employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The third study (Mancuso et al., 1979) restricted the cohort 
to workers employed between 1942 and 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wagoner et al. (1980) expanded the work of Mancuso (1970; 1979; 
1980) using a cohort of 3,055 white males from the beryllium 
extraction, processing, and fabrication facility located in Reading, 
Pennsylvania. The men included in the study worked at the facility 
sometime between 1942 and 1968, and were followed through 1976. The 
study accounted for length of employment. Other factors accounted for 
included age, smoking history, and regional lung cancer mortality. 
Forty-seven members of the cohort died of lung cancer compared to an 
expected 34.29 based on U.S. white male lung cancer mortality rates (p 
< .05). The results of this cohort showed an excess risk of lung cancer 
in beryllium-exposed workers at each duration of employment (< 5 years 
and >= 5 years), with a statistically significant excess noted at < 5 
years durations of employment and a >= 25-year interval since the 
beginning of employment (p < 0.05). The study was criticized by several 
epidemiologists (MacMahon, 1978, 1979; Roth, 1983), by a CDC Review 
Committee appointed to evaluate the study, and by one of the study's 
coauthors (Bayliss, 1980) for inadequate discussion of possible 
alternative explanations of excess lung cancer in the cohort. The 
specific issues identified include the use of 1965-1967 U.S. white male 
lung cancer mortality rates to generate expected numbers of lung 
cancers in the period 1968-1975 and inadequate adjustment for smoking.
    Ward et al. (1992) performed a retrospective mortality cohort study 
of 9,225 male workers employed at seven beryllium processing 
facilities, including the Ohio and Pennsylvania facilities studied by 
Mancuso and El-Attar (1969), Mancuso (1970; 1979; 1980), and Wagoner et 
al. (1980). The men were employed for no less than 2 days between 
January 1940 and December 1988. At the end of the study 61.1 percent of 
the cohort was known to be living and 35.1 percent was known to be 
deceased. The duration of employment ranged from 1 year or less to 
greater than 10 years with the largest percentage of the cohort (49.7 
percent) employed for less than one year, followed by 1 to 5 years of 
employment (23.4 percent), greater than 10 years (19.1 percent), and 5 
to 10 years (7.9 percent). Of the 3,240 deaths, 280 observed deaths 
were caused by lung cancer compared to 221.5 expected deaths, yielding 
a statistically significant SMR of 1.26 (p < 0.01). Information on the 
smoking habits of 15.9 percent of the cohort members, obtained from a 
1968 Public Health Service survey conducted at four of the plants, was 
used to calculate a smoking-adjusted SMR of 1.12, which was not 
statistically significant. The number of deaths from lung cancer was 
also examined by decade of hire. The authors reported a relationship 
between earlier decades of hire and increased lung cancer risk.
    The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), IARC, and 
California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 
have all based their cancer assessment on the Ward et al. 1992 study, 
with supporting data concerning exposure concentrations from Eisenbud 
and Lisson (1983) and NIOSH (1972), who estimated that the lower-bound 
estimate of the median exposure concentration exceeded 100 [micro]g/
m\3\ and found that concentrations in excess of 1,000 [micro]g/m\3\ 
were common. The IRIS cancer risk assessment recalculated expected lung 
cancers based on U.S. white male lung cancer rates (including the 
period 1968-1975) and used an alternative adjustment for smoking. In 
addition, one individual with lung cancer, who had not worked at the 
plant, was removed from the cohort. After these adjustments were made, 
an elevated rate of lung cancer was still observed in the overall 
cohort (46 cases vs. 41.9 expected cases). However, based on duration 
of employment or interval since beginning of employment, neither the 
total cohort nor any of the subgroups had a statistically significant 
excess in lung cancer (EPA, 1987). Based on their evaluation of this 
and other epidemiological studies, the EPA characterized the human 
carcinogenicity data then available as ``limited'' but ``suggestive of 
a causal relationship between beryllium exposure and an increased risk 
of lung cancer'' (IRIS database). This report includes quantitative 
estimates of risk that were derived using the information presented in 
Wagoner et al. (1980), the expected lung cancers recalculated by the 
EPA, and bounds on presumed exposure levels.
    Levy et al. (2002) questioned the results of Ward et al. (1992) and 
performed a reanalysis of the Ward et al. data. The Levy et al. 
reanalysis differed from the Ward et al. analysis in the following 
significant ways. First, Levy et al. (2002) examined two alternative 
adjustments for smoking, which were based on (1) a different analysis 
of the American Cancer Society (ACS) data used by Ward et al. (1992) 
for their smoking adjustment, or (2) results from a smoking/lung cancer 
study of veterans (Levy and Marimont, 1998). Second, Levy et al. (2002) 
also examined the

[[Page 47610]]

impact of computing different reference rates derived from information 
about the lung cancer rates in the cities in which most of the workers 
at two of the plants lived. Finally, Levy et al. (2002) considered a 
meta-analytical approach to combining the results across beryllium 
facilities. For all of the alternatives Levy et al. (2002) considered, 
except the meta-analysis, the facility-specific and combined SMRs 
derived were lower than those reported by Ward et al. (1992). Only the 
SMR for the Lorain, OH, facility remained statistically significantly 
elevated in some reanalyses. The SMR obtained when combining over the 
plants was not statistically significant in eight of the nine 
approaches they examined, leading Levy et al. (2002) to conclude that 
there was little evidence of statistically significant elevated SMRs in 
those plants.
    One occupational nested case-control study evaluated lung cancer 
mortality in a cohort of 3,569 male workers employed at a beryllium 
alloy production plant in Reading, PA, from 1940 to 1969 and followed 
through 1992 (Sanderson et al., 2001). There were a total of 142 known 
lung cancer cases and 710 controls. For each lung cancer death, 5 age- 
and race-matched controls were selected by incidence density sampling. 
Confounding effects of smoking were evaluated. Job history and 
historical air measurements at the plant were used to estimate job-
specific beryllium exposures from the 1930s to 1990s. Calendar-time-
specific beryllium exposure estimates were made for every job and used 
to estimate workers' cumulative, average, and maximum exposure. Because 
of the long period of time required for the onset of lung cancer, an 
``exposure lag'' was employed to discount recent exposures less likely 
to contribute to the disease.
    The cumulative, average, and maximum beryllium exposure 
concentration estimates for the 142 known lung cancer cases were 46.06 
 9.3[micro]g/m\3\-days, 22.8  3.4 [micro]g/
m\3\, and 32.4  13.8 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively. The lung 
cancer mortality rate was 1.22 (95 percent CI = 1.03 - 1.43). Exposure 
estimates were lagged by 10 and 20 years in order to account for 
exposures that did not contribute to lung cancer because they occurred 
after the induction of cancer. In the 10- and 20-year lagged exposures 
the geometric mean tenures and cumulative exposures of the lung cancer 
mortality cases were higher than the controls. In addition, the 
geometric mean and maximum exposures of the workers were significantly 
higher than controls when the exposure estimates were lagged 10 and 20 
years (p < 0.01).
    Results of a conditional logistic regression analysis indicated 
that there was an increased risk of lung cancer in workers with higher 
exposures when dose estimates were lagged by 10 and 20 years. There was 
also a lack of evidence that confounding factors such as smoking 
affected the results of the regression analysis. The authors noted that 
there was considerable uncertainty in the estimation of exposure in the 
1940's and 1950's and the shape of the dose-response curve for lung 
cancer. Another analysis of the study data using a different 
statistical method did not find a significantly greater relative risk 
of lung cancer with increasing beryllium exposures (Levy et al., 2007). 
The average beryllium air levels for the lung cancer cases were 
estimated to be an order of magnitude above the current 8-hour OSHA TWA 
PEL (2 [mu]g/m\3\) and roughly two orders of magnitude higher than the 
typical air levels in workplaces where beryllium sensitization and 
pathological evidence of CBD have been observed. IARC evaluated this 
reanalysis in 2012 and found the study introduced a downward bias into 
risk estimates (IARC, 2012).
    Schubauer-Berigan et al. reanalyzed data from the nested case-
control study of 142 lung cancer cases in the Reading, PA, beryllium 
processing plant (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2008). This dataset was 
reanalyzed using conditional (stratified by case age) logistic 
regression. Independent adjustments were made for potential confounders 
of birth year and hire age. Average and cumulative exposures were 
analyzed using the values reported in the original study. The objective 
of the reanalysis was to correct for the known differences in smoking 
rates by birth year. In addition, the authors evaluated the effects of 
age at hire to determine differences observed by Sanderson et al. in 
2001. The effect of birth cohort adjustment on lung cancer rates in 
beryllium-exposed workers was evaluated by adjusting in a multivariable 
model for indicator variables for the birth cohort quartiles.
    Unadjusted analyses showed little evidence of lung cancer risk 
associated with beryllium occupational exposure using cumulative 
exposure until a 20-year lag was used. Adjusting for either birth 
cohort or hire age attenuated the risk for lung cancer associated with 
cumulative exposure. Using a 10- or 20-year lag in workers born after 
1900 also showed little evidence of lung cancer risk, while those born 
prior to 1900 did show a slight elevation in risk. Unlagged and lagged 
analysis for average exposure showed an increase in lung cancer risk 
associated with occupational exposure to beryllium. The finding was 
consistent for either workers adjusted or unadjusted for birth cohort 
or hire age. Using a 10-year lag for average exposure showed a 
significant effect by birth cohort.
    The authors stated that the reanalysis indicated that differences 
in the hire ages among cases and controls, first noted by Deubner et 
al. (2001) and Levy et al. (2007), were primarily due to the fact that 
birth years were earlier among controls than among cases, resulting 
from much lower baseline risk of lung cancer for men born prior to 1900 
(Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2008). The authors went on to state that the 
reanalysis of the previous NIOSH case-control study suggested the 
relationship observed previously between cumulative beryllium exposure 
and lung cancer was greatly attenuated by birth cohort adjustment.
    Hollins et al. (2009) re-examined the weight of evidence of 
beryllium as a lung carcinogen in a recent publication (Hollins et al., 
2009). Citing more than 50 relevant papers, the authors noted the 
methodological shortcomings examined above, including lack of well-
characterized historical occupational exposures and inadequacy of the 
availability of smoking history for workers. They concluded that the 
increase in potential risk of lung cancer was observed among those 
exposed to very high levels of beryllium and that beryllium's 
carcinogenic potential in humans at these very high exposure levels 
were not relevant to today's industrial settings. IARC performed a 
similar re-evaluation in 2009 (IARC, 2012) and found that the weight of 
evidence for beryllium lung carcinogenicity, including the animal 
studies described below, still warranted a Group I classification, and 
that beryllium should be considered carcinogenic to humans.
    Schubauer-Berigan et al. (2010) extended their analysis from a 
previous study estimating associations between mortality risk and 
beryllium exposure to include workers at 7 beryllium processing plants. 
The study (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2010) followed the mortality 
incidences of 9,199 workers from 1940 through 2005 at the 7 beryllium 
plants. JEMs were developed for three plants in the cohort: The Reading 
plant, the Hazleton plant, and the Elmore plant. The last is described 
in Couch et al. 2010. Including these JEMs substantially improved the 
evidence base for evaluating the carcinogenicity of beryllium and, and 
this change

[[Page 47611]]

represents more than an update of the beryllium cohort. Standardized 
mortality ratios (SMRs) were estimated based on US population 
comparisons for lung, nervous system and urinary tract cancers, chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease, and 
categories containing chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and cor 
pulmonale. Associations with maximum and cumulative exposure were 
calculated for a subset of the workers.
    Overall mortality in the cohort compared with the US population was 
elevated for lung cancer (SMR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.28), COPD (SMR 
1.23; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32), and the categories containing CBD (SMR 
7.80; 95% CI 6.26 to 9.60) and cor pulmonale (SMR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08 to 
1.26). Mortality rates for most diseases of interest increased with 
time-since-hire. For the category including CBD, rates were 
substantially elevated compared to the US population across all 
exposure groups. Workers whose maximum beryllium exposure was >= 10 
[mu]g/m\3\ had higher rates of lung cancer, urinary tract cancer, COPD 
and the category containing cor pulmonale than workers with lower 
exposure. These studies showed strong associations for cumulative 
exposure (when short-term workers were excluded), maximum exposure or 
both. Significant positive trends with cumulative exposure were 
observed for nervous system cancers (p = 0.0006) and, when short-term 
workers were excluded, lung cancer (p = 0.01), urinary tract cancer (p 
= 0.003) and COPD (p < 0.0001).
    The authors concluded the findings from this reanalysis reaffirmed 
that lung cancer and CBD are related to beryllium exposure. The authors 
went on to suggest that beryllium exposures may be associated with 
nervous system and urinary tract cancers and that cigarette smoking and 
other lung carcinogens were unlikely to explain the increased 
incidences in these cancers. The study corrected an error that was 
discovered in the indirect smoking adjustment initially conducted by 
Ward et al., concluding that cigarette smoking rates did not differ 
between the cohort and the general U.S. population. No association was 
found between cigarette smoking and either cumulative or maximum 
beryllium exposure, making it very unlikely that smoking was a 
substantial confounder in this study (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2010).
3. Animal Cancer Studies
    This section reviews the animal literature used to support the 
findings for beryllium-induced lung cancer. Lung tumors have been 
induced via inhalation and intratracheal administration of beryllium to 
rats and monkeys, and osteosarcomas have been induced via intravenous 
and intramedullary (inside the bone) injection of beryllium in rabbits 
and possibly in mice. The chronic oral studies did not report increased 
incidences of tumors in rodents, but these were conducted at doses 
below the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) (EPA, 1998).
    Early animal studies revealed that some beryllium compounds are 
carcinogenic when inhaled (ATSDR, 2002). Animal experiments have shown 
consistent increases in lung cancers in rats, mice and rabbits 
chronically exposed to beryllium and beryllium compounds by inhalation 
or intratracheal instillation. In addition to lung cancer, 
osteosarcomas have been produced in mice and rabbits exposed to various 
beryllium salts by intravenous injection or implantation into the bone 
(NTP, 1999).
    In an inhalation study assessing the potential tumorigenicity of 
beryllium, Schepers et al. (1957) exposed 115 albino Sherman and Wistar 
rats (male and female) via inhalation to 0.0357 mg beryllium/m\3\ (1 
[gamma] beryllium/ft\3\) \4\ as an aqueous aerosol of beryllium sulfate 
for 44 hours/week for 6 months, and observed the rats for 18 months 
after exposure. Three to four control rats were killed every two months 
for comparison purposes. Seventy-six lung neoplasms, \5\ including 
adenomas, squamous-cell carcinomas, acinous adenocarcinomas, papillary 
adenocarcinomas, and alveolar-cell adenocarcinomas, were observed in 52 
rats exposed to beryllium sulfate aerosol. Adenocarcinomata were the 
most numerous. Pulmonary metastases tended to localize in areas with 
foam cell clustering and granulomatosis. No neoplasia was observed in 
any of the control rats. The incidence of lung tumors in exposed rats 
is presented in the following Table 2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Schepers et al. (1957) reported concentrations in [gamma] 
Be/ft\3\; however, [gamma]/ft\3\ is no longer a common unit. 
Therefore, the concentration was converted to mg/m\3\.
    \5\ While a total of 89 tumors were observed or palpated at the 
time of autopsy in the BeSO4-exposed animals, only 76 
tumors are listed as histologically neoplastic. Only the new growths 
identified in single midcoronal sections of both lungs were 
recorded.

                       Table 2--Neoplasm Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Neoplasm                       Number    Metastases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adenoma..........................................        18
Squamous carcinoma...............................         5            1
Acinous adenocarcinoma...........................        24            2
Papillary adenocarcinoma.........................        11            1
Alveolar-cell adenocarcinoma.....................         7
Mucigenous tumor.................................         7            1
Endothelioma.....................................         1
Retesarcoma......................................         3            3
                                                  ----------------------
  Total..........................................        76            8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Schepers (1962) reviewed 38 existing beryllium studies that 
evaluated seven beryllium compounds and seven mammalian species. 
Beryllium sulfate, beryllium fluoride, beryllium phosphate, beryllium 
alloy (BeZnMnSiO4), and beryllium oxide were proven to be 
carcinogenic and have remarkable pleomorphic neoplasiogenic 
proclivities. Ten varieties of tumors were observed, with 
adenocarcinoma being the most common variety.
    In another study, Vorwald and Reeves (1959) exposed Sherman albino 
rats via the inhalation route to aerosols of 0.006 mg beryllium/m\3\ as 
beryllium oxide and 0.0547 mg beryllium/m\3\ as beryllium sulfate for 6 
hours/day, 5 days/week for an unspecified duration. Lung tumors (single 
or multifocal) were observed in the animals sacrificed following 9 
months of daily inhalation exposure. The histologic pattern of the 
cancer was primarily adenomatous; however, epidermoid and squamous cell 
cancers were also observed. Infiltrative, vascular, and lymphogenous 
extensions often developed with secondary metastatic growth in the 
tracheobronchial lymph nodes, the mediastinal connective tissue, the 
parietal pleura, and the diaphragm.
    In the first of two articles, Reeves et al. (1967a) investigated 
the carcinogenic process in lungs resulting from chronic (up to 72 
weeks) beryllium sulfate inhalation. One hundred fifty male and female 
Sprague Dawley C.D. strain rats were exposed to beryllium sulfate 
aerosol at a mean atmospheric concentration of 34.25 [mu]g beryllium/
m\3\ (with an average particle diameter of 0.12 [micro]m). Prior to 
initial exposure and again during the 67-68 and 75-76 weeks of life, 
the animals received prophylactic treatments of tetracycline-HCl to 
combat recurrent pulmonary infections.
    The animals entered the exposure chamber at 6 weeks of age and were

[[Page 47612]]

exposed 7 hours per day/5 days per week for up to 2,400 hours of total 
exposure time. An equal number of unexposed controls were held in a 
separate chamber. Three male and three female rats were sacrificed 
monthly during the 72-week exposure period. Mortality due to 
respiratory or other infections did not appear until 55 weeks of age, 
and 87 percent of all animals survived until their scheduled 
sacrifices.
    Average lung weight towards the end of exposure was 4.25 times 
normal with progressively increasing differences between control and 
exposed animals. The increase in lung weight was accompanied by notable 
changes in tissue texture with two distinct pathological processes--
inflammatory and proliferative. The inflammatory response was 
characterized by marked accumulation of histiocytic elements forming 
clusters of macrophages in the alveolar spaces. The proliferative 
response progressed from early epithelial hyperplasia of the alveolar 
surfaces, through metaplasia (after 20-22 weeks of exposure), anaplasia 
(cellular dedifferentiation) (after 32-40 weeks of exposure), and 
finally to lung tumors.
    Although the initial proliferative response occurred early in the 
exposure period, tumor development required considerable time. Tumors 
were first identified after nine months of beryllium sulfate exposure, 
with rapidly increasing rates of incidence until tumors were observed 
in 100 percent of exposed animals by 13 months. The 9-to-13-month 
interval is consistent with earlier studies. The tumors showed a high 
degree of local invasiveness. No tumors were observed in control rats. 
All 56 tumors studied appeared to be alveolar adenocarcinomas and 3 
``fast-growing'' tumors that reached a very large size comparatively 
early. About one-third of the tumors showed small foci where the 
histologic pattern differed. Most of the early tumor foci appeared to 
be alveolar rather than bronchiolar, which is consistent with the 
expected pathogenesis, since permanent deposition of beryllium was more 
likely on the alveolar epithelium rather than on the bronchiolar 
epithelium. Female rats appeared to have an increased susceptibility to 
beryllium exposure. Not only did they have a higher mortality (control 
males [n = 8], exposed males [n = 9] versus control females [n = 4], 
exposed females [n = 17]) and body weight loss than male rats, but the 
three ``fast-growing'' tumors only occurred in females.
    In the second article, Reeves et al. (1967b) described the rate of 
accumulation and clearance of beryllium sulfate aerosol from the same 
experiment (Reeves et al., 1967a). At the time of the monthly 
sacrifice, beryllium assays were performed on the lungs, 
tracheobronchial lymph nodes, and blood of the exposed rats. The 
pulmonary beryllium levels of rats showed a rate of accumulation which 
decreased during continuing exposure and reached a plateau (defined as 
equilibrium between deposition and clearance) of about 13.5 [mu]g 
beryllium for males and 9 [mu]g beryllium for females in whole lungs 
after approximately 36 weeks. Females were notably less efficient than 
males in utilizing the lymphatic route as a method of clearance, 
resulting in slower removal of pulmonary beryllium deposits, lower 
accumulation of the inhaled material in the tracheobronchial lymph 
nodes, and higher morbidity and mortality.
    There was no apparent correlation between the extent and severity 
of pulmonary pathology and total lung load. However, when the beryllium 
content of the excised tumors was compared with that of surrounding 
nonmalignant pulmonary tissues, the former showed a notable decrease 
(0.50  0.35 [mu]g beryllium/gram versus 1.50  
0.55 [mu]g beryllium/gram). This was believed to be largely a result of 
the dilution factor operating in the rapidly growing tumor tissue. 
However, other factors, such as lack of continued local deposition due 
to impaired respiratory function and enhanced clearance due to high 
vascularity of the tumor, may also have played a role. The portion of 
inhaled beryllium retained in the lungs for a longer duration, which is 
in the range of one-half of the original pulmonary load, may have 
significance for pulmonary carcinogenesis. This pulmonary beryllium 
burden becomes localized in the cell nuclei and may be an important 
factor in eliciting the carcinogenic response associated with beryllium 
inhalation.
    Groth et al. (1980) conducted a series of experiments to assess the 
carcinogenic effects of beryllium, beryllium hydroxide, and various 
beryllium alloys. For the beryllium metal/alloys experiment, 12 groups 
of 3-month-old female Wistar rats (35 rats/group) were used. All rats 
in each group received a single intratracheal injection of either 2.5 
or 0.5 mg of one of the beryllium metals or beryllium alloys as 
described in Table 3 below. These materials were suspended in 0.4 cc of 
isotonic saline followed by 0.2 cc of saline. Forty control rats were 
injected with 0.6 cc of saline. The geometric mean particle sizes 
varied from 1 to 2 [micro]m. Rats were sacrificed and autopsied at 
various intervals ranging from 1 to 18 months post-injection.

                           Table 3--Summary of Beryllium Dose From Groth et al. (1980)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Percent other   Total No. rats   Compound dose
          Form of Be              Percent Be        compounds        autopsied         (mg)        Be dose  (mg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be metal.....................  100.............  None...........              16             2.5             2.5
                                                                              21             0.5             0.5
Passivated Be metal..........  99..............  0.26% Chromium.              26             2.5             2.5
                                                                              20             0.5             0.5
BeAl alloy...................  62..............  38% Aluminum...              24             2.5            1.55
                                                                              21             0.5             0.3
BeCu alloy...................  4...............  96% Copper.....              28             2.5             0.1
                                                                              24             0.5            0.02
BeCuCo alloy.................  2.4.............  0.4% Cobalt....              33             2.5            0.06
                                                 96% Copper.....              30             0.5           0.012
BeNi alloy...................  2.2.............  97.8% Nickel...              28             2.5           0.056
                                                                              27             0.5           0.011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lung tumors were observed only in rats exposed to beryllium metal, 
passivated beryllium metal, and beryllium-aluminum alloy. Passivation 
refers to the process of removing iron contamination from the surface 
of

[[Page 47613]]

beryllium metal. As discussed, metal alloys may have a different 
toxicity than beryllium alone. Rats exposed to 100 percent beryllium 
exhibited relatively high mortality rates, especially in the groups 
where lung tumors were observed. Nodules varying from 1 to 10 mm in 
diameter were also observed in the lungs of rats exposed to beryllium 
metal, passivated beryllium metal, and beryllium-aluminum alloy. These 
nodules were suspected of being malignant.
    To test this hypothesis, transplantation experiments involving the 
suspicious nodules were conducted in nine rats. Seven of the nine 
suspected tumors grew upon transplantation. All transplanted tumor 
types metastasized to the lungs of their hosts. Lung tumors were 
observed in rats injected with both the high and low doses of beryllium 
metal, passivated beryllium metal, and beryllium-aluminum alloy. No 
lung tumors were observed in rats injected with the other compounds. 
From a total of 32 lung tumors detected, most were adenocarcinomas and 
adenomas; however, two epidermoid carcinomas and at least one poorly 
differentiated carcinoma were observed. Bronchiolar alveolar cell 
tumors were frequently observed in rats injected with beryllium metal, 
passivated beryllium metal, and beryllium-aluminum alloy. All stages of 
cuboidal, columnar, and squamous cell metaplasia were observed on the 
alveolar walls in the lungs of rats injected with beryllium metal, 
passivated beryllium metal, and beryllium-aluminum alloy. These lesions 
were generally reduced in size and number or absent from the lungs of 
animals injected with the other alloys (BeCu, BeCuCo, BeNi).
    The extent of alveolar metaplasia could be correlated with the 
incidence of lung cancer. The incidences of lung tumors in the rats 
that received 2.5 mg of beryllium metal, and 2.5 and 0.5 mg of 
passivated beryllium metal, were significantly different (p <= 0.008) 
from controls. When autopsies were performed at the 16-to-19-month 
interval, the incidence (2/6) of lung tumors in rats exposed to 2.5 mg 
of beryllium-aluminum alloy was statistically significant (p = 0.004) 
when compared to the lung tumor incidence (0/84) in rats exposed to 
BeCu, BeNi, and BeCuCo alloys, which contained much lower 
concentrations of Be (Groth et al., 1980).
    Finch et al. (1998b) investigated the carcinogenic effects of 
inhaled beryllium on heterozygous TSG-p53 knockout mice 
(p53+/-) and wild-type (p53+/+) mice. Knockout mice can be 
valuable tools in determining the role of specific genes on the 
toxicity of a material of interest, in this case, beryllium. Equal 
numbers of approximately 10-week-old male and female mice were used for 
this study. Two exposure groups were used to provide dose-response 
information on lung carcinogenicity. The maximum initial lung burden 
(ILB) target of 60 [mu]g beryllium was based on previous acute 
inhalation exposure studies in mice. The lower exposure target level of 
15 [mu]g was selected to provide a lung burden significantly less than 
the high-level group, but high enough to yield carcinogenic responses. 
Mice were exposed in groups to beryllium metal or to filtered air 
(controls) via nose-only inhalation. The specific exposure parameters 
are presented in Table 4 below. Mice were sacrificed 7 days post 
exposure for ILB analysis, and either at 6 months post exposure (n = 4-
5 mice per group per gender) or when 10 percent or less of the original 
population remained (19 months post exposure for p53+/- 
knockout and 22.5 months post exposure for p53+/+ wild-type mice). The 
sacrifice time was extended in the study because a significant number 
of lung tumors were not observed at 6 months post exposure.

                                                Table 4--Summary of Animal Data From Finch Et Al., 1998 b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Number of mice
                                  Mean  exposure      Target be lung                        Mean daily  exposure                        with 1 or more
         Mouse strain              concentration      burden  ([mu]g)     Number of mice     duration  (minutes)   Mean ILB  ([mu]g)   lung tumors/total
                                   ([mu]g Be/L)                                                                                        number  examined
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knockout (p53+/-).............  34                  15                  30                  112 (single)          NA                  0/29
                                36                  60                  30                  139[Dagger]           NA                  4/28
Wild-type (p53\+/+\)            34                  15                  6*                  112 (single)          12  4   NA
                                36                  60                  36[dagger]          139[Dagger]           54  6   0/28
Knockout (p53+/-).............  NA (air)            Control             30                  60-180 (single)       NA                  0/30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILB = initial lung burden; NA = not applicable
Median aerodynamic diameter of Be aerosol = 1.4 [mu]m ([sigma]g = 1.8)
* Wild-type mice in the low exposure group were not evaluated for carcinogenic effects; however ILB was analyzed in six wild-type mice.
[dagger] Thirty wild-type mice were analyzed for carcinogenic effects; six wild-type mice were analyzed for ILB.
[Dagger] Mice were exposed for 2.3 hours/day for three consecutive days.

    Lung burdens of beryllium measured in wild-type mice at 7 days post 
exposure were approximately 70-90 percent of target levels. No 
exposure-related effects on body weight were observed in mice; however, 
lung weights and lung-to-body-weight ratios were somewhat elevated in 
60 [mu]g target ILB p53+/- knockout mice compared to 
controls (0.05 < p < 0.10). In general, p53+/+ wild-type mice survived 
longer than p53+/- knockout mice and beryllium exposure 
tended to decrease survival time in both groups. The incidence of 
beryllium-induced lung tumors was marginally higher in the 60 [mu]g 
target ILB p53+/- knockout mice compared to 60 [mu]g target 
ILB p53+/+ wild-type mice (p = 0.056). The incidence of lung tumors in 
the 60 [mu]g target ILB p53+/- knockout mice was also 
significantly higher than controls (p = 0.048). No tumors developed in 
the control mice, 15 [mu]g target ILB p53+/- knockout mice, 
or 60 [mu]g target ILB p53+/+ wild-type mice throughout the length of 
the study. Most lung tumors in beryllium-exposed mice were squamous 
cell carcinomas, three of four of which were poorly circumscribed and 
all were associated with at least some degree of granulomatous 
pneumonia. The study results suggest that having an inactivated p53 
allele is associated with lung tumor progression in p53+/- 
knockout mice. This is based on the significant difference seen in the 
incidence of beryllium-induced lung neoplasms for the 
p53+/-knockout mice compared with the p53\+/+\ wild-type 
mice. The authors conclude that since there was a relatively late onset 
of tumors in the beryllium-exposed p53+/- knockout mice, a 
6-month bioassay in this mouse strain might not be an appropriate model 
for lung carcinogenesis (Finch et al., 1998b).

[[Page 47614]]

    Nickell-Brady et al. (1994) investigated the development of lung 
tumors in 12-week-old F344/N rats after a single nose-only inhalation 
exposure to beryllium aerosol, and evaluated whether beryllium lung 
tumor induction involves alterations in the K-ras, p53, and c-raf-1 
genes. Four groups of rats (30 males and 30 females per group) were 
exposed to different mass concentrations of beryllium (Group 1: 500 mg/
m\3\ for 8 min; Group 2: 410 mg/m\3\ for 30 min; Group 3: 830 mg/m\3\ 
for 48 min; Group 4: 980 mg/m\3\ for 39 min). The beryllium mass median 
aerodynamic diameter was 1.4 [mu]m ([sigma]g = 1.9). The 
mean beryllium lung burdens for each exposure group were 40, 110, 360, 
and 430 [mu]g, respectively.
    To examine genetic alterations, DNA isolation and sequencing 
techniques (PCR amplification and direct DNA sequence analysis) were 
performed on wild-type rat lung tissue (i.e., control samples) along 
with two mouse lung tumor cell lines containing known K-ras mutations, 
12 carcinomas induced by beryllium (i.e., experimental samples), and 12 
other formalin-fixed specimens. Tumors appeared in beryllium-exposed 
rats by 14 months, and 64 percent of exposed rats developed lung tumors 
during their lifetime. Lungs frequently contained multiple tumor sites, 
with some of the tumors greater than 1 cm. A total of 24 tumors were 
observed. Most of the tumors (n = 22) were adenocarcinomas exhibiting a 
papillary pattern characterized by cuboidal or columnar cells, although 
a few had a tubular or solid pattern. Fewer than 10 percent of the 
tumors were adenosquamous (n = 1) or squamous cell (n = 1) carcinomas.
    No transforming mutations of the K-ras gene (codons 12, 13, or 61) 
were detected by direct sequence analysis in any of the lung tumors 
induced by beryllium. However, using a more sensitive sequencing 
technique (PCR enrichment restriction fragment length polymorphism 
(RFLP) analysis) resulted in the detection of K-ras codon 12 GGT to GTT 
transversions in 2 of 12 beryllium-induced adenocarcinomas. No p53 and 
c-raf-1 alterations were observed in any of the tumors induced by 
beryllium exposure (i.e., no differences observed between beryllium-
exposed and control rat tissues). The authors note that the results 
suggest that activation of the K-ras proto-oncogene is both a rare and 
late event, possibly caused by genomic instability during the 
progression of beryllium-induced rat pulmonary adenocarcinomas. It is 
unlikely that the K-ras gene plays a role in the carcinogenicity of 
beryllium. The results also indicate that p53 mutation is unlikely to 
play a role in tumor development in rats exposed to beryllium.
    Belinsky et al. (1997) reviewed the findings by Nickell-Brady et 
al. (1994) to further examine the role of the K-ras and p53 genes in 
lung tumors induced in the F344 rat by non-mutagenic (non-genotoxic) 
exposures to beryllium. Their findings are discussed along with the 
results of other genomic studies that look at carcinogenic agents that 
are either similarly non-mutagenic or, in other cases, mutagenic. The 
authors conclude that the identification of non-ras transforming genes 
in rat lung tumors induced by non-mutagenic exposures, such as 
beryllium, as well as mutagenic exposures will help define some of the 
mechanisms underlying cancer induction by different types of DNA 
damage.
    The inactivation of the p16INK4a (p16) gene is a contributing 
factor in disrupting control of the normal cell cycle and may be an 
important mechanism of action in beryllium-induced lung tumors. 
Swafford et al. (1997) investigated the aberrant methylation and 
subsequent inactivation of the p16 gene in primary lung tumors induced 
in F344/N rats exposed to known carcinogens via inhalation. The 
research involved a total of 18 primary lung tumors that developed 
after exposing rats to five agents, one of which was beryllium. In this 
study, only one of the 18 lung tumors was induced by beryllium 
exposure; the majority of the other tumors were induced by radiation 
(x-rays or plutonium-239 oxide). The authors hypothesized that if p16 
inactivation plays a central role in development of non-small-cell lung 
cancer, then the frequency of gene inactivation in primary tumors 
should parallel that observed in the corresponding cell lines. To test 
the hypothesis, a rat model for lung cancer was used to determine the 
frequency and mechanism for inactivation of p16 in matched primary lung 
tumors and derived cell lines. The methylation-specific PCR (MSP) 
method was used to detect methylation of p16 alleles. The results 
showed that the presence of aberrant p16 methylation in cell lines was 
strongly correlated with absent or low expression of the gene. The 
findings also demonstrated that aberrant p16 CpG island methylation, an 
important mechanism in gene silencing leading to the loss of p16 
expression, originates in primary tumors.
    Building on the rat model for lung cancer and associated findings 
from Swafford et al. (1997), Belinsky et al. (2002) conducted 
experiments in 12-week-old F344/N rats (male and female) to determine 
whether beryllium-induced lung tumors involve inactivation of the p16 
gene and estrogen receptor [alpha] (ER) gene. Rats received a single 
nose-only inhalation exposure to beryllium aerosol at four different 
exposure levels. The mean lung burdens measured in each exposure group 
were 40, 110, 360, and 430 [mu]g. The methylation status of the p16 and 
ER genes was determined by MSP. A total of 20 tumors detected in 
beryllium-exposed rats were available for analysis of gene-specific 
promoter methylation. Three tumors were classified as squamous cell 
carcinomas and the others were determined to be adenocarcinomas. 
Methylated p16 was present in 80 percent (16/20), and methylated ER was 
present in one-half (10/20), of the lung tumors induced by exposure to 
beryllium. Additionally, both genes were methylated in 40 percent of 
the tumors. The authors noted that four tumors from beryllium-exposed 
rats appeared to be partially methylated at the p16 locus. Bisulfite 
sequencing of exon 1 of the ER gene was conducted on normal lung DNA 
and DNA from three methylated, beryllium-induced tumors to determine 
the density of methylation within amplified regions of exon 1 (referred 
to as CpG sites). Two of the three methylated, beryllium-induced lung 
tumors showed extensive methylation, with more than 80 percent of all 
CpG sites methylated.
    The overall findings of this study suggest that inactivation of the 
p16 and ER genes by promoter hypermethylation are likely to contribute 
to the development of lung tumors in beryllium-exposed rats. The 
results showed a correlation between changes in p16 methylation and 
loss of gene transcription. The authors hypothesize that the mechanism 
of action for beryllium-induced p16 gene inactivation in lung tumors 
may be inflammatory mediators that result in oxidative stress. The 
oxidative stress damages DNA directly through free radicals or 
indirectly through the formation of 8-hydroxyguanosine DNA adducts, 
resulting primarily in a single-strand DNA break.
    Wagner et al. (1969) studied the development of pulmonary tumors 
after intermittent daily chronic inhalation exposure to beryllium ores 
in three groups of male squirrel monkeys. One group was exposed to 
bertrandite ore, a second to beryl ore, and the third served as 
unexposed controls. Each of these three exposure groups contained 12 
monkeys. Monkeys from each group were sacrificed after 6, 12, or 23 
months of exposure. The 12-month sacrificed

[[Page 47615]]

monkeys (n = 4 for bertrandite and control groups; n = 2 for beryl 
group) were replaced by a separate replacement group to maintain a 
total animal population approximating the original numbers and to 
provide a source of confirming data for biologic responses that might 
arise following the ore exposures. Animals were exposed to bertrandite 
and beryl ore concentrations of 15 mg/m\3\, corresponding to 210 [mu]g 
beryllium/m\3\ and 620 [mu]g beryllium/m\3\ in each exposure chamber, 
respectively. The parent ores were reduced to particles with geometric 
mean diameters of 0.27 [mu]m ( 2.4) for bertrandite and 
0.64 [mu]m ( 2.5) for beryl. Animals were exposed for 
approximately 6 hours/day, 5 days/week. The histological changes in the 
lungs of monkeys exposed to bertrandite and beryl ore exhibited a 
similar pattern. The changes generally consisted of aggregates of dust-
laden macrophages, lymphocytes, and plasma cells near respiratory 
bronchioles and small blood vessels. There were, however, no consistent 
or significant pulmonary lesions or tumors observed in monkeys exposed 
to either of the beryllium ores. This is in contrast to the findings in 
rats exposed to beryl ore and to a lesser extent bertrandite, where 
atypical cell proliferation and tumors were frequently observed in the 
lungs. The authors hypothesized that the rats' greater susceptibility 
may be attributed to the spontaneous lung disease characteristic of 
rats, which might have interfered with lung clearance.
    As previously described, Conradi et al. (1971) investigated changes 
in the lungs of monkeys and dogs two years after intermittent 
inhalation exposure to beryllium oxide calcined at 1,400 [deg]C. Five 
adult male and female monkeys (Macaca irus) weighing between 3 and 5.75 
kg were used in the study. The study included two control monkeys. 
Beryllium concentrations in the atmosphere of whole-body exposed 
monkeys varied between 3.30 and 4.38 mg/m\3\. Thirty-minute exposures 
occurred once a month for three months, with beryllium oxide 
concentrations increasing at each exposure interval. Lung tissue was 
investigated using electron microscopy and morphometric methods. 
Beryllium content in portions of the lungs of five monkeys was measured 
two years following exposure by emission spectrography. The reported 
concentrations in monkeys (82.5, 143.0, and 112.7 [mu]g beryllium per 
100 gm of wet tissue in the upper lobe, lower lobe, and combined lobes, 
respectively) were higher than those in dogs. No neoplastic or 
granulomatous lesions were observed in the lungs of any exposed animals 
and there was no evidence of chronic proliferative lung changes after 
two years.
4. In vitro Studies
    The exact mechanism by which beryllium induces pulmonary neoplasms 
in animals remains unknown (NAS 2008). Keshava et al. (2001) performed 
studies to determine the carcinogenic potential of beryllium sulfate in 
cultured mammalian cells. Joseph et al. (2001) investigated 
differential gene expression to understand the possible mechanisms of 
beryllium-induced cell transformation and tumorigenesis. Both 
investigations used cell transformation assays to study the cellular/
molecular mechanisms of beryllium carcinogenesis and assess 
carcinogenicity. Cell lines were derived from tumors developed in nude 
mice injected subcutaneously with non-transformed BALB/c-3T3 cells that 
were morphologically transformed in vitro with 50-200 [mu]g beryllium 
sulfate/ml for 72 hours. The non-transformed cells were used as 
controls.
    Keshava et al. (2001) found that beryllium sulfate is capable of 
inducing morphological cell transformation in mammalian cells and that 
transformed cells are potentially tumorigenic. A dose-dependent 
increase (9-41 fold) in transformation frequency was noted. Using 
differential polymerase chain reaction (PCR), gene amplification was 
investigated in six proto-oncogenes (K-ras, c-myc, c-fos, c-jun, c-sis, 
erb-B2) and one tumor suppressor gene (p53). Gene amplification was 
found in c-jun and K-ras. None of the other genes tested showed 
amplification. Additionally, Western blot analysis showed no change in 
gene expression or protein level in any of the genes examined. Genomic 
instability in both the non-transformed and transformed cell lines was 
evaluated using random amplified polymorphic DNA fingerprinting (RAPD 
analysis). Using different primers, 5 of the 10 transformed cell lines 
showed genomic instability when compared to the non-transformed BALB/c-
3T3 cells. The results indicate that beryllium sulfate-induced cell 
transformation might, in part, involve gene amplification of K-ras and 
c-jun and that some transformed cells possess neoplastic potential 
resulting from genomic instability.
    Using the Atlas mouse 1.2 cDNA expression microarrays, Joseph et 
al. (2001) studied the expression profiles of 1,176 genes belonging to 
several different functional categories. Compared to the control cells, 
expression of 18 genes belonging to two functional groups (nine cancer-
related genes and nine DNA synthesis, repair, and recombination genes) 
was found to be consistently and reproducibly different (at least 2-
fold) in the tumor cells. Differential gene expression profile was 
confirmed using reverse transcription-PCR with primers specific to the 
differentially expressed genes. Two of the differentially expressed 
genes (c-fos and c-jun) were used as model genes to demonstrate that 
the beryllium-induced transcriptional activation of these genes was 
dependent on pathways of protein kinase C and mitogen-activated protein 
kinase and independent of reactive oxygen species in the control cells. 
These results indicate that beryllium-induced cell transformation and 
tumorigenesis are associated with up-regulated expression of the 
cancer-related genes (such as c-fos, c-jun, c-myc, and R-ras) and down-
regulated expression of genes involved in DNA synthesis, repair, and 
recombination (such as MCM4, MCM5, PMS2, Rad23, and DNA ligase I).
5. Preliminary Lung Cancer Conclusions
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the weight of evidence 
indicates that beryllium compounds should be regarded as potential 
occupational lung carcinogens. Other scientific organizations, 
including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the 
National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists (ACGIH) have reached similar conclusions with respect to the 
carcinogenicity of beryllium.
    While some evidence exists for direct-acting genotoxicity as a 
possible mechanism for beryllium carcinogenesis, the weight of evidence 
suggests a possible indirect mechanism may be responsible for most 
tumorigenic activity of beryllium in animal models and possibly humans 
(EPA, 1998). Inflammation has been postulated to be a key contributor 
to many different forms of cancer (Jackson et al., 2006; Pikarsky et 
al., 2004; Greten et al., 2004; Leek, 2002). In fact, chronic 
inflammation may be a primary factor in the development of up to one-
third of all cancers (Ames et al., 1990; NCI, 2010).
    In addition to a T-cell mediated response beryllium has been 
demonstrated to produce an inflammatory response in animal models 
similar to other particles (Reeves et al., 1967; Swafford et al., 1997; 
Wagner et al., 1969) possibly

[[Page 47616]]

contributing to its carcinogenic potential. Animal studies, as 
summarized above, have demonstrated a consistent scenario of beryllium 
exposure resulting in chronic pulmonary inflammation. Studies conducted 
in rats have demonstrated that chronic inhalation of materials similar 
in solubility to beryllium result in increased pulmonary inflammation, 
fibrosis, epithelial hyperplasia, and, in some cases, pulmonary 
adenomas and carcinomas (Heinrich et al., 1995; Nikula et al., 1995; 
NTP, 1993; Lee et al., 1985; Warheit et al., 1996). This response is 
generally referred to as an ``overload'' response or threshold effect. 
Substantial data indicate that tumor formation in the rat after 
exposure to some sparingly soluble particles at doses causing marked, 
chronic inflammation is due to a secondary mechanism unrelated to the 
genotoxicity (or lack thereof) of the particle itself.
    It has been hypothesized that the recruitment of neutrophils during 
the inflammatory response and subsequent release of oxidants from these 
cells have been demonstrated to play an important role in the 
pathogenesis of rat lung tumors (Borm et al., 2004; Carter and 
Driscoll, 2001; Carter et al., 2006; Johnston et al., 2000; Knaapen et 
al., 2004; Mossman, 2000). Inflammatory mediators, as characterized in 
many of the studies summarized above, have been shown to play a 
significant role in the recruitment of cells responsible for the 
release of reactive oxygen and hydrogen species. These species have 
been determined to be highly mutagenic themselves as well as mitogenic, 
inducing a proliferative response (Feriola and Nettesheim, 1994; Jetten 
et al., 1990; Moss et al., 1994; Coussens and Werb, 2002). The 
resultant effect is an environment rich for neoplastic transformations 
and the progression of fibrosis and tumor formation. This finding does 
not imply no risk at levels below an inflammatory response; rather, the 
overall weight of evidence is suggestive of a mechanism of an indirect 
carcinogen at levels where inflammation is seen. While tumorigenesis 
secondary to inflammation is one reasonable mode of action, other 
plausible modes of action independent of inflammation (e.g., 
epigenetic, mitogenic, reactive oxygen mediated, indirect genotoxicity, 
etc.) may also contribute to the lung cancer associated with beryllium 
exposure.
    Epidemiological studies indicate excess risk of lung cancer 
mortality from occupational beryllium exposure levels at or below the 
current OSHA PEL (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2010; Table 4).

F. Other Health Effects

    Past studies on other health effects have been thoroughly reviewed 
by several scientific organizations (NTP, 1999; EPA, 1998; ATSDR, 2002; 
WHO, 2001; HSDB, 2010). These studies include summaries of animal 
studies, in vitro studies, and human epidemiological studies associated 
with cardiovascular, hematological, hepatic, renal, endocrine, 
reproductive, ocular and mucosal, and developmental effects. High-dose 
exposures to beryllium have been shown to have an adverse effect upon a 
variety of organs and tissues in the body, particularly the liver. The 
adverse systemic effects from human exposures mostly occurred prior to 
the introduction of occupational and environmental standards set in 
1970-1972 (OSHA, 1971; ACGIH, 1971; ANSI, 1970) and 1974 (EPA, 1974) 
and therefore are less relevant today than in the past. The available 
data is fairly limited. The hepatic, cardiovascular, renal, and ocular 
and mucosal effects are briefly summarized below. Health effects in 
other organ systems listed above were only observed in animal studies 
at very high exposure levels and are, therefore, not discussed here.
 1. Hepatic Effects
    Beryllium has been shown to accumulate in the liver and a 
correlation has been demonstrated between beryllium content and hepatic 
damage. Different compounds have been shown to distribute differently 
within the hepatic tissues. For example, beryllium phosphate had 
accumulated almost exclusively within sinusoidal (Kupffer) cells of the 
liver, while the beryllium derived from beryllium sulfate was found 
mainly in parenchymal cells. Conversely, beryllium sulphosalicylic acid 
complexes were rapidly excreted (Skillteter and Paine, 1979).
    According to a few autopsies, beryllium-laden liver had central 
necrosis, mild focal necrosis as well as congestion, and occasionally 
beryllium granuloma.
    Residents near a beryllium plant may have been exposed by inhaling 
trace amounts of beryllium powder, and different beryllium compounds 
may have induced different toxicant reactions (Yian and Yin, 1982).
2. Cardiovascular Effects
    There is very limited evidence of cardiovascular effects of 
beryllium and its compounds in humans. Severe cases of chronic 
beryllium disease can result in cor pulmonale, which is hypertrophy of 
the right heart ventricle. In a case history study of 17 individuals 
exposed to beryllium in a plant that manufactured fluorescent lamps, 
autopsies revealed right atrial and ventricular hypertrophy (Hardy and 
Tabershaw, 1946). It is not likely that these cardiac effects were due 
to direct toxicity to the heart, but rather were a response to impaired 
lung function. However, an increase in deaths due to heart disease or 
ischemic heart disease was found in workers at a beryllium 
manufacturing facility (Ward et al., 1992).
    Animal studies performed in monkeys indicate heart enlargement 
after acute inhalation exposure to 13 mg beryllium/m\3\ as beryllium 
hydrogen phosphate, 0.184 mg beryllium/m\3\ as beryllium fluoride, or 
0.198 mg beryllium/m\3\ as beryllium sulfate (Schepers 1964). Decreased 
arterial oxygen tension was observed in dogs exposed to 30 mg 
beryllium/m\3\ as beryllium oxide for 15 days (HSDB, 2010), 3.6 mg 
beryllium/m\3\ as beryllium oxide for 40 days (Hall et al., 1950), or 
0.04 mg beryllium/m\3\ as beryllium sulfate for 100 days (Stokinger et 
al., 1950). These are expected to be indirect effects on the heart due 
to pulmonary fibrosis and toxicity which can increase arterial pressure 
and restrict blood flow.
3. Renal Effects
    Renal calculi (stones) were unusually prevalent in severe cases 
that resulted from high levels of beryllium exposure. Renal stones 
containing beryllium occurred in about 10 percent of patients affected 
by high exposures (Barnett, et al., 1961). Kidney stones were observed 
in 10 percent of the CBD cases collected by the BCR up to 1959 (Hall et 
al., 1959). In addition, an excess of calcium in the blood and urine 
has been seen frequently in patients with chronic beryllium disease 
(ATSDR, 2002).
4. Ocular and Mucosal Effects
    Both the soluble, sparingly soluble, and insoluble beryllium 
compounds have been shown to cause ocular irritation in humans (Van 
Orstrand et al., 1945; De Nardi et al., 1953; Nishimura, 1966; Epstein, 
1990; NIOSH, 1994). In addition, beryllium compounds (soluble, 
sparingly soluble, or insoluble) have been demonstrated to induce acute 
conjunctivitis with corneal maculae and diffuse erythema (HSDB, 2010).
    The mucosa (mucosal membrane) is the moist lining of certain 
tissues/organs including the eyes, nose, mouth, lungs, and the urinary 
and digestive tracts. Soluble beryllium salts have been

[[Page 47617]]

shown to be directly irritating to mucous membranes (HSDB, 2010).

G. Summary of Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Health Effects

    Through careful analysis of the current best available scientific 
information outlined in this Health Effects Section V, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that beryllium and beryllium-containing 
compounds are able to cause sensitization, chronic beryllium disease 
(CBD) and lung cancer below the current OSHA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\. The 
Agency has preliminarily determined through the studies outlined in 
section V.A.2 of this health effects section that skin and inhalation 
exposure to beryllium can lead to sensitization; and inhalation 
exposure, or skin exposure coupled with inhalation, can cause onset and 
progression of CBD. In addition, the Agency has preliminarily 
determined through studies outlined in section V.E. of this health 
effects section that inhalation exposure to beryllium and beryllium 
containing materials causes lung cancer.
1. Beryllium Causes Sensitization Below the Current PEL and 
Sensitization is a Precursor to CBD
    Through the biological and immunological processes outlined in 
section V.B. of the Health Effects, the Agency believes that the 
scientific evidence supports the following mechanism for the 
development of sensitization and CBD.
     Inhaled beryllium and beryllium-containing materials able 
to be retained and solubilized in the lungs initiate sensitization and 
facilitate CBD development (Section V.B.5).
     Beryllium compounds that dissolve in biological fluids, 
such as sweat, can penetrate intact skin and initiate sensitization 
(section V.A.2; V.B). Phagosomal fluid and lung fluid have been 
demonstrated to dissolve beryllium compounds in the lung (section 
V.A.2a).
     Sensitization occurs through a CD4+ T-cell mediated 
process with both soluble and insoluble beryllium and beryllium-
containing compounds through direct antigen presentation or through 
further antigen processing (section V.D.1) in the skin or lung. T-cell 
mediated responses, such as sensitization, are generally regarded as 
long-lasting (e.g., not transient or readily reversible) immune 
conditions.
     Beryllium sensitization and CBD are adverse events along a 
pathological continuum in the disease process with sensitization being 
the necessary first step in the progression to CBD (section V.D).
    [cir] Animal studies have provided supporting evidence for T-cell 
proliferation in the development of granulomatous lung lesions after 
beryllium exposure (section V.D.2; V.D.6).
    [cir] Since the pathogenesis of CBD involves a beryllium-specific, 
cell-mediated immune response, CBD cannot occur in the absence of 
beryllium sensitization (V.D.1). While no clinical symptoms are 
associated with sensitization, a sensitized worker is at risk of 
developing CBD upon subsequent inhalation exposure to beryllium.
    [cir] Epidemiological evidence that covers a wide variety of 
different beryllium compounds and industrial processes demonstrates 
that sensitization and CBD are continuing to occur at present-day 
exposures below OSHA's PEL (section V.D.4; V.D.5).
     OSHA considers CBD to be a progressive illness with a 
continuous spectrum of symptoms ranging from its earliest asymptomatic 
stage following sensitization through to full-blown CBD and death 
(section V.D.7).
     Genetic variabilities may enhance risk for developing 
sensitization and CBD in some groups (section V.D.3).
    In addition, epidemiological studies outlined in section V.D.5 have 
demonstrated that efforts to reduce exposures have succeeded in 
reducing the frequency of sensitization and CBD.
2. Evidence Indicates Beryllium is a Human Carcinogen
    OSHA has conducted an evaluation of the current available 
scientific information of the carcinogenic potential of beryllium and 
beryllium-containing compounds (section V.E). Based on weight of 
evidence and plausible mechanistic information obtained from in vitro 
and in vivo animal studies as well as clinical and epidemiological 
investigations, the Agency has preliminarily determined that beryllium 
and beryllium-containing materials should be regarded as human 
carcinogens. This information is in accordance with findings from IARC, 
NTP, EPA, NIOSH, and ACGIH (section V.E).
     Lung cancer is an irreversible and frequently fatal 
disease with an extremely poor 5-year survival rate (NCI, 2009).
     Epidemiological cohort studies have reported statistically 
significant excess lung cancer mortality among workers employed in U.S. 
beryllium production and processing plants during the 1930s to 1970s 
(Section V.E.2).
     Significant positive associations were found between lung 
cancer mortality and both average and cumulative beryllium exposures 
when appropriately adjusted for birth cohort and short-term work status 
(Section V.E.2).
     Studies in which large amounts of different beryllium 
compounds were inhaled or instilled in the respiratory tracts of 
experimental animals resulted in an increased incidence of lung tumors 
(Section V.E.3).
     Authoritative scientific organizations, such as the IARC, 
NTP, and EPA, have classified beryllium as a known or probable human 
carcinogen.
    While OSHA has preliminarily determined there is sufficient 
evidence of beryllium carcinogenicity, the exact tumorigenic mechanism 
for beryllium is unclear and a number of mechanisms are plausibly 
involved, including chronic inflammation, genotoxicity, mitogenicity 
oxidative stress, and epigenetic changes (section V.E.3).
     Studies of beryllium exposed animals have consistently 
demonstrated chronic pulmonary inflammation after exposure (section 
V.E.3).
    [cir] Substantial data indicate that tumor formation in certain 
animal models after inhalation exposure to sparingly soluble particles 
at doses causing marked, chronic inflammation is due to a secondary 
mechanism unrelated to the genotoxicty of the particle (section V.E.5).
     A review conducted by the NAS (2008) found that beryllium 
and beryllium-containing compounds tested positive for genotoxicity in 
nearly 50 percent of studies without exogenous metabolic activity, 
suggesting a possible direct-acting mechanism may exist (section V.E.1) 
as well as the potential for epigenetic changes (section V.E.4).
    Other health effects have been summarized in sections F of the 
Health Effects Section and include hepatic, cardiovascular, renal, 
ocular, and mucosal effects. The adverse systemic effects from human 
exposures mostly occurred prior to the introduction of occupational and 
environmental standards set in 1970-1972 (OSHA, 1971; ACGIH, 1971; 
ANSI, 1970) and 1974 (EPA, 1974) and therefore are less relevant today 
than in the past.

[[Page 47618]]

APPENDIX

                           Table A.1--Summary of Beryllium Sensitization and Chronic Beryllium Disease Epidemiological Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           (%) Prevalence                Range of         Exposure-
          Reference               Study type    ------------------------------------     exposure          response          Study          Additional
                                                   Sensitization          CBD          measurements      relationship     limitations        comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Studies Conducted Prior to BeLPT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardy and Tabershaw, 1946....  Case-series.....  N/A.............  N/A.............  N/A.............  N/A............  Selection bias.  Small sample
                                                                                                                                          size.
Hardy, 1980..................  Case-series.....  N/A.............  N/A.............  N/A.............  N/A............  Selection bias.  Small sample
                                                                                                                                          size.
Machle et al., 1948..........  Case-series.....  N/A.............  N/A.............  Semi-             Yes............  Selection bias.  Small sample
                                                                                      quantitative.                                       size;
                                                                                                                                          unreliable
                                                                                                                                          exposure data.
Eisenbud et al., 1949........  Case-series.....  N/A.............  N/A.............  Average           ...............  ...............  Non-
                                                                                      concentration:                                      occupational;
                                                                                      350-750 ft from                                     ambient air
                                                                                      plant--0.05-0.1                                     sampling.
                                                                                      5 [mu]g/m\3\;.
                                                                                     <350 ft from
                                                                                      plant--2.1
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
Lieben and Metzner, 1959.....  ................  N/A.............  ................  N/A.............  ...............  No quantitative  Family member
                                                                                                                         exposure data.   contact with
                                                                                                                                          contaminated
                                                                                                                                          clothes.
Hardy et al., 1967...........  Case Registry     N/A.............  N/A.............  N/A.............  N/A............  Incomplete       ...............
                                Review.                                                                                  exposure
                                                                                                                         concentration
                                                                                                                         data.
Hasan and Kazemi, 1974.......  ................  N/A.............  ................  ................  ...............  ...............  ...............
Eisenbud and Lisson, 1983....  ................  N/A.............  1-10............  ................  ...............  ...............  ...............
Stoeckle et al., 1969........  Case-series (60   N/A.............  ................  ................  No.............  Selection bias.  Provided
                                cases).                                                                                                   information
                                                                                                                                          regarding
                                                                                                                                          progression
                                                                                                                                          and
                                                                                                                                          identifying
                                                                                                                                          sarcoidosis
                                                                                                                                          from CBD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Studies Conducted Following the Development of the BeLPT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                             Beryllium Mining and Extraction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deubner et al., 2001b........  Cross-sectional   4.0 (3 cases)...  1.3 (1 case)....  Mining, milling-- No.............  Small sample     Personal
                                (75 workers).                                         range 0.05-0.8                     size.            sampling.
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                     Annual maximum
                                                                                      0.04-165.7
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Beryllium Metal Processing and Alloy Production
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kreiss et al., 1997..........  Cross-sectional   6.9 (43 cases)..  4.6 (29 cases)..  Median--1.4       No.............  Inconsistent     Short-term
                                study of 627                                          [mu]g/m\3\.                        BeLPT results    Breathing Zone
                                workers.                                                                                 between labs.    sampling.
Rosenman et al., 2005........  Cross-sectional   14.5 (83 cases).  5.5 (32 cases)..  Mean average      No.............  ...............  Daily weighted
                                study of 577                                          range--7.1-8.7                                      average:
                                workers.                                              [mu]g/m\3\;.                                       High exposures
                                                                                     Mean peak range--                                    compared to
                                                                                      53-87 [mu]g/                                        other studies.
                                                                                      m\3\;.
                                                                                     Mean cumulative
                                                                                      range--100-209
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Beryllium Machining Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newman et al., 2001..........  Longitudinal      9.4 (22 cases)..  8.5 (20 cases)..  ................  No.............  ...............  Engineering and
                                study of 235                                                                                              administrative
                                workers.                                                                                                  controls
                                                                                                                                          primarily used
                                                                                                                                          to control
                                                                                                                                          exposures.

[[Page 47619]]

 
Kelleher et al., 2001........  Case-control      11.5              11.5              0.08-0.6 [mu]g/   Yes............  ...............  Identified 20
                                study of 20       (machinists).     (machinists).     m\3\--lifetime                                      workers with
                                cases and 206    2.9 (non-         2.9 (non-          weighted                                            Sensitization
                                controls.         machinists).      machinists).      exposures.                                          or CBD.
Madl et al., 2007............  Longitudinal      ................  ................  Machining.......  Yes............  ...............  Personal
                                study of 27                                          1980-1995 median                                     sampling:
                                cases.                                                -0.33 [mu]g/                                       Required
                                                                                      m\3\; 1996-1999                                     evidence of
                                                                                      median--0.16                                        granulomas for
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;                                         CBD diagnosis.
                                                                                      2000-2005
                                                                                      median--0.09
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;.
                                                                                     Non-machining
                                                                                      1980-1995
                                                                                      median--0.12
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                      1996-1999
                                                                                      median--0.08
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                      2000-2005
                                                                                      median--0.06
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Beryllium Oxide Ceramics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kreiss et al., 1993b.........  Cross-sectional   3.6 (18 cases)..  1.8 (9 cases)...  ................  No                                ...............
                                survey of 505
                                workers.
Kreiss et al., 1996..........  Cross-sectional   5.9 (8 cases)...  4.4 (6 cases)...  Machining         No.............  Small study      Breathing Zone
                                survey of 136                                         median--0.6                        population.      Sampling.
                                workers.                                              [mu]g/m\3\;.
                                                                                     Other Areas
                                                                                      median--<0.3
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;.
Henneberger et al., 2001.....  Cross-sectional   9.9 (15 cases)..  5.3 (8 cases)...  6.4% samples >2   Yes............  Small study      Breathing zone
                                survey of 151                                         [mu]g/m\3\;                        population.      sampling.
                                workers.                                              2.4% samples >5
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;.
                                                                                     0.3% samples >25
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
Cummings et al., 2007........  Longitudinal      0.7-5.6 (4        0.1--7.9 (3       Production......  Yes............  Small sample     Personal
                                study of 93       cases).           cases).          1994-1999                           size.            sampling was
                                workers.                                              median--0.1[mu]                                     effective in
                                                                                      g/m\3\; 2000-                                       reducing rates
                                                                                      2003 median--                                       of new cases
                                                                                      0.04[mu]g/m\3\;.                                    of
                                                                                     Administrative                                       sensitization.
                                                                                      1994-1999
                                                                                      median <0.2
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                      2000-2003
                                                                                      median--0.02
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Copper-Beryllium Alloy Processing and Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schuler et al., 2005.........  Cross-sectional   7.0 (10 cases)..  4.0 (6 cases)...  Rod and Wire      ...............  Small study      Personal
                                survey of 153                                         Production                         population.      sampling.
                                workers.                                              median--0.12
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                     Strip Metal
                                                                                      Production
                                                                                      median--0.02
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;.
                                                                                     Production
                                                                                      Support median--
                                                                                      0.02 [mu]g/
                                                                                      m\3\;.
                                                                                     Administration
                                                                                      median--0.02
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.

[[Page 47620]]

 
Thomas et al., 2009..........  Cross-sectional   3.8 (3 cases)...  1.9 (1 case)....  Used exposure     ...............  Authors noted    Instituted PPE
                                study of 82                                           profile from                       workers may      to reduce
                                workers.                                              Schuler study.                     have been        dermal
                                                                                                                         sensitized       exposures.
                                                                                                                         prior to
                                                                                                                         available
                                                                                                                         screening,
                                                                                                                         underestimatin
                                                                                                                         g
                                                                                                                         sensitization
                                                                                                                         rate in legacy
                                                                                                                         workers.
Stanton et al., 2006.........  Cross-sectional   1.1 (1 case)....  1.1 (1 case)....  Bulk Products     ...............  Study did not    Personal
                                study of 88                                           Production                         report use of    sampling.
                                workers.                                              median 0.04                        PPE or
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;                        respirators.
                                                                                      Strip Metal
                                                                                      Production
                                                                                      median--0.03
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                      Production
                                                                                      support.
                                                                                     median--0.01
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                      Administration
                                                                                      median 0.01
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
Bailey et al., 2010..........  Cross-sectional   11.0............  14.5 total......  ................  ...............  Study reported   ...............
                                study of 660                                                                             prevalence
                                total workers                                                                            rates for pre
                                (258 partial                                                                             enhanced
                                program, 290                                                                             control-
                                full program).                                                                           program,
                                                                                                                         partial
                                                                                                                         enhanced
                                                                                                                         control
                                                                                                                         program, and
                                                                                                                         full enhanced
                                                                                                                         control
                                                                                                                         program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Cleanup of Former Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kreiss et al., 1989..........  Cross-sectional   11.8 (6 cases)..  7.8 (4 cases)...  ................  No.............  Small study      ...............
                                survey of 51                                                                             population
                                workers.
Kreiss et al., 1993a.........  Cross-sectional   1.9 (18 cases)..  1.7 (15 cases)..  ................  No.............  Study            ...............
                                survey of 895                                                                            population
                                workers.                                                                                 includes some
                                                                                                                         workers with
                                                                                                                         no reported Be
                                                                                                                         exposure.
Stange et al., 1996..........  Longitudinal      2.4 (76 cases)..  0.7 (29 cases)..  Annual mean       No.............  ...............  Personal
                                Study of 4,397                                        concentration.                                      sampling.
                                BHSP                                                 1970-1988 0.016
                                participants.                                         [mu]g/m\3\;
                                                                                      1984-1987 1.04
                                                                                      [mu]g/m\3\.
Stange et al., 2001..........  Longitudinal      4.5 (154 cases).  1.6 (81 cases)..  No quantitative   No.............  ...............  Personal
                                study of 5,173                                        information                                         sampling.
                                workers.                                              presented in
                                                                                      study.
Viet et al., 2000............  Case-control....  74 workers        50 workers CBD..  Mean exposure     Yes............  Likely           Fixed airhead
                                                  sensitized.                         range: 0.083-                      underestimated   sampling away
                                                                                      0.622 [mu]g/                       exposures.       from breathing
                                                                                      m\3\.                                               zone:
                                                                                     Maximum                                             Matched
                                                                                      exposures: 0.54-                                    controls for
                                                                                      36.8 [mu]g/                                         age, sex,
                                                                                      m.\3\.                                              smoking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = Information not available from study reports.


[[Page 47621]]


                                       Table A.2--Summary of Mechanistic Animal Studies for Sensitization and CBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Dose or exposure       Type of                              Other
           Reference                 Species               Study length            concentration        beryllium       Study results      information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Intratracheal (intrabroncheal) or Nasal Instillation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barna et al., 1981............  Guinea pig.......                       3 month  10 mg-5[mu]m       beryllium oxide.  Granulomas,
                                                                                  particle size.                       interstitial
                                                                                                                       infiltrate with
                                                                                                                       fibrosis with
                                                                                                                       thickening of
                                                                                                                       alveolar septae.
Barna et al., 1984............  Guinea pig.......                       3 month  5 mg.............  beryllium oxide.  Granulomatous
                                                                                                                       lesions in
                                                                                                                       strain 2 but
                                                                                                                       not strain 13
                                                                                                                       indicating a
                                                                                                                       genetic
                                                                                                                       component.
Benson et al., 2000...........  Mouse............  ............................  0, 12.5, 25,       beryllium copper  Acute pulmonary
                                                                                  100[mu]g; 0, 2,    alloy;            toxicity
                                                                                  8 [mu]g.           beryllium metal.  associated with
                                                                                                                       beryllium/
                                                                                                                       copper alloy
                                                                                                                       but not
                                                                                                                       beryllium metal.
Haley et al., 1994............  Cynomolgus monkey               14, 60, 90 days  0, 1, 50, 150      Beryllium metal,  Beryllium oxide
                                                                                  [mu]g.             beryllium oxide.  particles were
                                                                                 0, 2.5, 12.5,                         less toxic than
                                                                                  37.5 [mu]g.                          the beryllium
                                                                                                                       metal.
Huang et al., 1992............  Mouse............  ............................  5 [mu]g..........  Beryllium         Granulomas        ................
                                                                                 1-5 [mu]g........   sulfate           produced in A/J
                                                                                                     immunization;     strain but not
                                                                                                     beryllium metal   BALB/c or C57BL/
                                                                                                     challenge.        6.
Votto et al., 1987............  Rat..............                       3 month  2.4 mg...........  Beryllium         Granulomas,
                                                                                 8 mg/ml..........   sulfate           however, no
                                                                                                     immunization;     correlation
                                                                                                     beryllium         between T-cell
                                                                                                     sulfate           subsets in lung
                                                                                                     challenge.        and BAL fluid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Inhalation--Single Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley et al., 1989a...........  Beagle dog.......             Chronic--one dose  0, 6 [mu]g/kg, 18  500 [deg]C; 1000  Positive BeLPT    Granulomas
                                                                                  [mu]g/kg.          [deg]C            results--develo   resolved with
                                                                                                     beryllium oxide.  ped granulomas;   time, no full-
                                                                                                                       low-calcined      blown CBD.
                                                                                                                       beryllium oxide
                                                                                                                       more toxic than
                                                                                                                       high-calcined.
Haley et al., 1989b...........  Beagle dog.......      Chronic--one dose/2 year  0, 17 [mu]g/kg,    500 [deg]C; 1000  Granulomas,       Granulomas
                                                                       recovery   50 [mu]g/kg.       [deg]C            sensitization,    resolved over
                                                                                                     beryllium oxide.  low-fired more    time.
                                                                                                                       toxic than high
                                                                                                                       fired.
Robinson et al., 1968.........  Dog..............                       Chronic  0. 115mg/m\3\....  Beryllium oxide,  Foreign body
                                                                                                     beryllium         reaction in
                                                                                                     fluoride,         lung.
                                                                                                     beryllium
                                                                                                     chloride.
Sendelbach et al., 1989.......  Rat..............                        2 week  0, 4.05 [mu]g/L..  Beryllium as      Interstial
                                                                                                     beryllium         pneumonitis.
                                                                                                     sulfate.
Sendelbach and Witschi, 1987..  Rat..............                        2 week  0, 3.3, 7 [mu]g/L  Beryllium as      Enzyme changes
                                                                                                     beryllium         in BAL fluid.
                                                                                                     sulfate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Inhalation--Repeat Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conradi et al., 1971..........  Beagle dog.......               Chronic--2 year  0. 3300 [mu]g/     1400 [deg]C       No changes        May have been
                                                                                  m\3\, 4380 [mu]g/  beryllium oxide.  detected.         due to short
                                                                                  m\3\ once/month                                        exposure time
                                                                                  for 3 months.                                          followed by
                                                                                                                                         long recovery.

[[Page 47622]]

 
                                Macaca irus                     Chronic--2 year  0. 3300 [mu]g/     1400 [deg]C       No changes        May have been
                                 Monkey.                                          m\3\, 4380 [mu]g/  beryllium oxide.  detected.         due to short
                                                                                  m\3\ once/month                                        exposure time
                                                                                  for 3 months.                                          followed by
                                                                                                                                         long recovery.
Haley et al., 1992............  Beagle dog.......     Chronic--repeat dose (2.5  17, 50 [mu]g/kg..  500 [deg]C; 1000  Granulomatous
                                                                year intervals)                      [deg]C            pneumonitis.
                                                                                                     beryllium oxide.
Harmsen et al., 1985..........  Beagle dog.......                       Chronic  0, 20 [mu]g/kg,    500[deg]C; 1000
                                5 dogs per group.                                 50 [mu]g/kg.       [deg]C
                                                                                                     beryllium oxide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Dermal or Intradermal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kang et al., 1977.............  Rabbit...........  ............................  10mg.............  Beryllium         Skin
                                                                                                     sulfate.          sensitization
                                                                                                                       and skin
                                                                                                                       granulomas.
Tinkle et al., 2003...........  Mouse............                       3 month  25 [mu]L.........  Beryllium         Microgranulomas
                                                                                 70 [mu]g.........   sulfate.          with some
                                                                                                    Beryllium oxide.   resolution over
                                                                                                                       time of study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Intramuscular
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eskenasy, 1979................  Rabbit...........  35 days (injections at 7 day  10mg.ml..........  Beryllium         Sensitization,
                                                                     intervals)                      sulfate.          evidence of CBD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Intraperitoneal Injection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marx and Burrell, 1973........  Guinea pig.......            24 weeks (biweekly  2.6 mg + 10 [mu]g  Beryllium         Sensitization...
                                                                    injections)   dermal             sulfate.
                                                                                  injections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Table A-3--Summary of Beryllium Lung Cancer Epidemiological Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Confounding         Study          Additional
          Reference               Study type      Exposure range     Study number     Mortality ratio      factors        limitations        comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Beryllium Case Registry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infante et al., 1980.........  Cohort..........  N/D.............  421 cases from    SMR 2.12........  Not reported...  Exposure         ...............
                                                                    the BCR.         7 lung cancer                       concentration
                                                                                      deaths.                            data or
                                                                                                                         smoking habits
                                                                                                                         not reported.
Steenland and Ward, 1991.....  Cohort..........  N/D.............  689 cases from    SMR 2.00 (95% CI  ...............  ...............  Included women:
                                                                    the BCR.          1.33-2.89).                                         93% women
                                                                                     28 lung cancer                                       diagnosed with
                                                                                      deaths.                                             CBD; 50% men
                                                                                                                                          diagnosed with
                                                                                                                                          CBD;
                                                                                                                                         SMR 157 for
                                                                                                                                          those with CBD
                                                                                                                                          and SMR 232
                                                                                                                                          for those with
                                                                                                                                          ABD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Beryllium Manufacturing and/or Processing Plants (Extraction, Fabrication, and Processing)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ward et al., 1992............  Retrospective     N/D.............  9,225 males.....  SMR 1.26........  ...............  Lack of job      Employment
                                Mortality                                            (95% CI 1.12-                       history and      period 1940-
                                Cohort.                                               1.42).                             air monitoring   1969.
                                                                                     280 lung cancer                     data.
                                                                                      deaths.

[[Page 47623]]

 
Levy et al., 2002............  Cohort..........  N/D.............  9225 males......  Statistically     Adjusted for     Lack of job      Majority of
                                                                                      non-significant   smoking.         history and      workers
                                                                                      elevation in                       air monitoring   studied
                                                                                      lung cancer                        data.            employed for
                                                                                      deaths.                                             less than one
                                                                                                                                          year
Bayliss et al., 1971.........  Nested cohort...  ................  8,000 workers...  SMR 1.06........  ...............  ...............  Employed prior
                                                                                     36 lung cancer                                       to 1947 for
                                                                                      deaths.                                             almost half
                                                                                                                                          lung cancer
                                                                                                                                          deaths.
Mancuso, 1970................  Cohort..........  411-43,300 [mu]g/ 1,222 workers at  SMR 1.42........  Only partial     Partial smoking  Employment
                                                  m\3\ annual       OH plant; 2,044  (95% CI 1.1-1.8)   smoking          history; No      period from
                                                  exposure          workers at PA    80 lung cancer     history.         job analysis     1937-1948.
                                                  (reported from    plant.            deaths.                            by title or
                                                  Zielinsky,                                                             exposure
                                                  1961).                                                                 category.
Mancuso, 1980................  Cohort..........  N/D.............  Same OH and PA    SMR 1.40........  No smoking       No adjustment    Employment
                                                                    plant analysis.                     adjustment.      by job title     period from
                                                                                                                         or exposure.     1942-1948;
                                                                                                                                          Used workers
                                                                                                                                          at rayon plant
                                                                                                                                          for
                                                                                                                                          comparison.
Mancuso and El Attar, 1969...  Cohort..........  N/D.............  3,685 white       SMR 1.49........  Adjusted for     No job exposure  Employment
                                                                    males.                              age and local.   data or          history from
                                                                                                                         smoking          1937-1944.
                                                                                                                         adjustment.
Wagner et al., 1980..........  Cohort..........  N/D.............  3,055 white       SMR 1.25........  ...............  Inadequately     Reanalysis
                                                                    males PA plant.  (95% CI 0.9-1.7)                    adjusted for     using PA lung-
                                                                                     47 lung cancer                      smoking; Used    cancer rate
                                                                                      deaths.                            national lung-   revealed 19%
                                                                                                                         cancer risk      underestimatio
                                                                                                                         for cancer not   n of beryllium
                                                                                                                         PA.              lung cancer
                                                                                                                                          deaths.
Sanderson et al., 2001.......  Nested case-      -- Average        3,569 males PA    SMR 1.22........  Smoking was      May not have     Found
                                control.          exposure          plant.           (95% CI 1.03-      found not to     adjusted         association
                                                  22.8[mu]g/m\3\.                     1.43).            be a             properly for     with 20 year
                                                 -- Maximum                          142 lung cancer    confounding      birth-year or    latency.
                                                  exposure                            deaths.           factor.          age at hire.
                                                  32.4[mu]g/m\3\.
Levy et al., 2007............  Nested case-      Used log          Reanalysis of     SMR 1.04........  Different        ...............  Found no
                                control.          transformed       Sanderson et     (95% CI 0.92-      methodology                       association
                                                  exposure data.    al., 2001.        1.17).            for smoking                       between
                                                                                                        adjustment.                       beryllium
                                                                                                                                          exposure and
                                                                                                                                          increased risk
                                                                                                                                          of lung
                                                                                                                                          cancer.
Schubauer-Berigan et al.,      Nested case-      Used exposure     Reanalysis of     Used Odds ratio:  Adjusted for     ...............  -- Controlled
 2008.                          control.          data from         Sanderson et      1.91 (95% CI      smoking, birth                    for birth-year
                                                  Sanderson et      al., 2001.        1.06-3.44)        cohort, age.                      and age at
                                                  al., 2001, Chen                     unadjusted;.                                        hire;
                                                  2001, and Couch                    1.29 (95% CI                                        -- Found
                                                  et al., 2010.                       0.61-2.71)                                          similar
                                                                                      birth-year                                          results to
                                                                                      adjusted;.                                          Sanderson et
                                                                                     1.24 (95% CI                                         al., 2001;
                                                                                      0.58-2.65) age-                                    -- Found
                                                                                      hire adjusted.                                      association
                                                                                                                                          with 10 year
                                                                                                                                          latency
                                                                                                                                         -- ``0'' = used
                                                                                                                                          minuscule
                                                                                                                                          value at start
                                                                                                                                          to eliminate
                                                                                                                                          the use of 0
                                                                                                                                          in a
                                                                                                                                          logarithmic
                                                                                                                                          analysis
Schubauer-Berigan et al.,      Cohort..........  N/D.............  9199 workers      SMR 1.17 (95%CI   Adjusted for     ...............  Male workers
 2010a.                                                             from 7            1.08-1.28).       smoking.                          employed at
                                                                    processing       545 deaths......                                     least 2 days
                                                                    plants.                                                               between 1940
                                                                                                                                          and 1970.
Schubauer-Berigan et al.,      Cohort..........  Used exposure     5436 workers OH   Evaluated using   Adjusted for     ...............  -- Exposure
 2010b.                                           data from         and PA plants.    hazard ratios     age, birth                        response was
                                                  Sanderson et                        and excess        cohort,                           found between
                                                  al., 2001.                          absolute risk.    asbestos                          0-10[mu]g/m\3\
                                                                                     293 deaths......   exposure,                         mean DWA;
                                                                                                        short-term                       -- Increased
                                                                                                        work status.                      with
                                                                                                                                          statistical
                                                                                                                                          significance
                                                                                                                                          at 4[mu]g/
                                                                                                                                          m\3\;
                                                                                                                                         -- 1 in 1000
                                                                                                                                          risk at
                                                                                                                                          0.033[mu]g/
                                                                                                                                          m\3\ mean DWA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47624]]

 
                                                           Re-evaluation of Published Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollins et al., 2009.........  Review..........  Re-examination    ................  ................  ...............  ...............  Found lung
                                                  of weight-of-                                                                           cancer excess
                                                  evidence from                                                                           risk was
                                                  more than 50                                                                            associated
                                                  publications.                                                                           with higher
                                                                                                                                          levels of
                                                                                                                                          exposure not
                                                                                                                                          relevant in
                                                                                                                                          today's
                                                                                                                                          industrial
                                                                                                                                          settings.
IARC, 2012...................  Multiple........  Insufficient      ................  Sufficient        IARC concluded   ...............  -- Greater lung
                                                  exposure                            evidence for      beryllium lung                    cancer risk in
                                                  concentration.                      carcinogenicity   cancer risk                       the BCR cohort
                                                 Data............                     of beryllium.     was not                          -- Correlation
                                                                                                        associated                        between
                                                                                                        with smoking.                     highest lung
                                                                                                                                          cancer rates
                                                                                                                                          and highest
                                                                                                                                          amounts of ABD
                                                                                                                                          or other non-
                                                                                                                                          malignant lung
                                                                                                                                          diseases
                                                                                                                                         -- Increased
                                                                                                                                          risk with
                                                                                                                                          longer latency
                                                                                                                                         -- Greater
                                                                                                                                          excess lung
                                                                                                                                          cancers among
                                                                                                                                          those hired
                                                                                                                                          prior to 1950.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/D = information not determined for most studies
DWA--daily weighted average

VI. Preliminary Beryllium Risk Assessment

    The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act and court cases 
arising under it have led OSHA to rely on risk assessment to support 
the risk determinations required to set a permissible exposure limit 
(PEL) for a toxic substance in standards under the OSH Act. Section 
6(b)(5) of the OSH Act states that ``The Secretary [of Labor], in 
promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical 
agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which most 
adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best 
available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of 
health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular 
exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of 
his working life'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)).
    In Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum 
Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (Benzene), the United States Supreme 
Court ruled that the OSH Act requires that, prior to the issuance of a 
new standard, a determination must be made that there is a significant 
risk of material impairment of health at the existing PEL and that 
issuance of a new standard will significantly reduce or eliminate that 
risk. The Court stated that ``before [the Secretary] can promulgate any 
permanent health or safety standard, the Secretary is required to make 
a threshold finding that a place of employment is unsafe--in the sense 
that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or lessened by 
a change in practices'' (Id. at 642). The Court also stated ``that the 
Act does limit the Secretary's power to requiring the elimination of 
significant risks'' (488 U.S. at 644 n.49), and that ``OSHA is not 
required to support its finding that a significant risk exists with 
anything approaching scientific certainty'' (Id. at 656).
    OSHA's approach for the risk assessment incorporates both a review 
of the recent literature on populations of workers exposed to beryllium 
below the current Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ and 
a statistical exposure-response analysis. OSHA evaluated risk at 
several alternate PELs under consideration by the Agency: 2 [mu]g/m\3\, 
1 [mu]g/m\3\, 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. A 
number of recently published epidemiological studies evaluate the risk 
of sensitization and CBD for workers exposed at and below the current 
PEL and the effectiveness of exposure control programs in reducing 
risk. OSHA also conducted a statistical analysis of the exposure-
response relationship for sensitization and CBD at the current PEL and 
alternate PELs the Agency is considering. For this analysis, OSHA used 
data provided by National Jewish Medical and Research Center (NJMRC) on 
a population of workers employed at a beryllium machining plant in 
Cullman, AL. The review of the epidemiological studies and OSHA's own 
analysis show substantial risk of sensitization and CBD among workers 
exposed at and below the current PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\. They also show 
substantial reduction in risk where employers have implemented a 
combination of controls, including stringent control of airborne 
beryllium levels and additional measures such as respirators, dermal 
personal protective equipment (PPE), and strict housekeeping to protect 
workers against dermal and respiratory beryllium exposure. To evaluate 
lung cancer risk, OSHA relied primarily on a quantitative risk 
assessment published in 2011 by NIOSH. This risk assessment was based 
on an update of the Reading cohort analyzed by Sanderson et al., as 
well as workers from two smaller plants (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 
2011) where workers were exposed to lower levels of beryllium and 
worked for longer periods than at the Reading plant. The authors found 
that lung cancer risk was strongly and significantly related to mean, 
cumulative, and maximum measures of workers' exposure; they predicted 
substantial risk of lung cancer at the current PEL, and substantial 
reductions in risk at the alternate PELs OSHA considered for the 
proposed rule (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2011).

[[Page 47625]]

A. Review of Epidemiological Literature on Sensitization and Chronic 
Beryllium Disease From Occupational Exposure

    As discussed in the Health Effects section, studies of beryllium-
exposed workers conducted using the beryllium lymphocyte proliferation 
test (BeLPT) have found high rates of beryllium sensitization and CBD 
among workers in many industries, including at some facilities where 
exposures were primarily below OSHA's PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ (Kreiss et 
al., 1993; Henneberger et al., 2001; Schuler et al., 2005; Schuler et 
al., 2012). In the mid-1990s, some facilities using beryllium began to 
aggressively monitor and reduce workplace exposures. Four plants where 
several rounds of BeLPT screening were conducted before and after 
implementation of new exposure control methods provide the best 
currently available evidence on the effectiveness of various exposure 
control measures in reducing the risk of sensitization and CBD. The 
experiences of these plants--a copper-beryllium processing facility in 
Reading, PA, a beryllia ceramics facility in Tucson, AZ; a beryllium 
processing facility in Elmore, OH; and a machining facility in Cullman, 
AL--show that efforts to prevent sensitization and CBD by using 
engineering controls to reduce workers' beryllium exposures to median 
levels at or around 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and did not emphasize PPE and 
stringent housekeeping methods, had only limited impact on risk. 
However, exposure control programs implemented more recently, which 
drastically reduced respiratory exposure to beryllium via a combination 
of engineering controls and respiratory protection, controlled dermal 
contact with beryllium using PPE, and employed stringent housekeeping 
methods to keep work areas clean and prevent transfer of beryllium 
between work areas, sharply curtailed new cases of sensitization among 
newly-hired workers. There is additional, but more limited, information 
available on the occurrence of sensitization and CBD among aluminum 
smelter workers with low-level beryllium exposures (Taiwo et al., 2008; 
Taiwo et al., 2010; Nilsen et al., 2010). A discussion of the 
experiences at these plants follows.
    The Health Effects section also discussed the role of particle 
characteristics and beryllium compound solubility in the development of 
sensitization and CBD among beryllium-exposed workers. Respirable 
particles small enough to reach the deep lung are responsible for CBD. 
However, larger inhalable particles that deposit in the upper 
respiratory tract may lead to sensitization. The weight of evidence 
indicates that both soluble and insoluble forms of beryllium are able 
to induce sensitization and CBD. Insoluble forms of beryllium that 
persist in the lung for longer periods may pose greater risk of CBD 
while soluble forms may more easily trigger immune sensitization. 
Although these factors potentially influence the toxicity of beryllium, 
the available data are too limited to reliably account for solubility 
and particle size in the Agency estimates of risk. The qualitative 
impact on conclusions and uncertainties with regard to risk are 
discussed in a later section.
1. Reading, PA, Plant
    Schuler et al. conducted a study of workers at a copper-beryllium 
processing facility in Reading, PA, screening 152 workers with the 
BeLPT (Schuler et al., 2005). Exposures at this plant were believed to 
be low throughout its history due to the low percentage of beryllium in 
the metal alloys used, and the relatively low exposures found in 
general area samples collected starting in 1969 (sample median <= 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\, 97% < 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\). The reported prevalences of 
sensitization (6.5 percent) and CBD (3.9 percent) showed substantial 
risk at this facility, even though airborne exposures were primarily 
below OSHA's current PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Personal lapel samples were collected in production and production 
support jobs between 1995 and May 2000. These samples showed primarily 
very low airborne beryllium levels, with a median of 0.073 [mu]g/
m\3\.\6\ The wire annealing and pickling process had the highest 
personal lapel sample values, with a median of 0.149 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Despite these low exposure levels, cases of sensitization continued to 
occur among workers whose first exposures to beryllium occurred in the 
1990s. Five (11.5 percent) workers of 43 hired after 1992 who had no 
prior beryllium exposure became sensitized, including four in 
production work and one in production support (Thomas et al., 2009; 
evaluation for CBD not reported). Two (13 percent) of these sensitized 
workers were among 15 workers in this group who had been hired less 
than a year before the screening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In their publication, Schuler et al. presented median values 
for plant-wide and work-category-specific exposure levels; they did 
not present arithmetic or geometric mean values for personal 
samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the BeLPT screening was conducted in 2000, the company began 
implementing new measures to further reduce workers' exposure to 
beryllium. Requirements designed to minimize dermal contact with 
beryllium, including long-sleeve facility uniforms and polymer gloves, 
were instituted in production areas in 2000. In 2001 the company 
installed local exhaust ventilation (LEV) in die grinding and 
polishing. Personal lapel samples collected between June 2000 and 
December 2001 show reduced exposures plant-wide. Of 2,211 exposure 
samples collected during this ``pre-enclosure program'' period, 98 
percent were below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (Thomas et al., 2009, p. 124). 
Median, arithmetic mean, and geometric mean values <= 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\ 
were reported in this period for all processes except the wire 
annealing and pickling process. Samples for this process remained 
elevated, with a median of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (arithmetic mean of 0.127 
[mu]g/m\3\, geometric mean of 0.083 [mu]g/m\3\). In January 2002, the 
plant enclosed the wire annealing and pickling process in a restricted 
access zone (RAZ), required respiratory PPE in the RAZ, and implemented 
stringent measures to minimize the potential for skin contact and 
beryllium transfer out of the zone. While exposure samples collected by 
the facility were sparse following the enclosure, they suggest exposure 
levels comparable to the 2000-01 samples in areas other than the RAZ. 
Within the RAZ, required use of powered air-purifying respirators 
(PAPRs) indicates that respiratory exposure was negligible. A 2009 
publication on the facility reported that outside the RAZ, ``the vast 
majority of employees do not wear any form of respiratory protection 
due to very low airborne beryllium concentrations'' (Thomas et al., 
2009, p. 122).
    To test the efficacy of the new measures in preventing 
sensitization and CBD, in June 2000 the facility began an intensive 
BeLPT screening program for all new workers. The company screened 
workers at the time of hire; at intervals of 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 
months; and at 3-year intervals thereafter. Among 82 workers hired 
after 1999, three cases of sensitization were found (3.7 percent). Two 
(5.4 percent) of 37 workers hired prior to enclosure of the wire 
annealing and pickling process were found to be sensitized within 3 and 
6 months of beginning work at the plant. One (2.2 percent) of 45 
workers hired after the enclosure was confirmed as sensitized. Among 
these early results, it appears that the greatest reduction in 
sensitization risk was achieved after median exposures in all areas of 
the plant were reduced to below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\

[[Page 47626]]

and PPE to prevent dermal contact was instituted.
2. Tucson, AZ, Plant
    Kreiss et al. conducted a study of workers at a beryllia ceramics 
plant, screening 136 workers with the BeLPT in 1992 (Kreiss et al., 
1996). Full-shift area samples collected between 1983 and 1992 showed 
primarily low airborne beryllium levels at this facility. Of 774 area 
samples, 76 percent were at or below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and less than 1 
percent exceeded 2 [mu]g/m\3\. A small set (75) of personal lapel 
samples collected at the plant beginning in 1991 had a median of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ and ranged from 0.1 to 1.8 [mu]g/m\3\ (arithmetic and 
geometric mean values not reported) (Kreiss et al., 1996, p. 19). 
However, area samples and short-term breathing zone samples also showed 
occasional instances of very high beryllium exposure levels, with 
extreme values of several hundred [mu]g/m\3\ and 3.6 percent of short-
term breathing zone samples in excess of 5 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Kreiss et al. reported that eight (5.9 percent) of 136 workers 
tested were sensitized, six (4.4 percent) of whom were diagnosed with 
CBD. Seven of the eight sensitized employees had worked in machining, 
where general area samples collected between October 1985 and March 
1988 had a median of 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\, in contrast to a median value of 
less than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ in other areas of the plant (Kreiss et al., 
1996, p. 20; mean values not reported). Short-term breathing zone 
measurements associated with machining had a median of 0.6 [mu]g/m\3\, 
double the median of 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\ for breathing zone measurements 
associated with other processes (id., p. 20; mean values not reported). 
One sensitized worker was one of 13 administrative workers screened, 
and was among those diagnosed with CBD. Exposures of administrative 
workers were not well-characterized, but were believed to be among the 
lowest in the plant. Of three personal lapel samples reported for 
administrative staff during the 1990s, all were below the then 
detection limit of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (Cummings et al., 2007, p.138).
    Following the 1992 screening, the facility reduced exposures in 
machining areas by enclosing machines and installing HEPA filter 
exhaust systems. Personal samples collected between 1994 and 1999 had a 
median of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ in production jobs and 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ in 
production support (geometric means 0.21 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.11 [mu]g/
m\3\, respectively; arithmetic means not reported. Cummings et al., 
2007, p. 138). In 1998, a second screening found that 9 percent of 
tested workers hired after the 1992 screening were sensitized, of whom 
one was diagnosed with CBD. All of the sensitized workers had been 
employed at the plant for less than two years (Henneberger et al., 
2001).
    Following the 1998 screening, the company continued efforts to 
reduce exposures and risk of sensitization and CBD by implementing 
additional engineering and administrative controls and PPE. Respirator 
use was required in production areas beginning in 1999, and latex 
gloves were required beginning in 2000. The lapping area was enclosed 
in 2000, and enclosures were installed for all mechanical presses in 
2001. Between 2000 and 2003, water-resistant or water-proof garments, 
shoe covers, and taped gloves were incorporated to keep beryllium-
containing fluids from wet machining processes off the skin. The new 
engineering measures did not appear to substantially reduce airborne 
beryllium levels in the plant. Personal lapel samples collected in 
production processes between 2000 and 2003 had a median and geometric 
mean of 0.18 [mu]g/m\3\, similar to the 1994-1999 samples (Cummings et 
al., 2007, p. 138). However, respiratory protection requirements were 
instituted in 2000 to control workers' airborne beryllium exposures.
    To test the efficacy of the new measures instituted after 1998, in 
January 2000 the company began screening new workers for sensitization 
at the time of hire and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 months of employment 
(Cummings et al., 2007). These more stringent measures appear to have 
substantially reduced the risk of sensitization among new employees. Of 
97 workers hired between 2000 and 2004, one case of sensitization was 
identified (1 percent). This worker had experienced a rash after an 
incident of dermal exposure to lapping fluid through a gap between the 
glove and uniform sleeve, indicating that sensitization may have 
occurred via skin exposure.
3. Elmore, OH, Plant
    Kreiss et al., Schuler et al., and Bailey et al. conducted studies 
of workers at a beryllium metal, alloy, and oxide production plant. 
Workers participated in BeLPT surveys in 1992 (Kreiss et al., 1997) and 
in 1997 and 1999 (Schuler et al., 2012). Exposure levels at the plant 
between 1984 and 1993 were characterized by a mixture of general area, 
short-term breathing zone, and personal lapel samples. Kreiss et al. 
reported that the median area samples for various work areas ranged 
from 0.1 to 0.7 [mu]g/m\3\, with the highest values in the alloy arc 
furnace and alloy melting-casting areas (other measures of central 
tendency not reported). Personal lapel samples were available from 
1990-1992, and showed high exposures overall (median value of 1.0 
[mu]g/m\3\) with very high exposures for some processes. The authors 
reported median sample values of 3.8 [mu]g/m\3\ for beryllium oxide 
production, 1.75 [mu]g/m\3\ for alloy melting and casting, and 1.75 
[mu]g/m\3\ for the arc furnace.
    Kreiss et al. reported that 43 (6.9 percent) of 627 workers tested 
in 1992 were sensitized, six of whom were diagnosed with CBD (4.4 
percent). Workers with less than one year tenure at the plant were not 
tested in this survey (Bailey et al., 2010, p. 511). The work processes 
that appeared to carry the highest risk for sensitization and CBD 
(e.g., ceramics) were not those with the highest reported exposure 
levels (e.g., arc furnace and melting-casting). The authors noted 
several possible reasons for this, including factors such as 
solubility, particle size/number, and particle surface area that could 
not be accounted for in their analysis (Kreiss et al., 1997).
    In 1996-1999, the company took steps to reduce workers' beryllium 
exposures: some high-exposure processes were enclosed, special 
restricted-access zones were set up, HEPA filters were installed in air 
handlers, and some ventilation systems were updated. In 1997 workers in 
the pebble plant restricted access zone were required to wear half-face 
air-purifying respirators, and beginning in 1999 all new employees were 
required to wear loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) 
in manufacturing buildings (Bailey et al., 2010, p. 506). Skin 
protection became part of the protection program for new employees in 
2000, and glove use was required in production areas and for handling 
work boots beginning in 2001. Also beginning in 2001, either half-mask 
respirators or PAPRs were required in the production facility (type 
determined by airborne beryllium levels), and respiratory protection 
was required for roof work and during removal of work boots (Bailey et 
al., 2010, p. 506). Respirator use was reported to be used on about 
half or less of industrial hygiene sample records for most processes in 
1990-1992 (Kreiss et al., 1996).
    Beginning in 2000, workers were offered periodic BeLPT testing to 
evaluate the effectiveness of a new exposure control program 
implemented by the company. Bailey et al. (2010) reported on the 
results of this surveillance for 290 workers hired between February 21, 
2000 and December 18, 2006. They compared the

[[Page 47627]]

occurrence of beryllium sensitization and disease among 258 employees 
who began work at the Elmore plant between January 15, 1993 and August 
9, 1999 (the `pre-program group') and among 290 employees who were 
hired between February 21, 2000 and December 18, 2006 and were tested 
at least once after hire (the `program group'). They found that, as of 
1999, 23 (8.9 percent) of the pre-program group were sensitized to 
beryllium. Six (2.1 percent) of the program group had confirmed 
abnormal results on their final round of BeLPTs, which occurred in 
different years for different employees. In addition, another five 
employees had confirmed abnormal BeLPT results at some point during the 
testing period, followed by at least one instance of a normal test 
result. One of these employees had a confirmed abnormal baseline BeLPT 
at hire, and had two subsequent normal BeLPT results at 6 and 12 months 
after hire. Four others had confirmed abnormal BeLPT results at 3 or 6 
months after hire, later followed by a normal test. Including these 
four in the count of sensitized workers, there were a total of ten (3.5 
percent) workers sensitized after hire in the program group. It is not 
clear whether the occurrence of a normal result following an abnormal 
result reflects an error in one of the test results, a change in the 
presence or level of memory T-cells circulating in the worker's blood, 
or other possibilities. Because most of the workers in the study had 
been employed at the facility for less than two years, Bailey et al. 
did not report the incidence of CBD among the sensitized workers 
(Bailey et al., 2010, p. 511).
    In addition, Bailey et al. divided the program group into the 
`partial program subgroup' (206 employees hired between February 21, 
2000 and December 31, 2003) and the `full program subgroup' (84 
employees hired between January 1, 2004 and December 18, 2006) to 
account for the greater effectiveness of the exposure control program 
after the first three years of implementation (Bailey et al., pp 506-
507). Four (1.9 percent) of the partial program group were found to be 
sensitized on their final BeLPT (excluding one with a confirmed 
abnormal BeLPT from their baseline test at hire). Two (2.4 percent) of 
the full program group were found to be sensitized on their final BeLPT 
(Bailey et al., 2010, p. 509). An additional three employees in the 
partial program group and one in the full program group were confirmed 
sensitized at 3 or 6 months after hire, then later had a single normal 
BeLPT (Bailey et al., 2010, p. 509).
    Schuler et al. (2012) published a study examining beryllium 
sensitization and CBD among short-term workers at the Elmore, OH plant, 
using exposure estimates created by Virji et al. (2012). The study 
population included 264 workers employed in 1999 with up to six years 
tenure at the plant (91 percent of the 291 eligible workers). By 
including only short-term workers, Virji et al. were able to construct 
participants' exposures with more precision than was possible in 
studies involving workers exposed for longer durations and in time 
periods with less exposure sampling. Each participant completed a work 
history questionnaire and was tested for beryllium sensitization. The 
overall prevalence of sensitization was 9.8 percent (26/264). 
Sensitized workers were offered further evaluation for CBD. Twenty-two 
sensitized workers consented to clinical testing for CBD via 
transbronchial biopsy. Six of those sensitized were diagnosed with CBD 
(2.3 percent, 6/264).
    Exposure estimates were constructed using two exposure surveys 
conducted in 1999: a survey of total mass exposures (4022 full-shift 
personal samples) and a survey of size-separated impactor samples (198 
samples). The 1999 exposure surveys and work histories were used to 
estimate long-term lifetime weighted (LTW) average, cumulative, and 
highest-job-worked exposure for total, respirable, and submicron 
beryllium mass concentrations. Schuler et al. (2012) found no cases of 
sensitization among workers with total mass LTW average exposures below 
0.09 [mu]g/m\3\, among workers with total mass cumulative exposures 
below 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\-yr, or among workers with total mass highest job 
worked exposures below 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\. Twenty-four percent, 16 
percent, and 25 percent of the study population were exposed below 
those levels, respectively. Both total and respirable beryllium mass 
concentration estimates were positively associated with sensitization 
(average and highest job), and CBD (cumulative) in logistic regression 
models.
4. Cullman, AL, Plant
    Newman et al. conducted a series of BeLPT screenings of workers at 
a precision machining facility between 1995 and 1999 (Newman et al., 
2001). A small set of personal lapel samples collected in the early 
1980s and in 1995 suggests that exposures in the plant varied widely 
during this time period. In some processes, such as engineering, 
lapping, and electrical discharge machining (EDM), exposures were 
apparently low (<= 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\). Madl et al. reported that personal 
lapel samples from all machining processes combined had a median of 
0.33 [mu]g/m\3\, with a much higher arithmetic mean of 1.63 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(Madl et al., 2007, Table IV, p. 457). The majority of these samples 
were collected in the high-exposure processes of grinding (median of 
1.05 [mu]g/m\3\, mean of 8.48 [mu]g/m\3\), milling (median of 0.3 
[mu]g/m\3\, mean of 0.82 [mu]g/m\3\), and lathing (median of 0.35 
[mu]g/m\3\, mean of 0.88 [mu]g/m\3\) (Madl et al., 2007, Table IV, p. 
457). As discussed in greater detail in the background document,\7\ the 
data set of machining exposure measurements included a few extremely 
high values (41-73 [mu]g/m\3\) that a NIOSH researcher identified as 
probable errors, and that appear to be included in Madl et al.'s 
arithmetic mean calculations. Because high single-data point exposure 
errors influence the arithmetic mean far more than the median value of 
a data range, OSHA believes the median values reported by Madl et al. 
are more reliable than the arithmetic means they reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ When used throughout this section, ``background document'' 
refers to a more comprehensive, companion risk-assessment document 
that can be found at www.regulations.gov in OSHA Docket No. ___.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a sentinel case of CBD was diagnosed at the plant in 1995, 
the company began BeLPT screenings to identify workers at increased 
risk of CBD and implemented engineering and administrative controls and 
PPE designed to reduce workers' beryllium exposures in machining 
operations. Newman et al. reported 22 (9.4 percent) sensitized workers 
among 235 tested, 13 of whom were diagnosed with CBD within the study 
period. Between 1995 and 1997, the company built enclosures and 
installed or updated local exhaust ventilation (LEV) for several 
machining departments, removed pressurized air hoses, and required the 
use of company uniforms. Madl et al. reported that historically, 
engineering and work process controls, rather than personal protective 
equipment, were used to limit workers' exposure to beryllium; 
respirators were used only in cases of high exposure, such as during 
sandblasting (Madl et al., 2007, p. 450). In contrast to the Reading 
and Tucson plants, gloves were not required at this plant.
    Personal lapel samples collected extensively between 1996 and 1999 
in machining jobs have an overall median of 0.16 [mu]g/m\3\, showing 
that the new controls achieved a marked reduction in machinists' 
exposures during this

[[Page 47628]]

period. Nearly half of the samples were collected in milling (median = 
0.18 [mu]g/m\3\). Exposures in other machining processes were also 
reduced, including grinding (median of 0.18 [mu]g/m\3\) and lathing 
(median of 0.13 [mu]g/m\3\). However, cases of sensitization and CBD 
continued to occur.
    At the time that Newman et al. reviewed the results of BeLPT 
screenings conducted in 1995-1999, a subset of 60 workers had been 
employed at the plant for less than a year. Four (6.7 percent) of these 
workers were found to be sensitized, of whom two were diagnosed with 
CBD and one with probable CBD (Newman et al., 2001). All four had been 
hired in 1996. Two (one CBD case, one sensitized only) had worked only 
in milling, and had worked for approximately 3-4 months (0.3-0.4 yrs) 
at the time of diagnosis. One of those diagnosed with CBD worked only 
in EDM, where lapel samples collected between 1996 and 1999 had a 
median of 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\. This worker was diagnosed with CBD in the 
same year that he began work at the plant. The last CBD case worked as 
a shipper, where exposures in 1996-1999 were similarly low, with a 
median of 0.09 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Beginning in 2000, exposures in all jobs at the machining facility 
were reduced to extremely low levels. Personal lapel samples collected 
in machining processes between 2000 and 2005 had a median of 0.09 
[mu]g/m\3\, where more than a third of samples came from the milling 
process (n = 765, median of 0.09 [mu]g/m\3\). A later publication on 
this plant by Madl et al. reported that only one worker hired after 
1999 became sensitized. This worker had been employed for 2.7 years in 
chemical finishing, where exposures were roughly similar to other 
machining processes (n = 153, median of 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\). Madl et al. 
did not report whether this worker was evaluated for CBD.
5. Aluminum Smelting Plants
    Taiwo et al. (2008) studied a population of 734 employees at four 
aluminum smelters located in Canada (2), Italy (1), and the United 
States (1). In 2000, a beryllium exposure limit of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ 8-
hour TWA (action level 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\) and a short-term exposure limit 
(STEL) of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (15-minute sample) were instituted at these 
plants. Sampling to determine compliance with the exposure limit began 
at all smelters in 2000. Table VI-1 below, adapted from Taiwo et al. 
(2008), shows summary information on samples collected from the start 
of sampling through 2005.

                             Table VI-1--Exposure Sampling Data by Plant--2000-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Arithmetic
                     Smelter                         Number of    Median  ([mu]g/  mean  ([mu]g/  Geometric mean
                                                      samples          m\3\)           m\3\)        ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian smelter 1..............................             246            0.03            0.09            0.03
Canadian smelter 2..............................             329            0.11            0.29            0.08
Italian smelter.................................              44            0.12            0.14            0.10
U.S. smelter....................................             346            0.03            0.26            0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Taiwo et al., 2008, Table 1.

    All employees potentially exposed to beryllium levels at or above 
the action level for at least 12 days per year, or exposed at or above 
the STEL 12 or more times per year, were offered medical surveillance 
including the BeLPT (Taiwo et al., 2008, p. 158). Table VI-2 below, 
adapted from Taiwo et al. (2008), shows test results for each facility 
between 2001 and 2005.

                                  Table VI-2--BeLPT Results by Plant--2001-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Employees                    Abnormal BeLPT     Confirmed
                     Smelter                          tested          Normal       (unconfirmed)    Sensitized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian smelter 1..............................             109             107               1               1
Canadian smelter 2..............................             291             290               1               0
Italian smelter.................................              64              63               0               1
U.S. smelter....................................             270             268               2               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Taiwo et al., 2008, Table 2.

    The two workers with confirmed beryllium sensitization were offered 
further evaluation for CBD. Both were diagnosed with CBD, based on 
broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) results in one case and pulmony function 
tests, respiratory symptoms, and radiographic evidence in the other.
    In 2010, Taiwo et al. published a study of beryllium-exposed 
workers from smelters at four companies, including some of the workers 
from the 2008 publication. 3,185 workers were determined to be 
``significantly exposed'' to beryllium and invited to participate in 
BeLPT screening. Each company used different criteria to determine 
``significant'' exposure, which appeared to vary considerably (p. 570). 
About 60 percent of invited workers participated in the program between 
2000 and 2006, of whom nine were determined to be sensitized (see Table 
VI-3 below). The authors state that all nine workers were referred to a 
respiratory physician for further evaluation for CBD. Two were 
diagnosed with CBD, as described above (Taiwo et al., 2008). The 
authors do not report the details of other sensitized workers' 
evaluation for CBD.

[[Page 47629]]



                          Table VI-3--Medical Surveillance for BeS in ALUMINUM Smelters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of        At-risk        Employees
                     Company                         smelters        employees        tested            BeS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............................................               4            1278             734               4
B...............................................               3             423             328               0
C...............................................               1            1100             508               4
D...............................................               1             384             362               1
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................               9            3185            1932               9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Taiwo et al., 2011, Table 1.

    In general, there appeared to be a low level of sensitization and 
CBD among employees at the aluminum smelters studied by Taiwo et al. 
This is striking in light of the fact that many of the employees tested 
had worked at the smelters long before the institution of exposure 
limits for beryllium at some smelters in 2000. However, the authors 
note that respiratory protection had long been used at these plants to 
protect workers from other hazards. The results are roughly consistent 
with the observed prevalence of sensitization following the institution 
of respiratory protection at the Tucson beryllium ceramics plant 
discussed previously. A study by Nilsen et al. (2010) also found a low 
rate of sensitization among aluminum workers in Norway. Three-hundred 
sixty-two workers and thirty-one control individuals received BeLPT 
testing for beryllium sensitization. The authors found one sensitized 
worker (0.28 percent). No borderline results were reported. The authors 
reported that current exposures in this plant ranged from 0.1 [micro]g/
m\3\ to 0.31 [micro]g/m\3\ (Nilsen et al., 2010) and that respiratory 
protection was in use, as is the case in the smelters studied by Taiwo 
et al. (2008, 2010).

B. Preliminary Conclusions

    The published literature on beryllium sensitization and CBD shows 
that risk of both can be substantial in workplaces in compliance with 
OSHA's current PEL (Kreiss et al., 1993; Schuler et al., 2005). The 
experiences of several facilities in developing effective industrial 
hygiene programs have shown that minimizing both airborne and dermal 
exposure, using a combination of engineering and administrative 
controls, respiratory protection, and dermal PPE, has substantially 
lowered workers' risk of beryllium sensitization. In contrast, risk-
reduction programs that relied primarily on engineering controls to 
reduce workers' exposures to median levels in the range of 0.1-0.2 
[micro]g/m\3\, such as those implemented in Tucson following the 1992 
survey and in Cullman during 1996-1999, had only limited impact on 
reducing workers' risk of sensitization. The prevalence of 
sensitization among workers hired after such controls were installed at 
the Cullman plant remained high (Newman et al. (6.7 percent) and 
Henneberger et al. (9 percent)). A similar prevalence of sensitization 
was found in the screening conducted in 2000 at the Reading plant, 
where the available sampling data show median exposure levels of less 
than 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ (6.5 percent). The risk of sensitization was 
found to be particularly high among newly-hired workers (<=1 year of 
beryllium exposure) in the Reading 2000 screening (13 percent) and the 
Tucson 1998 screening (16 percent).
    Cases of CBD have also continued to develop among workers in 
facilities and jobs where exposures were below 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\. One 
case of CBD was found in the Tucson 1998 screening among nine 
sensitized workers hired less than two years previously (Henneberger et 
al., 2001). At the Cullman plant, at least two cases of CBD were found 
among four sensitized workers screened in 1995-1999 and hired less than 
a year previously (Newman et al., 2001). These results suggest a 
substantial risk of progression from sensitization to CBD among workers 
exposed at levels well below the current PEL, especially considering 
the extremely short time of exposure and follow-up for these workers. 
Six of 10 sensitized workers identified at Reading in the 2000 
screening were diagnosed with CBD. The four sensitized workers who did 
not have CBD at their last clinical evaluation had been hired between 
one and five years previously; therefore, the time may have been too 
short for CBD to develop.
    In contrast, more recent exposure control programs that have used a 
combination of engineering controls, PPE, and stringent housekeeping 
measures to reduce workers' airborne and dermal exposures have 
substantially lowered risk of sensitization among newly-hired workers. 
Of 97 workers hired between 2000 and 2004 in Tucson, where respiratory 
and skin protection was instituted for all workers in production areas, 
only one (1 percent) worker became sensitized, and in that case the 
worker's dermal protection had failed during wet-machining work (Thomas 
et al., 2009). In the aluminum smelters discussed by Taiwo et al., 
where available exposure samples indicated median beryllium levels of 
about 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or below (measured as an 8-hour TWA) and workers 
used respiratory and dermal protection, confirmed cases of 
sensitization were rare (zero or one case per location). Sensitization 
was also rare among workers at a Norwegian aluminum smelter (Nilsen et 
al., 2010), where estimated exposures in the plant ranged from 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ to 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\ and respiratory protection was regularly 
used. In Reading, where in 2000-2001 airborne exposures in all jobs 
were reduced to a median of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or below (measured as an 8-
hour TWA) and dermal protection was required for production-area 
workers, two (5.4 percent) of 37 newly hired workers became sensitized 
(Thomas et al., 2009). After the process with the highest exposures 
(median of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\) was enclosed in 2002 and workers in that 
process were required to use respiratory protection, the remaining jobs 
had very low exposures (medians ~ 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\). Among 45 workers 
hired after the enclosure, one was found to be sensitized (2.2 
percent). In Elmore, where all workers were required to wear 
respirators and skin PPE in production areas beginning in 2000-2001, 
the estimated prevalence of sensitization among workers hired after 
these measures were put in place was around 2-3 percent (Bailey et al., 
2010). In addition, Schuler et al. (2012) found no cases of 
sensitization among short-term Elmore workers employed in 1999 who had 
total mass LTW average exposures below 0.09 [mu]g/m\3\, among workers 
with total mass cumulative exposures below 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\-yr, or among 
workers with total mass highest job worked exposures below 0.12 [mu]g/
m\3\.
    Madl et al. reported one case of sensitization among workers at the 
Cullman plant hired after 2000. The median personal exposures were 
about

[[Page 47630]]

0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or below for all jobs during this period. Several 
changes in the facility's exposure control methods were instituted in 
the late 1990s that were likely to have reduced dermal as well as 
respiratory exposure to beryllium. For example, the plant installed 
change/locker rooms for workers entering the production facility, 
instituted requirements for work uniforms and dedicated work shoes for 
production workers, implemented annual beryllium hazard awareness 
training that encouraged glove use, and purchased high efficiency 
particulate air (HEPA) filter vacuum cleaners for workplace cleanup and 
decontamination.
    The results of the Reading, Tucson, and Elmore studies show that 
reducing airborne exposures to below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and protecting 
workers from dermal exposure, in combination, have achieved a 
substantial reduction in sensitization risk among newly-hired workers. 
Because respirator use, dermal protection, and engineering changes were 
often implemented concurrently at these plants, it is difficult to 
attribute the reduced risk to any single control measure. The reduction 
is particularly evident when comparing newly-hired workers in the most 
recent Reading screenings (2.2-5.4 percent), and the rate of 
sensitization found among workers hired within the year before the 2000 
screening (13 percent). There is a similarly striking difference 
between the rate of prevalence found among newly-hired workers in the 
most recent Tucson study (1 percent) and the rate found among workers 
hired within the year before the 1998 screening at that plant (16 
percent). These results are echoed in the Cullman facility, which 
combined engineering controls to reduce airborne exposures to below 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ with measures such as housekeeping improvements and worker 
training to reduce dermal exposure.
    The studies on recent programs to reduce workers' risk of 
sensitization and CBD were conducted on populations with very short 
exposure and follow-up time. Therefore, they could not address the 
question of how frequently workers who become sensitized in 
environments with extremely low airborne exposures (median <0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\) develop CBD. Clinical evaluation for CBD was not reported for 
sensitized workers identified in the most recent Tucson, Reading, and 
Elmore studies. In Cullman, however, two of the workers with CBD had 
been employed for less than a year and worked in jobs with very low 
exposures (median 8-hour personal sample values of 0.03-0.09 [mu]g/
m\3\). The body of scientific literature on occupational beryllium 
disease also includes case reports of workers with CBD who are known or 
believed to have experienced minimal beryllium exposure, such as a 
worker employed only in shipping at a copper-beryllium distribution 
center (Stanton et al., 2006), and workers employed only in 
administration at a beryllium ceramics facility (Kreiss et al., 1996).
    Arjomandi et al. published a study of 50 sensitized workers from a 
nuclear weapons research and development facility (Arjomandi et al., 
2010). Occupational and medical histories including physical 
examination and chest imaging were available for the great majority 
(49) of these individuals. Forty underwent testing for CBD via 
bronchoscopy and transbronchial biopsies. In contrast to the studies of 
low-exposure populations discussed previously, this group had much 
longer follow-up time (mean time since first exposure = 32 years) and 
length of employment at the facility (mean of 18 years). Quantitative 
exposure estimates for the workers were not presented; however, the 
authors characterized their probable exposures as ``low'' (13 workers), 
``moderate'' (28 workers), or ``high'' (nine workers) based on the jobs 
they performed at the facility.
    Five of the 50 sensitized workers (10 percent) were diagnosed with 
CBD based on histology or high-resolution computed tomography. An 
additional three (who had not undergone full clinical evaluation for 
CBD) were identified as probable CBD cases, bringing the total 
prevalence of CBD and probable CBD in this group to 16 percent. As 
discussed in the epidemiology section of the Health Effects chapter, 
the prevalence of CBD among worker populations regularly exposed at 
higher levels (e.g., median > 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\) is typically much 
greater, approaching 80-100% in several studies. The lower prevalence 
of CBD in this group of sensitized workers, who were believed to have 
primarily low exposure levels, suggests that controlling respiratory 
exposure to beryllium may reduce risk of CBD among sensitized workers 
as well as reducing risk of CBD via prevention of sensitization. 
However, it also demonstrates that some workers in low-exposure 
environments can become sensitized and go on to develop CBD. The next 
section discusses an additional source of information on low-level 
beryllium exposure and CBD: studies of community-acquired CBD in 
residential areas surrounding beryllium production facilities.

C. Review of Community-Acquired CBD Literature

    The literature on community-acquired chronic beryllium disease (CA-
CBD) documents cases of CBD among individuals exposed to airborne 
beryllium at concentrations below the proposed PEL. OSHA notes that 
these case studies do not provide information on how frequently 
individuals exposed to very low airborne levels develop CBD and that 
reconstructed exposure estimates for CA-CBD cases are less reliable 
than exposure estimates for working populations reviewed in the 
previous sections. In addition, the cumulative exposure that an 
occupationally exposed person would accrue at any given exposure 
concentration is far less than would typically accrue from long-term 
environmental exposure. The literature on CA-CBD thus has important 
limitations and is not used as a basis for quantitative risk assessment 
for CBD from low-level beryllium exposure. Nevertheless, these case 
reports and the broader CA-CBD literature indicate that individuals 
exposed to airborne beryllium below the proposed PEL can develop CBD.
    Cases of CA-CBD were first reported among residents of Lorain, OH, 
and Reading, PA, who lived in the vicinity of beryllium plants. More 
recently, BeLPT screening has been used to identify additional cases of 
CA-CBD in Reading.
1. Lorain, OH
    In 1948, the State of Ohio Department of Public Health conducted an 
X-ray program surveying more than 6,000 people who lived within 1.5 
miles of a Lorain beryllium plant (Eisenbud, 1949; Eisenbud, 1982; 
Eisenbud, 1998). This survey, together with a later review of all 
reported cases of CBD in the area, found 13 cases of CBD. All of the 
residents who developed CBD lived within 0.75 miles of the plant, and 
none had occupational exposure or lived with beryllium-exposed workers. 
Among the population of 500 people living within 0.25 miles of the 
plant, seven residents (1.4 percent) were diagnosed with CBD. Five 
cases were diagnosed among residents living between 0.25 and 0.5 miles 
from the plant, one case was diagnosed among residents living between 
0.5 and 0.75 miles from the plant, and no cases were found among those 
living farther than 0.75 miles from the plant (total populations not 
reported) (Eisenbud, 1998).
    Beginning in January 1948, air sampling was conducted using a 
mobile sampling station to measure

[[Page 47631]]

atmospheric beryllium downwind from the plant. An approximate 
concentration of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ was measured at 0.25 miles from the 
plant's exhaust stack, and concentrations decreased with greater 
distance from the plant, to 0.003 [mu]g/m\3\ at a distance of 5 miles 
(Eisenbud, 1982). A 10-week sampling program was conducted using three 
fixed monitoring stations within 700 feet of the plant and one station 
7,000 feet from the plant. Interpolating the measurements collected at 
these locations, Eisenbud and colleagues estimated an average airborne 
beryllium concentration of between 0.004 and 0.02 [mu]g/m\3\ at a 
distance of 0.75 miles from the plant. Accounting for the possibility 
that previous exposures may have been higher due to production level 
fluctuations and greater use of rooftop emissions, they concluded that 
the lowest airborne beryllium level associated with CA-CBD in this 
community was somewhere between 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(Eisenbud, 1982).
2. Reading, PA
    Thirty-two cases of CA-CBD were reported in a series of papers 
published in 1959-1969 concerning a beryllium refinery in Reading 
(Lieben and Metzner, 1959; Metzner and Lieben, 1961; Dattoli et al., 
1964; Lieben and Williams, 1969). The plant, which opened in 1935, 
manufactured beryllium oxide, alloys and metal, and beryllium tools and 
metal products (Maier et al., 2008; Sanderson et al., 2001b). In a 
follow-up study, Maier et al. presented eight additional cases of CA-
CBD who had lived within 1.5 miles of the plant (Maier et al., 2008). 
Individuals with a history of occupational beryllium exposure and those 
who had resided with occupationally exposed workers were not classified 
as having CA-CBD.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Health conducted extensive 
environmental sampling in the area of the plant beginning in 1958. 
Based on samples collected in 1958, Maier et al. stated that most cases 
identified in their study would typically have been exposed to airborne 
beryllium at levels between 0.0155 and 0.028 [mu]g/m\3\ on average, 
with the potential for some excursions over 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\ (Maier et 
al 2008, p. 1015). To characterize exposures to cases identified in the 
earlier publications, Lieben and Williams cited a sampling program 
conducted by the Department of Health between January and July 1962, 
using nine sampling stations located between 0.2 and 4.8 miles from the 
plant. They reported that 72 percent of 24-hour samples collected were 
below 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\. Of samples that exceeded 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\, most 
were collected at close proximity to the plant (e.g., 0.2 miles from 
the plant).
    In the early series of publications, cases of CA-CBD were reported 
among people living both close to the plant (Maier et al., 2008; Dutra, 
1948) and up to several miles away. Of new cases identified in the 1968 
update, all lived between 3 and 7.5 miles from the plant. Lieben and 
Williams suggested that some cases of CA-CBD found among more distant 
residents might have resulted from working or visiting a graveyard 
closer to the plant (Lieben and Williams, 1969). For example, a milkman 
who developed CA-CBD had a route in the neighborhood of the plant. 
Another resident with CA-CBD had worked as a cleaning woman in the area 
of the plant, and a third worked within a half-mile of the plant.
    At the time of the final follow-up study (1968), 11 residents 
diagnosed with CA-CBD were alive and 21 were deceased. Among those who 
had died, berylliosis was listed as the cause of death for three, 
including a 10-year-old girl and two women in their sixties. Fibrosis, 
granuloma or granulomatosis, and chronic or fibrous pneumonitis were 
listed as the cause of death for eight more of those deceased. 
Histologic evidence of CBD was reported for nine of 12 deceased 
individuals who had been evaluated for it. In addition to showing 
radiologic abnormalities associated with CBD, all living cases were 
dyspneic.
    Following the 1969 publication by Liebman and Williams, no 
additional CA-CBD cases were reported in the Reading area until 1999, 
when a new case was diagnosed. The individual was a 72-year-old woman 
who had had abnormal chest x-rays for the previous six years (Maier et 
al., 2008). After the diagnosis of this case, Maier et al. reviewed 
medical records and/or performed medical evaluations, including BeLPT 
results for 16 community residents who were referred by family members 
or an attorney.
    Among those referred, eight cases of definite or probable CBD were 
identified between 1999 and 2002. All eight were women who lived 
between 0.1 and 1.05 miles from the plant, beginning between 1943-1953 
and ending between 1956-2001. Five of the women were considered 
definite cases of CA-CBD, based on an abnormal blood or lavage cell 
BeLPT and granulomatous inflammation on lung biopsy. Three probable 
cases of CA-CBD were identified. One had an abnormal BeLPT and 
radiography consistent with CBD, but granulomatous disease was not 
pathologically proven. Two met Beryllium Case Registry epidemiologic 
criteria for CBD based on radiography, pathology and a clinical course 
consistent with CBD, but both died before they could be tested for 
beryllium sensitization. One of the probable cases, who could not be 
definitively diagnosed with CBD because she died before she could be 
tested, was the mother of both a definite case and the probable case 
who had an abnormal BeLPT but did not show granulomatous disease.
    The individuals with CA-CBD identified in this study suffered 
significant health impacts from the disease, including obstructive, 
restrictive, and gas exchange pulmonary defects in the majority of 
cases. All but two had abnormal pulmonary physiology. Those two were 
evaluated at early stages of disease following their mother's 
diagnosis. Six of the eight women required treatment with prednisone, a 
step typically reserved for severe cases due to the adverse side 
effects of steroid treatment. Despite treatment, three had died of 
respiratory impairment from CBD as of 2002 (Maier et al., 2008). The 
authors concluded that ``low levels of exposures with significant 
disease latency can result in significant morbidity and mortality'' 
(id., p. 1017).
    OSHA notes that compared with the occupational studies discussed in 
the previous section, there is comparatively sparse information on 
exposure levels of Lorain and Reading residents. There remains the 
possibility that some individuals with CA-CBD may have had higher 
exposures than were known and reported in these studies, or have had 
unreported exposure to beryllium dust via contact with beryllium-
exposed workers. Nevertheless, the studies conducted in Lorain and 
Reading demonstrate that long-term exposure to the apparent low levels 
of airborne beryllium, with sufficient disease latency, can lead to 
serious or fatal CBD. Genetic susceptibility may play a role in cases 
of CBD among individuals with very low or infrequent exposures to 
beryllium. The role of genetic susceptibility in the CBD disease 
process is discussed in detail in section V.D.3.

D. Exposure-Response Literature on Beryllium Sensitization and CBD

    To further examine the relationship between exposure level and risk 
of both sensitization and disease, we next review exposure-response 
studies in the CBD literature. Many publications have reported that 
exposure levels correlate with risk, including a small number of

[[Page 47632]]

exposure-response analyses. Most of these studies examined the 
association between job-specific beryllium air measurements and 
prevalence of sensitization and CBD. This section focuses on studies at 
three facilities that included a more rigorous historical 
reconstruction of individual worker exposures in their exposure-
response analyses.
1. Rocky Flats, CO, Facility
    In 2000, Viet et al. published a case-control study of participants 
in the Rocky Flats Beryllium Health Surveillance Program (BHSP), which 
was established in 1991 to screen workers at the Department of Energy's 
Rocky Flats, CO, nuclear weapons facility for beryllium sensitization 
and evaluate sensitized workers for CBD (Viet et al., 2000). The 
program, which at the time of publication had tested over 5,000 current 
and former Rocky Flats employees, had identified a total of 127 
sensitized individuals as of 1994 when Viet et al. initiated their 
study.
    Workers were considered sensitized if two BeLPT results were 
positive, either from two blood draws or from a single blood draw 
analyzed by two different laboratories. All sensitized individuals were 
offered clinical evaluation, and 51 were diagnosed with CBD based on 
positive lung LPT and evidence of noncaseating granulomas upon lung 
biopsy. The number of sensitized individuals who declined clinical 
evaluation was not reported. Two cases, one with CBD and one who was 
sensitized but not diagnosed with CBD, were excluded from the case-
control analysis due to reported or potential prior beryllium exposure 
at a ceramics plant. Another sensitized individual who had not been 
diagnosed with CBD was excluded because she could not be matched by the 
study's criteria to a non-sensitized control within the BHSP database. 
Viet et al. matched a total of 50 CBD cases to 50 controls who were 
negative on the BeLPT and had the same age ( 3 years), 
gender, race and smoking status, and were otherwise randomly selected 
from the database. Using the same matching criteria, 74 sensitized 
workers who were not diagnosed with CBD were age-, gender-, race-, and 
smoking status-matched to 74 control individuals who tested negative by 
the BeLPT from the BHSP database.
    Viet et al. developed exposure estimates for the cases and controls 
based on daily beryllium air samples collected in one of 36 buildings 
where beryllium was used at Rocky Flats, the Building 444 Beryllium 
Machine Shop. Over half of the approximately 500,000 industrial hygiene 
samples collected at Rocky Flats were taken from this building. Air 
monitoring in other buildings was reported to be limited and 
inconsistent and, thus, not utilized in the exposure assessment. The 
sampling data used to develop worker exposure estimates were 
exclusively Building 444 fixed airhead (FAH) area samples collected at 
permanent fixtures placed around beryllium work areas and machinery.
    Exposure estimates for jobs in Building 444 were constructed for 
the years 1960-1988 from this database. Viet et al. worked with Rocky 
Flats industrial hygienists and staff to assign a ``building area 
factor'' (BAF) to each of the other buildings, indicating the likely 
level of exposure in a building relative to exposures in Building 444. 
Industrial hygienists and staff similarly assigned a job factor (JF) to 
all jobs, representing the likely level of beryllium exposure relative 
to the levels experienced by beryllium machinists. A JF of 1 indicated 
the lowest exposures, and a JF of 10 indicated the highest exposures. 
For example, administrative work and vehicle operation were assigned a 
JF of 1, while machining, mill operation, and metallurgical operation 
were each assigned a JF of 10. Estimated FAH values for each 
combination of job, building and year in the study subjects' work 
histories were generated by multiplying together the job and building 
factors and the mean annual FAH exposure level. Using data collected by 
questionnaire from each BHSP participant, Viet et al. reconstructed 
work histories for each case and control, including job title and 
building location in each year of their employment at Rocky Flats. 
These work histories and the estimated FAH values were used to generate 
a cumulative exposure estimate (CEE) for each case and control in the 
study. A long-term mean exposure estimate (MEE) was generated by 
dividing each CEE by the individual's number of years employed at Rocky 
Flats.
    Viet et al.'s statistical analysis of the resulting data set 
included conditional logistic regression analysis, modeling the 
relationship between risk of each health outcome and log-transformed 
CEE and MEE. They found highly statistically significant relationships 
between log-CEE and risk of CBD (coef = 0.837, p = 0.0006) and between 
log-MEE (coef = 0.855, p = 0.0012) and risk of CBD, indicating that 
risk of CBD increases with exposure level. These coefficients 
correspond to odds ratios of 6.9 and 7.2 per 10-fold increase in 
exposure, respectively. Risk of sensitization without CBD did not show 
a statistically significant relationship with log-CEE (coef = 0.111, p 
= 0.32), but showed a nearly-significant relationship with log-MEE 
(coef = 0.230, p = 0.097).
2. Cullman, AL, Facility
    The Cullman, AL, precision machining facility discussed previously 
was the subject of a case-control study published by Kelleher et al. in 
2001. After the diagnosis of an index case of CBD at the plant in 1995, 
NJMRC researchers worked with the plant to conduct a medical 
surveillance program using the BeLPT to screen workers biennially for 
beryllium sensitization and CBD. Of 235 employees screened between 1995 
and 1999, 22 (9.4 percent) were found to be sensitized, including 13 
diagnosed with CBD (Newman et al., 2001). Concurrently, research was 
underway by Martyny et al. to characterize the particle size 
distribution of beryllium exposures generated by processes at this 
plant (Martyny et al., 2000). The exposure research showed that the 
machining operations during this time period generated respirable 
particles (10 [mu]m or less) at the worker breathing zone that made up 
greater than 50 percent of the beryllium mass. Kelleher et al. used the 
dataset of 100 personal lapel samples collected by Martyny et al. and 
other NJMRC researchers in 1996, 1997, and 1999 to characterize 
exposures for each job in the plant. Following a statistical analysis 
comparing the samples collected by NJMRC with earlier samples collected 
at the plant, Kelleher et al. concluded that the 1996-1999 data could 
be used to represent job-specific exposures from earlier periods.
    Detailed work history information gathered from plant data and 
worker interviews was used in combination with job exposure estimates 
to characterize cumulative and LTW average beryllium exposures for 
workers in the surveillance program. In addition to cumulative and LTW 
exposure estimates based the total mass of beryllium reported in their 
exposure samples, Kelleher et al. calculated cumulative and LTW 
estimates based specifically on exposure to particles < 6 [mu]m and 
particles < 1 [mu]m in diameter.
    To analyze the relationship between exposure level and risk of 
sensitization and CBD, Kelleher et al. performed a case-control 
analysis using measures of both total beryllium exposure and particle 
size-fractionated exposure. The analysis included sensitization cases 
identified in the 1995-1999 surveillance and 206 controls from the 
group of 215 non-sensitized workers. For nine workers, the researchers 
could not

[[Page 47633]]

reconstruct complete job histories. Logistic regression models using 
categorical exposure variables showed positive associations between 
risk of sensitization and the six exposure measures tested: Total CEE, 
total MEE, and variations of CEE and MEE constructed based on particles 
< 6 [mu]m and < 1 [mu]m in diameter. None of the associations were 
statistically significant (p < 0.05); however, the authors noted that 
the dataset was relatively small, with limited power to detect a 
statistically significant exposure-response relationship.
    Although the Viet et al. and Kelleher et al. exposure-response 
analyses provide valuable insight into exposure-response for beryllium 
sensitization and CBD, both studies have limitations that affect their 
suitability as a basis for quantitative risk assessment. Their 
limitations primarily involve the exposure data used to estimate 
workers' exposures. Viet et al.'s exposure reconstruction was based on 
area samples from a single building within a large, multi-building 
facility. Where possible, OSHA prefers to base risk estimates on 
exposure data collected in the breathing zone of workers rather than 
area samples, because data collected in the breathing zone more 
accurately represent workers' exposures. Kelleher's analysis, on the 
other hand, was based on personal lapel samples. However, the samples 
Kelleher et al. used were collected between 1996 and 1999, after the 
facility had initiated new exposure control measures in response to the 
diagnosis of a case of CBD in 1995. OSHA believes that industrial 
hygiene samples collected at the Cullman plant prior to 1996 better 
characterize exposures prior to the new exposure controls. In addition, 
since the publication of the Kelleher study, the population has 
continued to be screened for sensitization and CBD. Data collected on 
workers hired in 2000 and later, after most exposure controls had been 
completed, can be used to characterize risk at lower levels of exposure 
than have been examined in many previous studies.
    To better characterize the relationship between exposure level and 
risk of sensitization and CBD, OSHA developed an independent exposure-
response analysis based on a dataset maintained by NJMRC on workers at 
the Cullman, AL, machining plant. The dataset includes exposure samples 
collected between 1980 and 2005, and has updated work history and 
screening information for several hundred workers through 2003. OSHA's 
analysis of the NJMRC data set is presented in the next section, E. 
OSHA's Exposure-Response Analysis.
3. Elmore, OH, Facility
    After OSHA completed its analysis of the NJMRC data set, Schuler et 
al. (2012) published a study examining beryllium sensitization and CBD 
among 264 short-term workers employed at the previously described 
Elmore, OH plant in 1999. The analysis used a high-quality exposure 
reconstruction by Virji et al. (2012) and presented a regression 
analysis of the relationship between beryllium exposure levels and 
beryllium sensitization and CBD in the short-term worker population. By 
including only short-term workers, Virji et al. were able to construct 
participants' exposures with more precision than was possible in 
studies involving workers exposed for longer durations and in time 
periods with less exposure sampling. In addition, the focus on short-
term workers allowed more precise knowledge of when sensitization and 
CBD occurred than had been the case for previously published cross-
sectional studies of long-term workers. Each participant completed a 
work history questionnaire and was tested for beryllium sensitization, 
and sensitized workers were offered further evaluation for CBD. The 
overall prevalence of sensitization was 9.8 percent (26/264). Twenty-
two sensitized workers consented to clinical testing for CBD via 
transbronchial biopsy. Six of those sensitized were diagnosed with CBD 
(2.3 percent, 6/264).
    Schuler et al. (2012) used logistic regression to explore the 
relationship between estimated beryllium exposure and sensitization and 
CBD, using estimates of total, respirable, and submicron mass 
concentrations. Exposure estimates were constructed using two exposure 
surveys conducted in 1999: a survey of total mass exposures (4,022 
full-shift personal samples) and a survey of size-separated impactor 
samples (198 samples). The 1999 exposure surveys and work histories 
were used to estimate long-term lifetime weighted (LTW) average, 
cumulative, and highest-job-worked exposure for total, respirable, and 
submicron beryllium mass concentrations.
    For beryllium sensitization, logistic models showed elevated odds 
ratios for average (OR 1.48) and highest job (OR 1.37) exposure for 
total mass exposure; the OR for cumulative exposure was smaller (OR 
1.23) and borderline statistically significant (95 percent CI barely 
included unity). Relationships between sensitization and respirable 
exposure estimates were similarly elevated for average (OR 1.37) and 
highest job (OR 1.32). Among the submicron exposure estimates, only 
highest job (OR 1.24) had a 95 percent CI that just included unity for 
sensitization. For CBD, elevated odds ratios were observed only for the 
cumulative exposure estimates and were similar for total mass and 
respirable exposure (total mass OR 1.66, respirable (OR 1.68). 
Cumulative submicron exposure showed an elevated, borderline 
significant odds ratio (OR 1.58). The odds ratios for average exposure 
and highest-exposed job were not statistically significantly elevated. 
Schuler et al. concluded that both total and respirable mass 
concentrations of beryllium exposure were relevant predictors of risk 
for beryllium sensitization and CBD.

 E. OSHA's Exposure-Response Analysis

    OSHA evaluated exposure and health outcome data on a population of 
workers employed at the Cullman machining facility. NJMRC researchers, 
with consent and information provided by the facility, compiled a 
dataset containing employee work histories, medical diagnoses, and air 
sampling results and provided it to OSHA for analysis. OSHA's 
contractors from Eastern Research Group (ERG) gathered additional 
information from (1) two surveys of the Cullman plant conducted by 
OSHA's contractor (ERG, 2003 and ERG, 2004a), (2) published articles of 
investigations conducted at the plant by researchers from NJMRC 
(Kelleher et al., 2001; Madl et al., 2007; Martyny et al., 2000; and 
Newman et al., 2001), (3) a case file from a 1980 OSHA complaint 
inspection at the plant, (4) comments submitted to the OSHA docket 
office in 1976 and 1977 by representatives of the metal machining plant 
regarding their beryllium control program, and (5) personal 
communications with the plant's current industrial hygienist (ERG, 
2009b) and an industrial hygiene researcher at NJMRC (ERG, 2009a).
1. Plant Operations
    The Cullman plant is a leading fabricator of precision-machined and 
processed materials including beryllium and its alloys, titanium, 
aluminum, quartz, and glass (ERG, 2009b). The plant has approximately 
210 machines, primarily mills and lathes, and processes large 
quantities of beryllium on an annual basis. The plant provides complete 
fabrication services including ultra-precision machining; ancillary 
processing (brazing, ion milling, photo etching, precision cleaning, 
heat treating, stress relief, thermal cycling, mechanical assembly, and 
chemical

[[Page 47634]]

milling/etching); and coatings (plasma spray, anodizing, chromate 
conversion coating, nickel sulfamate plate, nickel plate, gold plate, 
black nickel plate, copper plate/strike, passivation, and painting). 
Most of the plant's beryllium operations involve machining beryllium 
metal and high beryllium content composite materials (beryllium metal/
beryllium oxide metal composites called E-Metal or E-Material), with 
occasional machining of beryllium oxide/metal matrix (such as AlBeMet, 
aluminum beryllium matrix) and beryllium-containing alloys. E-Materials 
such as E-20 and E-60 are currently processed in the E-Cell department.
    The 120,000 square-foot plant has two main work areas: a front 
office area and a large, open production shop. Operations in the 
production shop include inspection of materials, machining, polishing, 
and quality assurance. The front office is physically separated from 
the production shop. Office workers enter through the front of the 
facility and have access to the production shop through a change room 
where they must don laboratory coats and shoe covers to enter the 
production area. Production workers enter the shop area at the rear of 
the facility where a change/locker room is available to change into 
company uniforms and work shoes. Support operations are located in 
separate areas adjacent to the production shop and include management 
and administration, sales, engineering, shipping and receiving, and 
maintenance. Management and administrative personnel include two 
groups: those primarily working in the front offices (front office 
management) and those primarily working on the shop floor (shop 
management).
    In 1974, the company moved its precision machining operations to 
the plant's current location in Cullman. Workplace exposure controls 
reportedly did not change much until the diagnosis of an index case of 
CBD in 1995. Prior to 1995, exposure controls for machining operations 
primarily included a low volume/high velocity (LVHV) central exhaust 
system with operator-adjusted exhaust pickups and wet machining 
methods. Protective clothing, gloves, and respiratory protection were 
not required. After the diagnosis, the facility established an in-house 
target exposure level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, installed change/locker rooms 
for workers entering the production facility, eliminated pressurized 
air hoses, discouraged the use of dry sweeping, initiated biennial 
medical surveillance using the BeLPT, and implemented annual beryllium 
hazard awareness training.
    In 1996, the company instituted requirements for work uniforms and 
dedicated work shoes for production workers, eliminated dry sweeping in 
all departments, and purchased high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 
filter vacuum cleaners for workplace cleanup and decontamination. Major 
engineering changes were also initiated in 1996, including the purchase 
of a new local exhaust ventilation (LEV) system to exhaust machining 
operations producing finer aerosols (e.g., dust and fume versus metal 
chips). The facility also began installing mist eliminators for each 
machine. Departments affected by these changes included cutter grind 
(tool and die), E-cell, electrical discharge machining (EDM), flow 
lines, grind, lapping, and optics. Dry machining operations producing 
chips were exhausted using the existing LVHV exhaust system (ERG, 
2004a). In the course of making the ventilation system changes, old 
ductwork and baghouses were dismantled and new ductwork and air 
cleaning devices were installed. The company also installed Plexiglas 
enclosures on machining operations in 1996-1997, including the lapping, 
deburring, grinding, EDM, and tool and die operations. In 1998, LEV was 
installed in EDM and modified in the lap, deburr, and grind 
departments.
    Most exposure controls were reportedly in place by 2000 (ERG, 
2009a). In 2004, the plant industrial hygienist reported that all 
machines had LEV and about 65 percent were also enclosed with either 
partial or full enclosures to control the escape of machining coolant 
(ERG, 2004b). Over time, the facility has built enclosures for 
operations that consistently produce exposures greater than 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\. The company has never required workers to use gloves or other 
PPE.
2. Air Sampling Database and Job Exposure Matrix (JEM)
    The NJMRC dataset includes industrial hygiene sampling results 
collected by the plant (1980-1984 and 1995-2005) and NJMRC researchers 
(June 1996 to February 1997 and September 1999), including 4,370 
breathing zone (personal lapel) samples and 712 area samples (ERG, 
2004b). Limited air sampling data is available before 1980 and no 
exposure data appears to be available for the 10-year time period 1985 
through 1994. A review of the NJMRC air sampling database from 1995 
through 2005 shows a significant increase in the number of air samples 
collected beginning in 2000, which the plant industrial hygienist 
attributes to an increase in the number of air sampling pumps (from 5 
to 23) and the purchase of an automated atomic absorption 
spectrophotometer.
    ERG used the personal breathing zone sampling results contained in 
the sample database to quantify exposure levels for each year and for 
several-year periods. Separate exposure statistics were calculated for 
each job included in the job history database. For each job included in 
the job history database, ERG estimated the arithmetic mean, geometric 
mean, median, minimum, maximum, and 95th percentile value for the 
available exposure samples. Prior to generating these statistics ERG 
made several adjustments. After consultation with researchers at NJMRC, 
four particularly high exposures were identified as probably erroneous 
and excluded from calculations. In addition, a 1996 sample for the HS 
(Health and Safety) process was removed from the sample calculations 
after ERG determined it was for a non-employee researcher visiting the 
facility.
    Most samples in the sample database for which sampling times were 
recorded were long-term samples: 2,503 of the 2,557 (97.9 percent) 
breathing zone samples with sampling time recorded had times greater 
than or equal to 400 minutes. No adjustments were made for sampling 
time, except in the case of four samples for the ``maintenance'' 
process for 1995. These results show relatively high values and 
exceptionally short sampling times consistent with the nature of much 
maintenance work, marked by short-term exposures and periods of no 
exposure. The four 1995 maintenance samples were adjusted for an eight-
hour sampling time assuming that the maintenance workers received no 
further beryllium exposure over the rest of their work shift.
    OSHA examined the database for trends in exposure by reviewing 
sample statistics for individual years and grouping years into four 
time periods that correspond to stages in the plant's approach to 
beryllium exposure control. These were: 1980-1995, a period of 
relatively minimal control prior to the 1995 discovery of a case of CBD 
among the plant's workers; 1996-1997, a period during which some major 
engineering controls were in the process of being installed on 
machining equipment; 1998-1999, a period during which most engineering 
controls on the machining equipment had been installed; and 2000-2003, 
a period when installation of all exposure controls on machining 
equipment was complete and exposures very low throughout the plant. 
Table VI-4 below summarized the available data for each time period. As 
the four probable sampling errors identified in

[[Page 47635]]

the original data set are excluded here, arithmetic mean values are 
presented.

                 Table VI-4--Exposure Values for Machining Job Titles, Excluding Probable Sampling Errors ([mu]g/m\3\) in NJMRC Data Set
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        1980-1995             1996-1997             1998-1999             2000-2003
                            Job title                            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Samples      Mean     Samples      Mean     Samples      Mean     Samples      Mean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deburring.......................................................         27       1.17         19       1.29          0         NA         67        0.1
Electrical Discharge Machining..................................          2       0.06          2       1.32         16       0.08         63        0.1
Grinding........................................................         12       3.07          6       0.49         15       0.24         68        0.1
Lapping.........................................................          9       0.15         16       0.24         42       0.21        103        0.1
Lathe...........................................................         18       0.88          8       1.13         40       0.17        200        0.1
Milling.........................................................         43       0.64         15       0.23         95       0.17        434        0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reviewing the revised statistics for individual years for different 
groupings, OSHA noted that exposures in the 1996-1997 period were for 
some machining jobs equivalent to, or even higher than, exposure levels 
recording during the 1980-1995 period. During 1996-1997, major 
engineering controls were being installed, but exposure levels were not 
yet consistently reduced.
    Table VI-5 below summarizes exposures for the four time periods in 
jobs other than beryllium machining. These include jobs such as 
administrative work, health and safety, inspection, toolmaking (`Tool' 
and `Cgrind'), and others. A description of jobs by title is available 
in the risk assessment background document.

                                 Table VI-5--Exposure Values for Non-Machining Job Titles ([mu]g/m\3\) in NJMRC Data Set
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1980-1995                      1996-1997                      1998-1999                      2000-2003
          Job title           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Samples          mean          Samples          mean          Samples          mean          Samples          mean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration...............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............           39  0.052...........           74  0.061
Assembly.....................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            8  0.136...........            2  0.051
Cathode......................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            9  0.156
Cgrind.......................            1  0.120...........            0  NA..............           14  0.105...........           76  0.112
Chem.........................            0  NA..............            1  0.529...........           21  0.277...........           91  0.152
Ecell........................            0  NA..............           13  1.873...........            0  NA..............           26  0.239
Engineering..................            1  0.065...........            0  NA..............           49  0.069...........          125  0.062
Flow Lines...................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............          113  0.083
Gas..........................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............          121  0.058
Glass........................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............           38  0.068
Health and Safety \8\........            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            5  0.076
Inspection...................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............           32  0.101...........          150  0.066
Maintenance..................            4  1.257...........            1  0.160...........           16  0.200...........           70  0.126
Msupp........................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............           47  0.094...........           68  0.081
Optics.......................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............           41  0.090
PCIC.........................            1  0.040...........            0  NA..............           13  0.071...........           42  0.083
Qroom........................            1  0.280...........            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            2  0.130
Shop.........................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            4  0.060...........            0  NA
Spec.........................            3  0.247...........            0  NA..............           24  0.083...........           19  0.087
Tool.........................            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            0  NA..............            1  0.070
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From Table VI-5, it is evident that exposure samples are not 
available for many non-machining jobs prior to 2000. Where samples are 
available before 2000, sample numbers are small, particularly prior to 
1998. In jobs for which exposure values are available in 1998-1999 and 
2000-2003, exposures appear either to decline from 1998-1999 to 2000-
2003 (Assembly, Chem, Inspection, Maintenance) or to be roughly 
equivalent (Administration, Cgrind, Engineering, Msupp, PCIC, and 
Spec). Among the jobs with exposure samples prior to 1998, most had 
very few (1-5) samples, with the exception of Ecell (13 samples in 
1996-1997). Based on this limited information, it appears that 
exposures declined from the period before the first dentification of a 
CBD case to the period in which exposure controls were introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An exceptionally high result (0.845 [mu]g/m\3\, not shown in 
Table 5) for a 1996 sample for the HS (Health and Safety) process 
was removed from the sample calculations. OSHA's contractor 
determined this sample to be associated with a non-employee 
researcher visiting the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because exposure results from 1996-1997 were not found to be 
consistently reduced in comparison to the 1985-1995 period in primary 
machining jobs, these two periods were grouped together in the JEM. 
Exposure monitoring for jobs other than the primary machining 
operations were represented by a single mean exposure value for 1980-
2003. As respiratory protection was not routinely used at the plant, 
there was no adjustment for respiratory protection in workers' exposure 
estimates. The job exposure matrix is presented in full in the 
background document for the quantitative risk assessment.
3. Worker Exposure Reconstruction
    The work history database contains job history records for 348 
workers, including start years, duration of employment, and percentage 
of worktime spent in each job. One hundred ninety-eight of the workers 
had been employed at some point in primary machining jobs, including 
deburring,

[[Page 47636]]

EDM, grinding, lapping, lathing, and milling. The remainder worked only 
in non-primary machining jobs, such as administration, engineering, 
quality control, and shop management. The total number of years worked 
at each job are presented as integers, leaving some uncertainty 
regarding the worker's exact start and end date at the job.
    Based on these records and the JEM described previously, ERG 
calculated cumulative and average exposure estimates for each worker in 
the database. Cumulative exposure was calculated as, [Sigma]i ei t i, 
where e(i) is the exposure level for job (i), and t(i) is the time 
spent in job (i). Cumulative exposure was divided by total exposure 
time to estimate each worker's long-term average exposure. These 
exposures were computed in a time-dependent manner for the statistical 
modeling. For workers with beryllium sensitization or CBD, exposure 
estimates excluded exposures following diagnosis.
    Workers who were employed for long time periods in jobs with low-
level exposures tend to have low average and cumulative exposures due 
to the way these measures are constructed, incorporating the worker's 
entire work history. As discussed in the Health Effects chapter, 
higher-level exposures or short-term peak exposures such as those 
encountered in machining jobs may be highly relevant to risk of 
sensitization. Unfortunately, because it is not possible to 
continuously monitor individuals' beryllium exposure levels and 
sensitization status, it is not known exactly when workers became 
sensitized or what their ``true'' peak exposures leading up to 
sensitization were. Only a rough approximation of the upper levels of 
exposure a worker experienced is possible. ERG constructed a third type 
of exposure estimate reflecting the exposure level associated with the 
highest-exposure job (HEJ) and time period experienced by each worker. 
This exposure estimate (HEJ), the cumulative exposure estimate, and the 
average exposure were used in the quartile analysis and statistical 
analyses.
4. Prevalence of Sensitization and CBD
    In the database provided to OSHA, seven workers were reported as 
sensitized only. Sixteen workers were listed as sensitized and 
diagnosed with CBD upon initial clinical evaluation. Three workers, 
first shown to be sensitized only, were later diagnosed with CBD. 
Tables VI-6, VI-7, and VI-8 below present the prevalence of 
sensitization and CBD cases across several categories of lifetime-
weighted (LTW) average, cumulative, and highest-exposed job (HEJ) 
exposure. Exposure values were grouped by quartile. Note that all 
workers with CBD are also sensitized. Thus, the columns ``Total 
Sensitized'' and ``Total %'' refer to all sensitized workers in the 
dataset, including workers with and without a diagnosis of CBD.

                           Table VI-6--Prevalence of Sensitization and CBD by LTW Average Exposure Quartile in NJMRC Data Set
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Sensitized                         Total
              Average exposure ([mu]g/m\3\)                 Group size         only             CBD         sensitized        Total %          CBD %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0-0.080...............................................              91               1               1               2             2.2             1.0
0.081-0.18..............................................              73               2               4               6             8.2             5.5
0.19-0.51...............................................              77               0               6               6             7.8             7.8
0.51-2.15...............................................              78               4               8              12            15.4            10.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             319               7              19              26             8.2             6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Table VI-7--Prevalence of Sensitization and CBD by Cumulative Exposure Quartile in NJMRC Data Set
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Sensitized                         Total
          Cumulative exposure ([mu]g/m\3\-yrs)              Group size         only             CBD         sensitized        Total %          CBD %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0-0.147...............................................              81               2               2               4             4.9             2.5
0.148-1.467.............................................              79               0               2               2             2.5             2.5
1.468-7.008.............................................              79               3               8              11            13.9             8.0
7.009-61.86.............................................              80               2               7               9            11.3             8.8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             319               7              19              26             8.2             6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table VI-8--Prevalence of Sensitization and CBD by Highest-Exposed Job Exposure Quartile in NJMRC Data Set
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Sensitized                         Total
                HEJ exposure ([mu]g/m\3\)                   Group size         only             CBD         sensitized        Total %          CBD %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0-0.086...............................................              86               1               0               1             1.2             0.0
0.091-0.214.............................................              81               1               6               7             8.6             7.4
0.387-0.691.............................................              76               2               9              11            14.5            11.8
0.954-2.213.............................................              76               3               4               7             9.2             5.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             319               7              19              26             8.2             6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VI-6 shows increasing prevalence of total sensitization and 
CBD with increasing LTW average exposure, measured both as average and 
cumulative exposure. The lowest prevalence of sensitization and CBD was 
observed among workers with average exposure levels less than or equal 
to 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\, where two sensitized workers (2.2 percent) 
including one case of CBD (1.0 percent) were found. The sensitized 
worker in this category without CBD had worked at the facility as an 
inspector since 1972, one of the lowest-exposed jobs at the plant.

[[Page 47637]]

Because the job was believed to have very low exposures, it was not 
sampled prior to 1998. Thus, estimates of exposures in this job are 
based on data from 1998-2003 only. It is possible that exposures 
earlier in this worker's employment history were somewhat higher than 
reflected in his estimated average exposure. The worker diagnosed with 
CBD in this group had been hired in 1996 in production control, and had 
an estimated average exposure of 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\. He was diagnosed with 
CBD in 1997.
    The second quartile of LTW average exposure (0.081--0.18 [mu]g/
m\3\) shows a marked rise in overall prevalence of beryllium-related 
health effects, with six workers sensitized (8.2 percent), of whom four 
(5.5 percent) were diagnosed with CBD. Among six sensitized workers in 
the third quartile (0.19--0.50 [mu]g/m\3\), all were diagnosed with CBD 
(7.8 percent). Another increase in prevalence is seen from the third to 
the fourth quartile, with 12 cases of sensitization (15.4 percent), 
including eight (10.3 percent) diagnosed with CBD.
    The quartile analysis of cumulative exposure also shows generally 
increasing prevalence of sensitization and CBD with increasing 
exposure. As shown in Table VI-7, the lowest prevalences of CBD and 
sensitization are in the first two quartiles of cumulative exposure 
(0.0-0.147 [mu]g/m\3\-yrs, 0.148-1.467 [mu]g/m\3\-yrs). The upper bound 
on this cumulative exposure range, 1.467 [mu]g/m\3\-yrs, is the 
cumulative exposure that a worker would have if exposed to beryllium at 
a level of 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\ for a working lifetime of 45 years; 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\ for ten years; or 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\ for five years.
    A sharp increase in prevalence of sensitization and CBD and total 
sensitization occurs in the third quartile (1.468-7.008 [mu]g/m\3\-
yrs), with roughly similar levels of both in the highest group (7.009-
61.86 [mu]g/m\3\-yrs). Cumulative exposures in the third quartile would 
be experienced by a worker exposed for 45 years to levels between 0.03 
and 0.16 [mu]g/m\3\, for 10 years to levels between 0.15 and 0.7 [mu]g/
m\3\, or for five years to levels between 0.3 and 1.4 [mu]g/m\3\.
    When workers' exposures from their highest-exposed job are 
considered, the exposure-response pattern is similar to that for LTW 
average exposure in the lower quartiles (Table VI-8). The lowest 
prevalence is observed in the first quartile (0.0-0.86 [mu]g/m\3\), 
with sharply rising prevalence from first to second and second to third 
exposure quartiles. The prevalence of sensitization and CBD in the top 
quartile (0.954-2.213 [mu]g/m\3\) decreases relative to the third, with 
levels similar to the overall prevalence in the dataset. Many workers 
in the highest exposure quartiles are long-time employees, who were 
hired during the early years of the shop when exposures were highest. 
One possible explanation for the drop in prevalence in the highest 
exposure quartiles is that highly-exposed workers from early periods 
may have developed CBD and left the plant before sensitization testing 
began in 1995.
    It is of some value to compare the prevalence analysis of the 
Cullman (NJMRC) data set with the results of the Reading and Tucson 
studies discussed previously. An exact comparison is not possible, in 
part because the Reading and Tucson exposure values are associated with 
jobs and the NJMRC values are estimates of lifetime weighted average, 
cumulative, and highest-exposed job (HEJ) exposures for individuals in 
the data set. Nevertheless, OSHA believes it is possible to very 
roughly compare the results of the Reading and Tucson studies and the 
results of the NJMRC prevalence analysis presented above. As discussed 
in detail below, OSHA found a general consistency between the 
prevalence of sensitization and CBD in the quartiles of average 
exposure in the NJMRC data set and the prevalence of sensitization and 
CBD at the Reading and Tucson plants for similar exposure values.
    Personal lapel samples collected at the Reading plant between 1995 
and 2000 were relatively low overall (median of 0.073 [mu]g/m\3\), with 
higher exposures (median of 0.149 [mu]g/m\3\) concentrated in the wire 
annealing and pickling process (Schuler et al., 2005). Exposures in the 
Reading plant in this time period were similar to the second-quartile 
average (Table VI-6-0.081-0.18 [mu]g/m\3\). The prevalence of 
sensitization observed in the NJMRC second quartile was 8.2 percent and 
appears roughly consistent with the prevalence of sensitization among 
Reading workers in the mid-1990s (11.5 percent). The reported 
prevalence of CBD (3.9 percent) among the Reading workforce was also 
consistent with that observed in the second NJMRC quartile (5.5 
percent), After 2000, exposure controls reduced exposures in most 
Reading jobs to median levels below 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\, with a median 
value of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for the wire annealing and pickling process. 
The wire annealing and pickling process was enclosed and stringent 
respirator and skin protection requirements were applied for workers in 
that area after 2002, essentially eliminating airborne and dermal 
exposures for those workers. Thomas et al. (2009) reported that one of 
45 workers (2.2 percent) hired after the enclosure in 2002 was 
confirmed as sensitized, a value in line with the sensitization 
prevalence observed in the lowest quartiles of average exposure (2.2 
percent, 0.0-0.08 [mu]g/m\3\).
    As with Reading, the prevalence of sensitization observed at Tucson 
and in the NJMRC data set are not exactly comparable due to the 
different natures of the exposure estimates. Nevertheless, in a rough 
sense the results of the Tucson study and the NJMRC prevalence analysis 
appear similar. In Tucson, a 1998 BeLPT screening showed that 9.5 
percent of workers hired after 1992 were sensitized (Henneberger et 
al., 2001). Personal full-shift exposure samples collected in 
production jobs between 1994 and 1999 had a median of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for non-production jobs). In the NJMRC data set, a 
sensitization prevalence of 8.2 percent was seen among workers with 
average exposures between 0.081 and 0.18 [mu]g/m\3\. At the time of the 
1998 screening, workers hired after 1992 had a median one year since 
first beryllium exposure and, therefore, CBD prevalence was only 1.4 
percent. This prevalence is likely an underestimate since CBD often 
requires more than a year to develop. Longer-term workers at the Tucson 
plant with a median 14 years since first beryllium exposure had a 9.1 
percent prevalence of CBD. There was a 5.5 percent prevalence of CBD 
among the entire workforce (Henneberger et al., 2001). As with the 
Reading plant employees, this reported prevalence is reasonably 
consistent with the 5.5 percent CBD prevalence observed in the second 
NJMRC quartile.
    Beginning in 1999, the Tucson facility instituted strict 
requirements for respiratory protection and other PPE, essentially 
eliminating airborne and dermal exposure for most workers. After these 
requirements were put in place, Cummings et al. (2007) reported only 
one case of sensitization (1 percent; associated with a PPE failure) 
among 97 workers hired between 2000 and 2004. This appears roughly in 
line with the sensitization prevalence of 2.2 percent observed in the 
lowest quartiles of average exposure (0.0-0.08 [mu]g/m\3\) in the NJMRC 
data set.
    While the literature analysis presented here shows a clear 
reduction in risk with well-controlled airborne exposures (<= 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ on average) and protection from dermal exposure, the level 
of detail presented in the published studies limits the Agency's 
ability to characterize risk at all the alternate PELs OSHA is 
considering. To better understand these risks, OSHA

[[Page 47638]]

used the NJMRC dataset to characterize risk of sensitization and CBD 
among workers exposed to each of the alternate PELs under consideration 
in the proposed beryllium rule.

F. OSHA's Statistical Modeling

    OSHA's contractor performed a complementary log-log proportional 
hazards model using the NJMRC data set. The proportional hazards model 
is a generalization of logistic regression that allows for time-
dependent exposures and differential time at risk. The proportional 
hazards model accounts for the fact that individuals in the dataset are 
followed for different amounts of time, and that their exposures change 
over time. The proportional hazards model provides hazards ratios, 
which estimate the relative risk of disease at a specified time for 
someone with exposure level 1 compared to exposure level 2. To perform 
this analysis, OSHA's contractor constructed exposure files with time-
dependent cumulative and average exposures for each worker in the data 
set in each year that a case of sensitization or CBD was identified. 
Workers were included in only those years after they started working at 
the plant and continued to be followed. Sensitized cases were not 
included in analysis of sensitization after the year in which they were 
identified as being sensitized, and CBD cases were not included in 
analyses of CBD after the year in which they were diagnosed with CBD. 
Follow-up is censored after 2002 because work histories were deemed to 
be less reliable after that date.
    The results of the discrete proportional hazards analyses are 
summarized in Tables VI-9-12 below. All coefficients used in the models 
are displayed, including the exposure coefficient, the model constant 
for diagnosis in 1995, and additional exposure-independent coefficients 
for each succeeding year (1996-1999 for sensitization and 1996-2002 for 
CBD) of diagnosis that are fit in the discrete time proportional 
hazards modeling procedure. Model equations and variables are explained 
more fully in the companion risk assessment background document.
    Relative risk of sensitization increased with cumulative exposure 
(p = 0.05). A positive, but not statistically significant, association 
was observed with LTW average exposure (p = 0.09). The association was 
much weaker for exposure duration (p = 0.31), consistent with the 
expected biological action of an immune hypersensitivity response where 
onset is believed to be more dependent on the concentration of the 
sensitizing agent at the target site rather than the number of years of 
occupational exposure. The association was also much weaker for 
highest-exposed job (HEJ) exposure (p = 0.3).

                  Table VI-9--Proportional Hazards Model--Cumulative Exposure and Sensitization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Exposure ([mu]g/m\3\-yrs)..........           0.031  0.00 to 0.063...................            0.05
constant......................................           -3.48  -4.27 to -2.69..................          <0.001
1996..........................................           -1.49  -3.04 to 0.06...................            0.06
1997..........................................           -0.29  -1.31 to 0.72...................            0.57
1998..........................................           -1.56  -3.11 to -0.01..................            0.05
1999..........................................           -1.57  -3.12 to -0.02..................            0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table VI-10--Proportional Hazards Model--LTW Average Exposure and Sensitization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Exposure ([mu]g/m\3\).................            0.54  -0.09 to 1.17...................            0.09
constant......................................           -3.55  -4.42 to -2.69..................          <0.001
1996..........................................           -1.48  -3.03 to 0.07...................            0.06
1997..........................................           -0.29  -1.31 to 0.72...................            0.57
1998..........................................           -1.54  -3.09 to 0.01...................            0.05
1999..........................................           -1.53  -3.08 to 0.03...................            0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table VI-11--Proportional Hazards Model--Exposure Duration and Sensitization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure Duration (years).....................            0.03  -0.03 to 0.08...................            0.31
constant......................................           -3.55  -4.57 to -2.53..................          <0.001
1996..........................................           -1.48  -3.03 to 0.70...................            0.06
1997..........................................           -0.30  -1.31 to 0.72...................            0.57
1998..........................................           -1.59  -3.14 to -0.04..................            0.05
1999..........................................           -1.62  -3.17 to -0.72..................            0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Table VI-12--Proportional Hazards Model--HEJ Exposure and Sensitization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEJ Exposure ([mu]g/m\3\).....................            0.31  -0.27 to 0.88...................            0.30
constant......................................           -3.42  -4.27 to -2.56..................          <0.001
1996..........................................           -1.49  -3.04 to 0.06...................            0.06
1997..........................................           -0.31  -1.33 to 0.70...................            0.55
1998..........................................           -1.59  -3.14 to -0.04..................            0.05
1999..........................................           -1.60  -3.15 to -0.05..................            0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47639]]

    The proportional hazards models for the CBD endpoint (Tables VI-13 
through 16 below) showed positive relationships with cumulative 
exposure (p = 0.09) and duration of exposure (p = 0.10). However, the 
association with the cumulative exposure metric was not as strong as 
that for sensitization, probably due to the smaller number of CBD 
cases. LTW average exposure and HEJ exposure were not closely related 
to relative risk of CBD (p-values > 0.5).

                      Table VI-13--Proportional Hazards Model--Cumulative Exposure and CBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Exposure ([mu]g/m\3\-yrs)..........            0.03  .00 to 0.07.....................            0.09
constant......................................           -3.77  -4.67 to -2.86..................          <0.001
1997..........................................           -0.59  -1.86 to 0.68...................            0.36
1998..........................................           -2.01  -4.13 to 0.11...................            0.06
1999..........................................           -0.63  -1.90 to 0.64...................            0.33
2002..........................................           -2.13  -4.25 to -0.01..................            0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Table VI-14--Proportional Hazards Model--LTW Average Exposure and CBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Exposure ([mu]g/m\3\).................            0.24  -0.59 to 1.06...................            0.58
constant......................................           -3.62  -4.60 to -2.64..................          <0.001
1997..........................................           -0.61  -1.87 to 0.66...................            0.35
1998..........................................           -2.02  -4.14 to 0.10...................            0.06
1999..........................................           -0.64  -1.92 to 0.63...................            0.32
2002..........................................           -2.15  -4.28 to -0.02..................            0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table VI-15--Proportional Hazards Model--Exposure Duration and CBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure Duration (yrs).......................            0.05  -0.01 to 0.11...................            0.10
constant......................................           -4.18  -5.40 to -2.96..................          <0.001
1997..........................................           -0.53  1.84 to 0.69....................            0.38
1998..........................................           -2.01  -4.13 to 0.11...................            0.06
1999..........................................           -0.67  -1.94 to 0.60...................            0.30
2002..........................................           -2.22  -4.34 to -0.10..................            0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table VI-16--Proportional Hazards Model--HEJ Exposure and CBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                       Coefficient        95% Confidence interval          P-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEJ Exposure ([mu]g/m\3\).....................            0.03  -0.70 to 0.77...................            0.93
constant......................................           -3.49  -4.45 to -2.53..................          <0.001
1997..........................................           -0.62  -1.88 to 0.65...................            0.34
1998..........................................           -2.05  -4.16 to 0.07...................            0.06
1999..........................................           -0.68  -1.94 to 0.59...................            0.30
2002..........................................           -2.21  -4.33 to -0.09..................            0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the models reported above, comparable models were 
fit to the upper 95 percent confidence interval of the HEJ exposure; 
log-transformed cumulative exposure; log-transformed LTW average 
exposure; and log-transformed HEJ exposure. Each of these measures was 
positively but not significantly associated with sensitization.
    OSHA used the proportional hazards models based on cumulative 
exposure, shown in Tables VI-9 and VI-13, to derive quantitative risk 
estimates. Of the metrics related to exposure level, the cumulative 
exposure metric showed the most consistent association with 
sensitization and CBD in these models. Table VI-17 summarizes these 
risk estimates for sensitization and the corresponding 95 percent 
confidence intervals separately for 1995 and 1999, the years with the 
highest and lowest baseline rates, respectively. The estimated risks 
for CBD are presented in VI-18. The expected number of cases is based 
on the estimated conditional probability of being a case in the given 
year. The models provide time-specific point estimates of risk for a 
worker with any given exposure level, and the corresponding interval is 
based on the uncertainty in the exposure coefficient (i.e., the 
predicted values based on the 95 percent confidence limits for the 
exposure coefficient).
    Each estimate represents the number of sensitized workers the model 
predicts in a group of 1000 workers at risk during the given year with 
an exposure history at the specified level and duration. For example, 
in the exposure scenario where 1000 workers are occupationally exposed 
to 2 [mu]g/m\3\ for 10 years in 1995, the model predicts that about 56 
(55.7) workers would be sensitized that year. The model for CBD 
predicts that about 42 (41.9) workers would be diagnosed with CBD that 
year.

[[Page 47640]]



  Table VI-17a--Predicted Cases of Sensitization per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternate PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                            Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient
                                                                     [1995 Baseline]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Exposure duration
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
        1995 Exposure level  ([mu]g/m\3\)        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Cumulative
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\- cases/ 1000  [mu]g/m\3\-  cases/ 1000  [mu]g/m\3\-  cases/ 1000  [mu]g/m\3\-  cases/ 1000
                                                      yrs)                      yrs                       yrs                       yrs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0.............................................         10.0         41.1         20.0         55.7         40.0        101.0         90.0        394.4
                                                                 30.3-56.2                30.3-102.9                30.3-318.1                30.3-999.9
1.0.............................................          5.0         35.3         10.0         41.1         20.0         55.7         45.0        116.9
                                                                 30.3-41.3                 30.3-56.2                30.3-102.9                30.3-408.2
0.5.............................................          2.5         32.7          5.0         35.3         10.0         41.1         22.5         60.0
                                                                 30.3-35.4                 30.3-41.3                 30.3-56.2                30.3-119.4
0.2.............................................          1.0         31.3          2.0         32.2          4.0         34.3          9.0         39.9
                                                                 30.3-32.3                 30.3-34.3                 30.3-38.9                 30.3-52.9
0.1.............................................          0.5         30.8          1.0         31.3          2.0         32.2          4.5         34.8
                                                                 30.3-31.3                 30.3-32.3                 30.3-34.3                 30.3-40.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table VI-17b--Predicted Cases of Sensitization per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternate PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                            Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient
                                                                     [1999 Baseline]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Exposure duration
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
        1999 Exposure level  ([mu]g/m\3\)        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Cumulative
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\- cases/ 1000  [mu]g/m\3\-  cases/ 1000  [mu]g/m\3\-  cases/ 1000  [mu]g/m\3\-  cases/ 1000
                                                      yrs)                      yrs                       yrs                       yrs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0.............................................         10.0          8.4         20.0         11.5         40.0         21.3         90.0         96.3
                                                                  6.2-11.6                  6.2-21.7                  6.2-74.4                 6.2-835.4
1.0.............................................          5.0          7.2         10.0          8.4         20.0         11.5         45.0         24.8
                                                                   6.2-8.5                  6.2-11.6                  6.2-21.7                 6.2-100.5
0.5.............................................          2.5          6.7          5.0          7.2         10.0          8.4         22.5         12.4
                                                                   6.2-7.3                   6.2-8.5                  6.2-11.6                  6.2-25.3
0.2.............................................          1.0          6.4          2.0          6.6          4.0          7.0          9.0          8.2
                                                                   6.2-6.6                   6.2-7.0                   6.2-8.0                  6.2-10.9
0.1.............................................          0.5          6.3          1.0          6.4          2.0          6.6          4.5          7.1
                                                                   6.2-6.4                   6.2-6.6                   6.2-7.0                   6.2-8.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table VI-18a--Predicted Number of Cases of CBD per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternative PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                            Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient
                                                                     [1995 baseline]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Exposure duration
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
        1995 Exposure level  ([mu]g/m\3\)        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Cumulative   Estimated                 Estimated                 Estimated                 Estimated
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\-  cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000
                                                      yrs)       95% c.i.       yrs        95% c.i.       yrs        95% c.i.       yrs        95% c.i.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  ...........         30.9  ...........         41.9  ...........         76.6  ...........        312.9
2.0.............................................         10.0    22.8-44.0         20.0    22.8-84.3         40.0   22.8-285.5         90.0   22.8-999.9
                                                  ...........         26.6  ...........         30.9  ...........         41.9  ...........         88.8
1.0.............................................          5.0    22.8-31.7         10.0    22.8-44.0         20.0    22.8-84.3         45.0   22.8-375.0
                                                  ...........         24.6  ...........         26.6  ...........         30.9  ...........         45.2
0.5.............................................          2.5    22.8-26.9          5.0    22.8-31.7         10.0    22.8-44.0         22.5    22.8-98.9
                                                  ...........         23.5  ...........         24.2  ...........         25.8  ...........         30.0
0.2.............................................          1.0    22.8-24.3          2.0    22.8-26.0          4.0    22.8-29.7          9.0    22.8-41.3
                                                  ...........         23.1  ...........         23.5  ...........         24.2  ...........         26.2
0.1.............................................          0.5    22.8-23.6          1.0    22.8-24.3          2.0    22.8-26.0          4.5    22.8-30.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47641]]


 Table VI-18b--Predicted Number of Cases of CBD per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternative PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                            Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient
                                                                     [2002 baseline]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Exposure duration
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
        2002 Exposure level  ([mu]g/m\3\)        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Cumulative   Estimated                 Estimated                 Estimated                 Estimated
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\-  cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000
                                                      yrs)       95% c.i.       yrs        95% c.i.       yrs        95% c.i.       yrs        95% c.i.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  ...........          3.7  ...........          5.1  ...........          9.4  ...........         43.6
2.0.............................................         10.0      2.7-5.3         20.0     2.7-10.4         40.0     2.7-39.2         90.0    2.7-679.8
                                                  ...........          3.2  ...........          3.7  ...........          5.1  ...........         11.0
1.0.............................................          5.0      2.7-3.8         10.0      2.7-5.3         20.0     2.7-10.4         45.0     2.7-54.3
                                                  ...........          3.0  ...........          3.2  ...........          3.7  ...........          5.5
0.5.............................................          2.5      2.7-3.2          5.0      2.7-3.8         10.0      2.7-5.3         22.5     2.7-12.3
                                                  ...........          2.8  ...........          2.9  ...........          3.1  ...........          3.6
0.2.............................................          1.0      2.7-2.9          2.0      2.7-3.1          4.0      2.7-3.6          9.0      2.7-5.0
                                                  ...........          2.8  ...........          2.8  ...........          2.9  ...........          3.1
0.1.............................................          0.5      2.7-2.8          1.0      2.7-2.9          2.0      2.7-3.1          4.5      2.7-3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statistical modeling analysis predicts high risk of both 
sensitization (96-394 cases per 1000, or 9.6-39.4 percent) and CBD (44-
313 cases per 1000, or 4.4-31.3 percent) at the current PEL of 2 [mu]g/
m\3\ for an exposure duration of 45 years (90 [mu]g/m\3\-yr). The 
predicted risks of < 8.2-39.9 per 1000 (0.8-3.9 percent) cases of 
sensitization or 3.6 to 30.0 per 1000 (0.4-3 percent) cases of CBD are 
substantially less for a 45-year exposure at the proposed PEL, 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ (9 [mu]g/m\3\-yr).
    The model estimates are not directly comparable to prevalence 
values discussed in previous sections. They assume a group without 
turnover and are based on a comparison of unexposed and hypothetically 
exposed workers at specific points in time, whereas the prevalence 
analysis simply reports the percentage of workers at the Cullman plant 
with sensitization or CBD in each exposure category. Despite the 
difficulty of direct comparison, the level of risk seen in the 
prevalence analysis and predicted in the modeling analysis appear 
roughly similar at low exposures. In the second quartile of cumulative 
exposure (0.148-1.467 [mu]g/m\3\-yr), prevalence of sensitization and 
CBD was 2.5 percent. This is roughly congruent with the model 
predictions for workers with cumulative exposures between 0.5 and 1 
[mu]g/m\3\-yr: 6.3-31.3 cases of sensitization per 1000 workers (0.6-
3.1 percent) and 2.8 to 23.5 cases of CBD per 1000 workers (0.28-2.4 
percent). As discussed in the background document for this analysis, 
most workers in the data set had low cumulative exposures (roughly half 
below 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\-years). It is difficult to make any statement 
about the results at higher levels, because there were few workers with 
high exposure levels and the higher quartiles of cumulative exposure 
include an extremely wide range of exposures. For example, the highest 
quartile of cumulative exposure was 7.009-61.86 [mu]g/m\3\-yr. This 
quartile, which showed an 11.3 percent prevalence of sensitization and 
8.8 percent prevalence of CBD, includes the cumulative exposure that a 
worker exposed for 45 years at the proposed PEL would experience (9 
[mu]g/m\3\-yr) near its lower bound. Its upper bound approaches the 
cumulative exposure that a worker exposed for 45 years at the current 
PEL would experience (90 [mu]g/m\3\-yr).
    Due to limitations including the size of the dataset, relatively 
limited exposure data from the plant's early years, study size-related 
constraints on the statistical analysis of the dataset, and limited 
follow-up time on many workers, OSHA must interpret the model-based 
risk estimates presented in Tables VI-17 and VI-18 with caution. The 
Cullman study population is a relatively small group and can support 
only limited statistical analysis. For example, its size precludes 
inclusion of multiple covariates in the exposure-response models or a 
two-stage exposure-response analysis to model both sensitization and 
the subsequent development of CBD within the subpopulation of 
sensitized workers. The limited size of the Cullman dataset is 
characteristic of studies on beryllium-exposed workers in modern, low-
exposure environments, which are typically small-scale processing 
plants (up to several hundred workers, up to 20-30 cases). However, 
these recent studies also have important strengths: They include 
workers hired after the institution of stringent exposure controls, and 
have extensive exposure sampling using full-shift personal lapel 
samples. In contrast, older studies of larger populations tend to have 
higher exposures, less exposure data, and exposure data collected in 
short-term samples or outside of workers' breathing zones.
    Another limitation of the Cullman dataset, which is common to 
recent low-exposure studies, is the short follow-up time available for 
many of the workers. While in some cases CBD has been known to develop 
in short periods (< 2 years), it more typically develops over a longer 
time period. Sensitization occurs in a typically shorter time frame, 
but new cases of sensitization have been observed in workers exposed to 
beryllium for many years. Because the data set is limited to 
individuals then working at the plant, the Cullman data set cannot 
capture CBD occurring among workers who retire or leave the plant. OSHA 
expects that the dataset does not fully represent the risk of 
sensitization, and is likely to particularly under-represent CBD among 
workers exposed to beryllium at this facility. The Agency believes the 
short follow-up time to be a significant source of uncertainty in the 
statistical analysis, a factor likely to lead to underestimation of 
risk in this population.
    A common source of uncertainty in quantitative risk assessment is 
the series of choices made in the course of statistical analysis, such 
as model type, inclusion or exclusion of additional explanatory 
variables, and the assumption of linearity in exposure-response. 
Sensitivity analyses and statistical checks were conducted to test the 
validity of the choices and

[[Page 47642]]

assumptions in the exposure-response analysis and the impact of 
alternative choices on the end results. These analyses did not yield 
substantially different results, adding to OSHA's confidence in the 
conclusions of its preliminary risk assessment.
    OSHA's contractor examined whether smoking and age were confounders 
in the exposure-response analysis by adding them as variables in the 
discrete proportional hazards model. Neither smoking status nor age was 
a statistically significant predictor of sensitization or CBD. The 
model coefficients, 95 percent confidence intervals, and p values can 
be found in the background document. A sensitivity analysis was done 
using the standard Cox model that treats survival time as continuous 
rather than discrete. The model coefficients with the standard Cox 
using cumulative exposure were 0.025 and very similar to the 0.03 
reported in Tables VI-9 and VI-13 above. The interaction between 
exposure and follow-up time was not significant in these models, 
suggesting that the proportional hazard assumption should not be 
rejected. The proportional hazards model assumes a linear relationship 
between exposure level and relative risk. The linearity assumption was 
assessed using a fractional polynomial approach. For both sensitization 
and CBD, the best-fitting fractional polynomial model did not fit 
significantly better than the linear model. This result supports OSHA's 
use of the linear model to estimate risk. The details of these 
statistical analyses can be found in the background document.
    The possibility that the number of times a worker has been tested 
for sensitization might influence the probability of a positive test 
was examined (surveillance bias). Surveillance bias could occur if 
workers were tested because they showed some sign of disease, and not 
tested otherwise. It is also possible that the original analysis 
included erroneous assumptions about the dates of testing for 
sensitization and CBD. OSHA's contractor performed a sensitivity 
analysis, modifying the original analysis to gauge the effect of 
different assumptions about testing dates. In the sensitivity analysis, 
the exposure coefficients increased for all four indices of exposure 
when the sensitization analysis was restricted to times when cohort 
members were assumed to be tested. The exposure coefficient was 
statistically significant for duration of exposure but not for 
cumulative, LTW average, or HEJ exposure. The increase in exposure 
coefficients suggests that the original models may have underestimated 
the exposure-response relationship for sensitization and CBD.
    Errors in exposure measurement are a common source of uncertainty 
in quantitative risk assessments. Because errors in high exposures can 
heavily influence modeling results, OSHA's contractor performed 
sensitivity analyses excluding the highest 5 percent of cumulative 
exposures (those above 25.265 [mu]g/m\3\-yrs) and the highest 10 
percent of cumulative exposures (those above 18.723 [mu]g/m\3\-yrs). As 
discussed in more detail in the background document, exposure 
coefficients were not statistically significant when these exposures 
were dropped. This is not surprising, given that the exclusion of high 
exposure values reduced the size of the data set. Prior to excluding 
high exposure values, the data set was already relatively small and 
many of the exposure coefficients were non-significant or weakly 
significant in the original analyses. As a result, the sensitivity 
analyses did not provide much information about uncertainty due to 
exposure measurement error and its effects on the modeling analysis.
    Particle size, particle surface area, and beryllium compound 
solubility are believed to be important factors influencing the risk of 
sensitization and CBD among beryllium-exposed workers. The workers at 
the Cullman machining plant were primarily handling insoluble beryllium 
compounds, such as beryllium metal and beryllium metal/beryllium oxide 
composites. Particle size distributions from a limited number of 
airborne beryllium samples collected just after the 1996 installation 
of engineering controls indicate worker exposure to a substantial 
proportion of respirable particulates. There was no available particle 
size data for the 1980 to 1995 period prior to installation of 
engineering controls when total beryllium mass exposure levels were 
greatest. Particle size data was also lacking from 1998 to 2003 when 
additional control measures were in place and total beryllium mass 
exposures were lowest. For these reasons, OSHA was not able to 
quantitatively account for the influence of particle size and 
solubility in developing the risk estimates based on the Cullman data 
set. However, it is not unreasonable to expect the CBD experienced by 
this cohort to generally reflect the risk from exposure to beryllium 
that is relatively insoluble and enriched with respirable particles. As 
explained previously, the role of particle size and surface area on 
risk of sensitization is more difficult to predict.
    Additional uncertainty is introduced when extrapolating the 
quantitative estimates presented above to operations that process 
beryllium compounds that have different solubility and particle 
characteristics than those encountered at the Cullman machining plant. 
OSHA does not have sufficient information to quantitatively assess the 
degree to which risks of beryllium sensitization and CBD based on the 
NJMRC data may be impacted in workplaces where such beryllium forms and 
processes are used. However, OSHA does not expect this uncertainty to 
alter its qualitative conclusions with regard to the risk at the 
current PEL and at alternate PELs as low as 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. The 
existing studies provide clear evidence of sensitization and CBD risk 
among workers exposed to a number of beryllium forms as a result of 
different processes such as beryllium machining, beryllium-copper alloy 
production, and beryllium ceramics production. The Agency believes all 
of these forms of beryllium exposure contribute to the overall risk of 
sensitization and CBD among beryllium-exposed workers.

G. Lung Cancer

    OSHA considers lung cancer to be an important health endpoint for 
beryllium-exposed workers. The International Agency for Research on 
Cancer (IARC), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have all 
classified beryllium as a known human carcinogen. The National Academy 
of Sciences (NAS), Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the National Institute 
of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and other reputable 
scientific organizations have reviewed the scientific evidence 
demonstrating that beryllium is associated with an increased incidence 
of cancer. OSHA also has performed an extensive review of the 
scientific literature regarding beryllium and cancer. This includes an 
evaluation of human epidemiological, animal cancer, and mechanistic 
studies described in the Health Effects section of this preamble. Based 
on the weight of evidence, the Agency has preliminarily determined 
beryllium to be an occupational carcinogen.
    Although epidemiological and animal evidence supports a conclusion 
of beryllium carcinogenicity, there is considerable uncertainty 
surrounding the mechanism of carcinogenesis for beryllium. The evidence 
for direct genotoxicity of beryllium and its compounds has been limited 
and

[[Page 47643]]

inconsistent (NAS, 2008; IARC, 1993; EPA, 1998; NTP, 2002; ATSDR, 
2002). One plausible pathway for beryllium carcinogenicity described in 
the Health Effects section of this preamble includes a chronic, 
sustained neutrophilic inflammatory response that induces epigenetic 
alterations leading to the neoplastic changes necessary for 
carcinogenesis. The National Cancer Institute estimates that nearly 
one-third of all cancers are caused by chronic inflammation (NCI, 
2009). This mechanism of action has also been hypothesized for 
crystalline silica and other agents that are known to be human 
carcinogens but have limited evidence of genotoxicity.
    OSHA's review of epidemiological studies of lung cancer mortality 
among beryllium workers found that most did not characterize exposure 
levels sufficiently for exposure-response analysis. However, one NIOSH 
study evaluated the association between beryllium exposure and lung 
cancer mortality based on data from a beryllium processing plant in 
Reading, PA (Sanderson et al., 2001a). As discussed in the Health 
Effects section of this preamble, this case-control study evaluated 
lung cancer incidence in a cohort of workers employed at the plant from 
1940 to 1969 and followed through 1992. For each lung cancer victim, 5 
age- and race-matched controls were selected by incidence density 
sampling, for a total of 142 lung cancer cases and 710 controls.
    Between 1971 and 1992, the plant collected close to 7,000 high 
volume filter samples consisting of both general area and short-term, 
task-based breathing zone measurements for production jobs and 
exclusively area measurements for office, lunch, and laboratory areas 
(Sanderson et al., 2001b). In addition, a few (< 200) impinger and 
high-volume filter samples were collected by other organizations 
between 1947 and 1961, and about 200 6-to-8-hour personal samples were 
collected in 1972 and 1975. Daily-weighted-average (DWA) exposure 
calculations based on the impinger and high-volume samples collected 
prior to the 1960s showed that exposures in this period were extremely 
high. For example, about half of production jobs had estimated DWAs 
ranging between 49 and 131 [mu]g/m\3\ in the period 1935-1960, and many 
of the ``lower-exposed'' jobs had DWAs of approximately 20-30 [mu]g/
m\3\ (Table II, Sanderson et al., 2001b). Exposures were reported to 
have decreased between 1959 and 1962 with the installation of 
ventilation controls and improved housekeeping and following the 
passage of the OSH Act in 1970. While no exposure measurements were 
available from the period 1961-1970, measurements from the period 1971-
1980 showed a dramatic reduction in exposures plant-wide. Estimated 
DWAs for all jobs in this period ranged from 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ to 1.9 
[mu]g/m\3\. Calendar-time-specific beryllium exposure estimates were 
made for every job based on the DWA calculations and were used to 
estimate workers' cumulative, average, and maximum exposures. Exposure 
estimates were lagged by 10 and 20 years in order to account for 
exposures that did not contribute to lung cancer because they occurred 
after the induction of cancer.
    Results of a conditional logistic regression analysis showed an 
increased risk of lung cancer in workers with higher exposures when 
dose estimates were lagged by 10 and 20 years (Sanderson et al., 
2001a). The authors noted that there was considerable uncertainty in 
the estimation of exposure in the 1940s and 1950s and the shape of the 
dose-response curve for lung cancer. NIOSH later reanalyzed the data, 
adjusting for potential confounders of hire age and birth year 
(Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2008). The study reported a significant 
increasing trend (p<0.05) in the odds ratio when increasing quartiles 
of average (log transformed) exposure were lagged by 10 years. However, 
it did not find a significant trend when quartiles of cumulative (log 
transformed) exposure were lagged by 0, 10, or 20 years.
    OSHA is interested in lung cancer risk estimates from a 45-year 
(i.e., working lifetime) exposure to beryllium levels between 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ and 2 [mu]g/m\3\. The majority of case and control workers 
in the Sanderson et al. case-control analysis were first hired during 
the 1940s when exposures were extremely high (estimated DWAs > 20 
[mu]g/m\3\ for most jobs). The cumulative, average, and maximum 
beryllium exposure concentration estimates for the 142 known lung 
cancer cases were: 46.06  9.3[mu]g/m\3\-days, 22.8  3.4 [mu]g/m\3\, and 32.4  13.8 [mu]g/m\3\, 
respectively. About two-thirds of cases and half of controls worked at 
the plant for less than a year. Thus, a risk assessment based on this 
exposure-response analysis would need to extrapolate from very high to 
very low exposures, based on a working population with extremely short 
tenure. While OSHA risk assessments must often make extrapolations to 
estimate risk within the range of exposures of interest, the Agency 
acknowledges that these issues of short tenure and extremely high 
exposures would create substantial uncertainty in a risk assessment 
based on this study population.
    In addition, the relatively high exposures of even the least-
exposed workers in the NIOSH study may create methodological issues for 
the lung cancer case-control study design. Mortality risk is expressed 
as an odds ratio that compares higher exposure quartiles to the lowest 
quartile. It is preferable that excess risks attributable to 
occupational beryllium be determined relative to an unexposed or 
minimally exposed reference population. However, in the NIOSH study 
workers in the lowest quartile were exposed well above the OSHA PEL 
(average exposure <11.2 [mu]g/m\3\) and may have had a significant lung 
cancer risk. This issue would introduce further uncertainty in lung 
cancer risks estimated from this epidemiological study.
    In 2010, researchers at NIOSH published a quantitative risk 
assessment based on an update of the Reading cohort analyzed by 
Sanderson et al., as well as workers from two smaller plants 
(Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2010b). This new risk assessment addresses 
several of OSHA's concerns regarding the Sanderson et al. analysis. The 
new cohort was exposed, on average, to lower levels of beryllium and 
had fewer short-term workers. Finally, the updated cohorts followed the 
populations through 2005, increasing the length of follow-up time 
overall by an additional 17 years of observation. For these reasons, 
OSHA considers the Schubauer-Berigan risk analysis more appropriate 
than the Sanderson et al. analysis for its preliminary risk assessment.
    The cohort studied by Schubauer-Berigan et al. included 5,436 male 
workers who had worked for at least two days at the Reading facility 
and beryllium processing plants at Hazleton PA and Elmore OH prior to 
1970. The authors developed job-exposure matrices (JEMs) for the three 
plants based on extensive historical exposure data, primarily short-
term general area and personal breathing zone samples, collected on a 
quarterly basis from a wide variety of operations. These samples were 
used to create daily weighted average (DWA) estimates of workers' full-
shift exposures, using records of the nature and duration of tasks 
performed by workers during a shift. Details on the JEM and DWA 
construction can be found in Sanderson et al. (2001a), Chen et al. 
(2001), and Couch et al. (2010).
    Workers' cumulative exposures ([mu]g/m\3\-days) were estimated by 
summing daily average exposures (assuming five

[[Page 47644]]

workdays per week). To estimate mean exposure ([mu]g/m\3\), cumulative 
exposure was divided by exposure time (in days). Maximum exposure 
([mu]g/m\3\) was estimated as the highest annual DWA on record for a 
worker prior to the study cutoff date of December 31, 2005 and 
accounting where appropriate for lag time. Exposure estimates were 
lagged by 5, 10, 15, and 20 years in order to account for exposures 
that may not have contributed to lung cancer because of the long 
latency required for manifestation of the disease. The authors also fit 
models with no lag time. As shown in Table VI-19 below, estimated 
exposure levels for workers from the Hazleton and Elmore plants were on 
average far lower than those for workers from the Reading plant. The 
median worker from Hazleton had a mean exposure across his tenure of 
less than 2 [micro]g/m\3\, while the median worker from Elmore had a 
mean exposure of less than 1 [micro]g/m\3\. The Elmore and Hazleton 
worker populations also had fewer short-term workers than the Reading 
population. This was particularly evident at Hazleton where the median 
value for cumulative exposure among cases was higher than at Reading 
despite the much lower mean and maximum exposure levels.

                   Table VI-19--Cohort Description and Distribution of Cases by Exposure Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    All plants     Reading plant  Hazleton plant   Elmore plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of cases...............  ................             293             218              30              45
Number of non-cases...........  ................            5143            3337             583            1223
Median value for mean exposure  No lag..........           15.42              25           1.443           0.885
([micro]g/m\3\) among cases...  10-year lag.....           15.15              25           1.443           0.972
Median value for cumulative     No lag..........            2843            2895            3968            1654
 exposure.
([micro]g/m\3\-days) among      10-year lag.....            2583            2832            3648            1449
 cases.
Median value for maximum        No lag..........              25            25.1            3.15            2.17
 exposure.
([micro]g/m\3\) among cases...  10-year lag.....              25              25            3.15            2.17
Number of cases with potential  ................       100 (34%)        68 (31%)        16 (53%)        16 (36%)
 asbestos exposure.
Number of cases who were        ................         26 (9%)        21 (10%)         3 (10%)          2 (4%)
 professional workers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table adapted from Schubauer-Berigan et al. 2011, Table 1.

    Schubauer-Berigan et al. analyzed the data set using a variety of 
exposure-response modeling approaches, including categorical analyses 
and continuous-variable piecewise log-linear and power models, 
described in Schubauer-Berigan et al. (2011). All models adjusted for 
birth cohort and plant. As exposure values were log-transformed for the 
power model analyses, the authors added small values to exposures of 0 
in lagged analyses (0.05 [micro]g/m\3\ for mean and maximum exposure, 
0.05 [micro]g/m\3\-days for cumulative exposure). The authors used 
restricted cubic spline models to assess the shape of the exposure-
response curve and suggest appropriate parametric model forms. The 
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value was used to evaluate the fit 
of different model forms and lag times.
    Because smoking information was available for only about 25 percent 
of the cohort, smoking could not be controlled for directly in the 
models. The authors reported that within the subset with smoking 
information, there was little difference in smoking by cumulative or 
maximum exposure category (p. 6), suggesting that smoking was unlikely 
to act as a confounder in the cohort. In addition to models based on 
the full cohort, Schubauer-Berigan et al. also prepared risk estimates 
based on models excluding professional workers and workers believed to 
have asbestos exposure. These models were intended to mitigate the 
potential impact of smoking and asbestos as confounders. If 
professional workers had both lower beryllium exposures and lower 
smoking rates than production workers, smoking could be a confounder in 
the cohort comprising both production and professional workers. 
However, the authors reasoned that smoking was unlikely to be 
correlated with beryllium exposure among production workers, and would 
therefore probably not act as a confounder in a cohort excluding 
professional workers.
    The authors found that lung cancer risk was strongly and 
significantly related to mean, cumulative, and maximum measures of 
workers' exposure (all models reported in Schubauer-Berigan et al., 
2011). They selected the best-fitting categorical, power, and monotonic 
piecewise log-linear (PWL) models with a 10-year lag to generate hazard 
ratios for male workers with a mean exposure of 0.5 [micro]g/m\3\ (the 
current NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit for beryllium).\9\ To estimate 
excess lifetime risk of cancer, they multiplied this hazard ratio by 
the 2004-2006 background lifetime lung cancer rate among U.S. males who 
had survived, cancer-free, to age 30. In addition, they estimated the 
mean exposure that would be associated with an excess lifetime risk of 
one in 1000, a value often used as a benchmark for significant risk in 
OSHA regulations. At OSHA's request, they also estimated excess 
lifetime risks for workers with mean exposures at the current PEL of 2 
[mu]g/m\3\ each of the other alternate PELs under consideration: 1 
[mu]g/m\3\, 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (Schubauer-Berigan, 4/
22/11). The resulting risk estimates are presented in Table VI-20 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Here, ``monotonic PWL model'' means a model producing a 
monotonic exposure-response curve in the 0-2 ug/m\3\ region.

[[Page 47645]]



                         Table VI-20--Excess Lifetime Risk per 1000 [95% Confidence Interval] for Male Workers at Alternate PELs
                                                                     [NIOSH models]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Mean exposure
                 Exposure-response model                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           0.1 [micro]g/m\3\  0.2 [micro]g/m\3\  0.5 [micro]g/m\3\   1 [micro]g/m\3\    2 [micro]g/m\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best monotonic PWL--all workers..........................        7.3[2.0-13]         15[3.3-29]           45[9-98]        120[20-340]        200[29-370]
Best monotonic PWL--excluding professional and asbestos           3.1[<0-11]         6.4[<0-23]          17[<0-74]         39[39-230]         61[<0-280]
 workers.................................................
Best categorical--all workers............................         4.4[1.3-8]          9[2.7-17]           25[6-48]         59[13-130]        170[29-530]
Best categorical--excluding professional and asbestos            1.4[<0-6.0]         2.7[<0-12]         7.1[<0-35]          15[<0-87]         33[<0-290]
 workers.................................................
Power model--all workers.................................           12[6-19]         19[9.3-29]          30[15-48]          40[19-66]          52[23-88]
Power model--excluding professional and asbestos workers.         19[8.6-31]          30[13-50]          49[21-87]         68[27-130]         90[34-180]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Schubauer-Berigan et al. discuss several strengths, weaknesses, and 
uncertainties of their analysis. Strengths include long (> 30 years) 
follow-up time for members of the cohort and the extensive exposure and 
work history data available for the development of exposure estimates 
for workers in the cohort. Among the weaknesses and uncertainties of 
the study are the limited information available on workers' smoking 
habits: smoking information was available only for workers employed in 
1968, about 25 percent of the cohort. In addition, the JEMs used did 
not account for possible respirator use among workers in the cohort. 
The authors note that workers' exposures may therefore have been 
overestimated, and that overestimation may have been especially severe 
for workers with high estimated exposures. They suggest that 
overestimation of exposures for workers in highly exposed positions may 
have caused attenuation of the exposure-response curve in some models 
at higher exposures.
    The NIOSH publication did not discuss the reasons for basing risk 
estimates on mean exposure rather than cumulative exposure that is more 
commonly used for lung cancer risk analysis. OSHA believes the decision 
may involve the nonmonotonic relationship NIOSH observed between cancer 
risk and cumulative exposure level. As discussed previously, workers 
from the Reading plant frequently had very short tenures and high 
exposures yielding lower cumulative exposures compared to cohort 
workers from other plants with longer employment. Despite the low 
estimated cumulative exposures among the short-term Reading workers, 
they may be at high risk of lung cancer due to the tendency of 
beryllium to persist in the lung for long periods. This exposure 
misclassification could lead to the appearance of a nonmonotonic 
relationship between cumulative exposure and lung cancer risk. It is 
possible that a dose-rate effect may exist for beryllium, such that the 
risk from a cumulative exposure gained by long-term, low-level exposure 
is not equivalent to the risk from a cumulative exposure gained by very 
short-term, high-level exposure. In this case, mean exposure level may 
better correlate with the risk of lung cancer than cumulative exposure 
level. For these reasons OSHA considers the NIOSH choice of mean 
exposure metric to be appropriate and scientifically defensible for 
this particular dataset.

H. Preliminary Conclusions

    As described above, OSHA's risk assessment for beryllium 
sensitization and CBD relied on two approaches: (1) review of the 
literature and (2) analysis of a dataset provided by NJRMC. First, the 
Agency reviewed the scientific literature to ascertain whether there is 
substantial risk to workers exposed at and below the current PEL and to 
characterize the expected impact of more stringent controls on workers' 
risk of sensitization and CBD. This review focused on facilities where 
exposures were primarily below the current PEL, and where several 
rounds of BeLPT and CBD screening had been conducted to evaluate the 
effectiveness of various exposure control measures. Second, OSHA 
investigated the exposure-response relationship for beryllium 
sensitization and CBD by analyzing a dataset that NJMRC provided on 
workers at a prominent, long-established beryllium machining facility. 
Although exposure-response studies have been published on sensitization 
and CBD, OSHA believes the nature and quality of their exposure data 
significantly limits their value for the Agency's risk assessment. 
Therefore, OSHA developed an independent exposure-response analysis 
using the NJMRC dataset, which was recently updated, includes workers 
exposed at low levels, and includes extensive exposure data collected 
in workers' breathing zones, as is preferred by OSHA.
    OSHA's review of the scientific literature found substantial risk 
of both sensitization and CBD in workplaces in compliance with OSHA's 
current PEL (e.g., Kreiss et al., 1992; Schuler et al., 2000; Madl et 
al., 2007). At these plants, including a copper-beryllium processing 
facility, a beryllia ceramics facility, and a beryllium machining 
facility, exposure reduction programs that primarily used engineering 
controls to reduce airborne exposures to median levels at or around 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ had only limited impact on workers' risk. Cases of 
sensitization continued to occur frequently among newly hired workers, 
and some of these workers developed CBD within the short follow-up 
time.
    In contrast, industrial hygiene programs that minimized both 
airborne and dermal exposure substantially lowered workers' risk of 
sensitization in the first years of employment. Programs that 
drastically reduced respiratory exposure via a combination of 
engineering controls and respiratory protection, minimized the 
potential for skin exposure via dermal PPE, and employed stringent 
housekeeping methods to keep work areas clean and prevent transfer of 
beryllium between areas sharply curtailed new cases of sensitization 
among newly-hired workers. For example, studies conducted at copper-
beryllium processing, beryllium production, and beryllia ceramics 
facilities show that reduction of exposures to below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and 
protection from dermal exposure, in combination, achieved a substantial 
reduction in sensitization risk among newly-hired workers. However, 
even these stringent measures did not protect all workers from 
sensitization.

[[Page 47646]]

    The most recent epidemiological literature on programs that have 
been successful in reducing workers' risk of sensitization have had 
very short follow-up time; therefore, they cannot address the question 
of how frequently workers sensitized in very low-exposure environments 
develop CBD. Clinical evaluation for CBD was not reported for workers 
at the copper-beryllium processing, beryllium production, and ceramics 
facilities. However, cases of CBD among workers exposed at low levels 
at a machining plant and cases of CA-CBD demonstrate that individuals 
exposed to low levels of airborne beryllium can develop CBD, and over 
time, can progress to severe disease. This conclusion is also supported 
by case reports within the literature of workers with CBD who may have 
been minimally exposed to beryllium, such as a worker employed only in 
administration at a beryllium ceramics facility (Kreiss et al., 1996).
    The Agency's analysis of the Cullman dataset provided by NJMRC 
showed strong exposure-response trends using multiple analytical 
approaches, including examination of sensitization and disease 
prevalence by exposure categories and a proportional hazards modeling 
approach. In the prevalence analysis, cases of sensitization and 
disease were evident at all levels of exposure. The lowest prevalence 
of sensitization (2.0 percent) and CBD (1.0 percent) was observed among 
workers with LTW average exposure levels below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, while 
those with LTW average exposure between 0.1-0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ showed a 
marked increase in overall prevalence of sensitization (9.8 percent) 
and CBD (7.3 percent). Prevalence of sensitization and CBD also 
increased with cumulative exposure.
    OSHA's proportional hazards analysis of the Cullman dataset found 
increasing risk of sensitization with both cumulative exposure and 
average exposure. OSHA also found a positive relationship between risk 
of CBD and cumulative exposure, but not between CBD and average 
exposure. The Agency used the cumulative exposure model results to 
estimate hazards ratios and risk of sensitization and CBD at the 
current PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ and each of the alternate PELs under 
consideration: 1 [mu]g/m\3\, 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\. To estimate risk of CBD from a working lifetime of 
exposure, the Agency calculated the cumulative exposure associated with 
45 years of exposure at each level, for total cumulative exposures of 
90, 45, 22.5, 9, and 4.5 [mu]g/m\3\-years. The risk estimates for 
sensitization and CBD ranged from 100-403 and 40-290 cases, 
respectively, per 1000 workers exposed at the current PEL of 2 [mu]g/
m\3\. The risks are projected to be substantially lower for both 
sensitization and CBD at 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and range from 7.2-35 cases per 
1000 and 3.1-26 cases per 1000, respectively. In these ways, the 
modeling results are similar to results observed from published studies 
of the Reading, Tucson, and Cullman plants and the OSHA analysis of 
sensitization and CBD prevalence within the Cullman plant.
    OSHA has a high level of confidence in the finding of substantial 
risk of sensitization and CBD at the current PEL, and the Agency 
believes that a standard requiring a combination of more stringent 
controls on beryllium exposure will reduce workers' risk of both 
sensitization and CBD. Programs that have reduced median levels to 
below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, tightly controlled both respiratory and dermal 
exposure, and incorporated stringent housekeeping measures have 
substantially reduced risk of sensitization within the first years of 
exposure. These conclusions are supported by the results of several 
studies conducted in state-of-the-art facilities dealing with a variety 
of production activities and physical forms of beryllium. In addition, 
these conclusions are supported by OSHA's statistical analysis of a 
dataset with highly detailed exposure and work history information on 
several hundred beryllium workers. While there is uncertainty regarding 
the precision of model-derived risk estimates, they provide further 
evidence that there is substantial risk of sensitization and CBD 
associated with exposure at the current PEL, and that this risk can be 
substantially lessened by stringent measures to reduce workers' 
beryllium exposure levels.
    Furthermore, OSHA believes that beryllium-exposed workers' risk of 
lung cancer will be reduced by more stringent control of airborne 
beryllium exposures. The risk estimates from NIOSH's recent lung cancer 
study, described above, range from 33 to 140 excess lung cancers per 
1000 workers exposed at the current PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\. The NIOSH risk 
assessment's six best-fitting models each predict substantial 
reductions in risk with reduced exposure, ranging from 3 to 19 excess 
lung cancers per 1000 workers exposed at the proposed PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\. The evidence of lung cancer risk from NIOSH's risk assessment 
provides additional support for OSHA's preliminary conclusions 
regarding the significance of risk to workers exposed to beryllium 
levels at and below the current PEL. However, the lung cancer risks 
require a sizable low dose extrapolation below beryllium exposure 
levels experienced by workers in the NIOSH study. As a result, there is 
a greater uncertainty in the lung cancer risk estimates and lesser 
confidence in their significance of risk below the current PEL than 
with beryllium sensitization and CBD. The preliminary conclusions with 
regard to significance of risk are presented and further discussed in 
section VIII of the preamble.

VII. Expert Peer Review of Health Effects and Preliminary Risk 
Assessment

    In 2010, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), under contract to the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ,\10\ conducted an 
independent, scientific peer review of (1) a draft Preliminary 
Beryllium Health Effects Evaluation (OSHA, 2010a), (2) a draft 
Preliminary Beryllium Risk Assessment (OSHA, 2010b), and (3) two NIOSH 
study manuscripts (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2011 and 2011a). This 
section of the preamble describes the review process and summarizes 
peer reviewers' comments and OSHA's responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Task Order No. DOLQ59622303, Contract No. GS10F0125P, with 
a period of performance from May, 2010 through December, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERG conducted a search for nationally recognized experts in the 
areas of occupational epidemiology, occupational medicine, toxicology, 
immunology, industrial hygiene/exposure assessment, and risk 
assessment/biostatistics as requested by OSHA. ERG sought experts 
familiar with beryllium health effects research and who had no conflict 
of interest (COI) or apparent bias in performing the review. Interested 
candidates submitted evidence of their qualifications and responded to 
detailed COI questions. ERG also searched the Internet to determine 
whether qualified candidates had made public statements or declared a 
particular bias regarding beryllium regulation.
    From the pool of qualified candidates, ERG selected five experts to 
conduct the review, based on:
    [cir] Their qualifications, including their degrees, years of 
relevant experience, number of related peer-reviewed publications, 
experience serving as a peer reviewer for OSHA or other government 
organizations, and committee and association memberships related to the 
review topic;
    [cir] Lack of any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of 
interest; and
    [cir] The need to ensure that the panel collectively was 
sufficiently broad and

[[Page 47647]]

diverse to fairly represent the relevant scientific and technical 
perspectives and fields of knowledge appropriate to the review.
    OSHA reviewed the qualifications of the candidates proposed by ERG 
to verify that they collectively represented the technical areas of 
interest. ERG then contracted the following experts to perform the 
review.

    (1) John Balmes, MD, Professor of Medicine, University of 
California-San Francisco
    Expertise: pulmonary and occupational medicine, CBD, 
occupational lung disease, epidemiology, occupational exposures, 
medical surveillance.
    (2) Patrick Breysse, Ph.D., Professor, Johns Hopkins University 
Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Expertise: industrial hygiene, occupational/environmental health 
engineering, exposure monitoring/analysis, biomarkers, beryllium 
exposure assessment
    (3) Terry Gordon, Ph.D., Professor, New York University School 
of Medicine.
    Expertise: inhalation toxicology, pulmonary disease, beryllium 
toxicity and carcinogenicity, CBD genetic susceptibility, mode of 
action, animal models.
    (4) Milton Rossman, MD, Professor of Medicine, Hospital of the 
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
    Expertise: pulmonary and clinical medicine, immunology, 
beryllium sensitization, BeLPT, clinical diagnosis for CBD.
    (5) Kyle Steenland, Ph.D., Professor, Emory University, Rollins 
School of Public Health.
    Expertise: occupational epidemiology, biostatistics, risk and 
exposure assessment, lung cancer, CBD, exposure-response models.

    Reviewers were provided with the Technical Charge and Instructions 
(see ERG, 2010), a Request for Peer Review of NIOSH Manuscripts (see 
ERG, 2010), the draft Preliminary OSHA Health Effects Evaluation (OSHA, 
2010a), the draft Preliminary Beryllium Risk Assessment (OSHA, 2010b), 
and access to relevant references. Each reviewer independently provided 
comments on the Health Effects, Risk Assessment, and NIOSH documents. A 
briefing call was held early in the review to ensure that reviewers 
understood the peer review process. ERG organized the call and OSHA 
representatives were available to respond to technical questions of 
clarification. Reviewers were invited to submit any subsequent 
questions of clarification.
    The written comments from each reviewer were received and organized 
by ERG by charge questions. The unedited individual and reorganized 
comments were submitted to OSHA and the reviewers in preparation for a 
follow-up conference call. The conference call, organized and 
facilitated by ERG, provided an opportunity for OSHA to clarify 
individual reviewer's comments. After the call, reviewers were given 
the opportunity to revise their written comments to include the 
clarifications or additional information provided on the call. ERG 
submitted the revised comments to OSHA organized by both individual 
reviewer and by charge question. A final peer review report is 
available in the docket (ERG, 2010). Section VII.A of this preamble 
summarizes the comments received on the draft health effects document 
and OSHA's responses to those comments. Section VII.B summarizes 
comments received on the draft Preliminary Risk Assessment and the OSHA 
response.

A. Peer Review of Draft Health Effects Evaluation

    The Technical Charge to peer reviewers posed general questions on 
the draft health effects document as well as specific questions 
pertaining to particle/chemical properties, kinetics and metabolism, 
acute beryllium disease, development of beryllium sensitization and 
CBD, genetic susceptibility, epidemiological studies of sensitization 
and CBD, animal models of chronic beryllium disease, genotoxicity, lung 
cancer epidemiological studies, animal cancer studies, other health 
effects, and preliminary conclusions drawn by OSHA.
    OSHA asked the peer reviewers to generally comment on whether the 
draft health effects evaluation included the important studies, 
appropriately addressed their strengths and limitations, accurately 
described the results, and drew scientifically sound conclusions. 
Overall, the reviewers felt that the studies were described in 
sufficient detail, the interpretations accurate, and the conclusions 
reasonable. They agreed that the OSHA document covered the significant 
health endpoints related to occupational beryllium exposure. However, 
several reviewers requested that additional studies and other specific 
information be included in various sections of the document and these 
are discussed further below.
    The reviewers had similar suggestions to improve the section V.A of 
this preamble on physical/chemical properties and section V.B on 
kinetics/metabolism. Dr. Balmes requested that physical and chemical 
characteristics of beryllium more clearly relate to development of 
sensitization and progression to CBD. Dr. Gordon requested greater 
consistency in the terminology used to describe particle 
characteristics, sampling methodologies, and the particle deposition in 
the respiratory tract. Dr. Breysse agreed and requested that the 
respiratory deposition discussion be better related to the onset of 
sensitization and CBD. Dr. Rossman suggested that the discussion of 
particle/chemical characteristics might be better placed after section 
V.D on the immunobiology of sensitization and CBD.
    OSHA made a number of revisions to sections V.A and V.B to address 
the peer review comments above. Terminology used to describe particle 
characteristics in various studies was modified to be more consistent 
and better reflect the authors' intent in the published research 
articles. Section V.B.1 on respiratory kinetics of inhaled beryllium 
was modified to more clearly describe particle deposition in the 
different regions of the respiratory tract and their influence on CBD. 
At the recommendation of Dr. Gordon, a confusing figure was removed 
since it did not portray particle deposition in a clear manner. Rather 
than relocate the entire discussion of particle/chemical 
characteristics, a new section V.B.5 was added to specifically address 
the influence of beryllium particle characteristics and chemical form 
on the development of sensitization and CBD. Other section areas were 
shortened to remove information that was not necessarily relevant to 
the overall disease process. Statements were added on the effect of 
pre-existing diseases and smoking on beryllium clearance from the lung. 
It was made clear that the precise role of dermal exposure in beryllium 
sensitization is not completely understood. These smaller changes were 
made at the request of individual reviewers.
    There were a couple of comments from reviewers pertaining to acute 
beryllium disease (ABD). Dr. Rossman commented that ABD did not make 
the development of CBD more likely. He requested that the document 
include a reference to the Van Ordstrand et al. (1943) article that 
first reported ABD in the U.S. Dr. Balmes pointed out that 
pathologists, rather than clinicians, interpret ABD pathology from lung 
tissue biopsy. Dr. Gordon commented that ABD is of lesser importance 
than CBD to the risk assessment and suggested that discussion of ABD be 
moved later in the document.
    The Van Ordstrand reference was included in section V.C on acute 
beryllium diseases and statements were modified to address the peer 
review comments above. While OSHA agrees that ABD does not have a great 
impact on the Agency risk findings, the Agency believes the current 
organization does

[[Page 47648]]

not create confusion on this point and decided not to move the ABD 
section later in the document. A statement that ABD is only relevant at 
exposures higher than the current PEL has been added to section V.C. 
Other reviewers did not feel the ABD discussion needed to be moved to a 
later section.
    Most reviewers found the description of the development and 
pathogenesis of CBD in section V.D to be accurate and understandable. 
Dr. Breysse felt the section could better delineate the steps in 
disease development (e.g., development of beryllium sensitization, CBD 
progression) and recommended the 2008 National Academy of Sciences 
report as a model. He and Dr. Gordon felt the section overemphasized 
the role of apoptosis in CBD development. Dr. Breysse and Dr. Balmes 
recommended avoiding the phrase `subclinical' to describe sensitization 
and asymptomatic CBD, preferring the term `early stage' as a more 
appropriate description. Dr. Balmes requested clarification regarding 
accumulation of inflammatory cells in the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) 
fluid during CBD development. Dr. Rossman suggested some additional 
description of beryllium binding with the HLA-class II receptor and 
subsequent interaction with the na[iuml]ve CD4\+\ T cells in the 
development of sensitization.
    OSHA extensively reorganized section V.D to clearly delineate the 
disease process in a more linear fashion starting with the formation of 
beryllium antigen complex, its interaction with na[iuml]ve T-cells to 
trigger CD4\+\ T-cell proliferation, and development of beryllium 
sensitization. This is presented in section V.D.1. A figure has been 
added that schematically presents this process in its entirety and the 
steps at which dermal exposure and genetic factors are believed to 
influence disease development (Figure 2 in section V.D). Section V.D.2 
describes how subsequent inhalation and the persistent residual 
presence of beryllium in the lung leads to CD4\+\ T cell 
differentiation, cytokine production, accumulation of inflammatory 
cells in the alveolar region, granuloma formation, and progression of 
CBD. The section was modified to present apoptosis as only one of the 
plausible mechanisms for development/progression of CBD. The `early 
stage' terminology was adopted and the role of inflammatory cells in 
BAL was clarified.
    While peer reviewers felt genetic susceptibility was adequately 
characterized, Dr. Rossman, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Breysse suggested that 
additional study data be discussed to provide more depth on the 
subject, particularly the role genetic polymorphisms in providing a 
negatively charged HLA protein binding site for the positively charged 
beryllium ion. Section V.D.3 on genetic susceptibility now includes 
more information on the importance of gene-environment interaction in 
the development of CBD in low-exposed workers. The section expands on 
HLA-DPB1 alleles that influence beryllium-hapten binding and its impact 
on CBD risk.
    All reviewers found the definition of CBD to be clear and 
understandable. However, several reviewers commented on the document 
discussion of the BeLPT which operationally defines beryllium 
sensitization. Drs. Balmes and Rossman requested a more clear statement 
that two abnormal blood BeLPT results were generally necessary to 
confirm sensitization. Dr. Balmes and Dr. Breysse requested more 
discussion of historical changes in the BeLPT method that have led to 
improvement in test performance and reductions in interlaboratory 
variability. These comments were addressed in an expanded document 
section V.D.5.b on criteria for sensitization and CBD case definition 
following development of the BeLPT.
    Reviewers made suggestions to improve presentation of the many 
epidemiological studies of sensitization and CBD in the draft health 
effects document. Dr. Breysse and Dr. Gordon recommended that common 
weaknesses that apply to multiple studies be more rigorously discussed. 
Dr. Gordon requested that the discussion of the Beryllium Case Registry 
be modified to clarify the case inclusion criteria. Most reviewers 
called for the addition of tables to assist in summarizing the 
epidemiological study information.
    A paragraph has been added near the beginning of section V.D.5 that 
identifies the common challenges to interpreting the epidemiological 
evidence that supports the occurrence of sensitization and CBD at 
occupational beryllium exposures below the current PEL. These include 
studies with small numbers of subjects and CBD cases, potential 
exposure misclassification resulting from lack of personal and short-
term exposure data prior to the late 1990s, and uncertain dermal 
contribution among other issues. Table A.1 summarizing the key 
sensitization and CBD epidemiological studies was added to this 
preamble in appendix A of section V. Subsection V.D.5.a on studies 
conducted prior to the BeLPT has been reorganized to more clearly 
present the need for the Registry prior to listing the inclusion 
criteria.
    Several reviewers requested that the draft health effects document 
discuss additional occupational studies on sensitization and CBD. Dr. 
Balmes suggested including Bailey et al. (2010) on reduction in 
sensitization at a beryllium production plant and Arjomandi et al. 
(2010) on CBD among workers in a nuclear weapons facility. Dr. Breysse 
recommended adding a brief discussion of Taiwo et al. (2008) on 
sensitization in aluminum smelter workers. Dr. Gordon and Dr. Rossman 
suggested mention of Curtis, (1951) on cutaneous hypersensitivity to 
beryllium as important for the role of dermal exposure. Dr. Rossman 
also provided a reference to a number of other sensitization and CBD 
articles of historical significance.
    The above studies have been incorporated in several subsections of 
V.D.5 on human epidemiological evidence. The 1951 Curtis study is 
mentioned in the introduction to section V.D.5 as evidence of 
sensitization from dermal exposure. The Bailey et al. (2010) study is 
discussed in subsection V.D.5.d on beryllium metal processing and alloy 
production. The Arjomandi et al. (2010) study is discussed subsection 
V.D.5.h on nuclear weapons facilities and cleanup of former facilities. 
The Taiwo et al. (2008) study is discussed in subsection V.D.5.i on 
aluminum smelting. The other historical studies of historical 
significance are referenced in subsection V.D.5.a on studies conducted 
prior to the BeLPT.
    Dr. Gordon suggested that the draft health effects document make 
clear that limitations in study design and lack of an appropriate model 
limited extrapolation of animal findings to the human immune-based 
respiratory disease. Dr. Rossman also remarked on the lack of a good 
animal model that consistently demonstrates a specific cell-mediated 
immune response to beryllium. Section V.D.6 was modified to include a 
statement that lack of a dependable animal model combined with studies 
that used single doses, few animals or abbreviated observation periods 
have limited the utility of the data. Table A.2 was added that 
summarizes important information on key animal studies of beryllium-
induced immune response and lung inflammation.
    In general, peer reviewers considered the preliminary conclusions 
with regard to sensitization and CBD to be reasonable and well 
presented in the draft health effects evaluation. All reviewers agreed 
that the scientific evidence supports sensitization as a necessary 
condition and an early endpoint in the development of CBD.

[[Page 47649]]

The peer reviewers did not consider the presented evidence to 
convincingly show lung burden to be an important dose metric. Dr. 
Gordon explained that some animal studies in dogs have indicated that 
lung dose does influence granuloma formation but the importance of dose 
relative to genetic susceptibility, and physical/chemical form is 
unclear. He suggested the document indicate that many factors, 
including lung burden, affect the pulmonary tissue response to 
beryllium particles in the workplace.
    There were other suggested improvements to the preliminary 
conclusion section of the draft document. Dr. Breysse felt that 
presenting the range of observed prevalence from occupational studies 
would help support the Agency findings. He also recommended that the 
preliminary conclusions make clear that CBD is a very complex disease 
and certain steps involved in the onset and progression are not yet 
clearly understood. Dr. Rossman pointed out that a report from Mroz et 
al. (2009) updated information on the rate at which beryllium 
sensitized individuals progress to CBD.
    A statement has been added to section V.D.7 on the preliminary 
sensitization and CBD conclusions to indicate that all facets of 
development and progression of sensitization and CBD are not fully 
understood. Study references and prevalence ranges were provided to 
support the conclusion that epidemiological evidence demonstrates that 
sensitization and CBD occur from present-day exposures below OSHA's 
PEL. Statements were modified to indicate animal studies provide 
important insights into the roles of chemical form, genetic 
susceptibility, and residual lung burden in the development of 
beryllium lung disease. Updated information on rate of progression from 
sensitization to CBD was also included.
    Reviewers made suggestions to improve presentation of the 
epidemiological studies of lung cancer that were similar to their 
comments on the CBD studies. Dr. Steenland requested that a table 
summarizing the lung cancer studies be added. He also recommended that 
more emphasis be placed on the SMR results from the Ward et al. (1992) 
study. Dr. Balmes felt that more detail was presented on the animal 
cancer studies than necessary to convey the relevant message. All 
reviewers thought that the Schubauer-Berigan et al. (2010) cohort 
mortality study that addressed some of the shortcomings of earlier lung 
cancer mortality studies should be discussed in the health effects 
document.
    The recent Schubauer-Berigan et al. (2010) study conducted by the 
NIOSH Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies 
is now described and discussed in section V.E.2 on human epidemiology 
studies. Table A.3 summarizing the range of exposure measurements, 
study strengths and limitations, and other key lung cancer 
epidemiological study information was added to the health effects 
preamble. Section V.E.3 on the animal cancer studies already contained 
several tables that present study data so OSHA decided a summary table 
was not needed in this section.
    Reviewers were asked two questions regarding the OSHA preliminary 
conclusions on beryllium-induced lung cancer: was the inflammation 
mechanism presented in the lung cancer section reasonable; and were 
there other mechanisms or modes of action to be considered? All 
reviewers agreed that inflammation was a reasonable mechanistic 
presentation as outlined in the document. Dr. Gordon requested OSHA 
clarify that inflammation may not be the sole mechanism for 
carcinogenicity. OSHA inserted statements in section V.E.5 on the 
preliminary lung cancer conclusions clarifying that tumorigenesis 
secondary to inflammation is a reasonable mechanism of action but other 
plausible mechanisms independent of inflammation may also contribute to 
the lung cancer associated with beryllium exposure.
    There were a few comments from reviewers on health effects other 
than sensitization/CBD and lung cancer in the draft document. Dr. 
Balmes requested that the term ``beryllium poisoning'' not be used when 
referring to the hepatic effects of beryllium. He also offered language 
to clarify that the cardiovascular mortality among beryllium production 
workers in the Ward study cohort was probably due to ischemic heart 
disease and not the result of impaired lung function. Dr. Gordon 
requested removal of references to hepatic studies from in vitro and 
intravenous administration done at very high dose levels of little 
relevance to the occupational exposures of interest to OSHA. These 
changes were made to section V.F on other health effects.

B. Peer Review of the Draft Preliminary Risk Assessment

    The Technical Charge to peer reviewers for review of the draft 
preliminary risk assessment was to ensure OSHA selected appropriate 
study data, assessed the data in a scientifically credible manner, and 
clearly explained its analysis. Specific charge questions were posed 
regarding choice of data sets, risk models, and exposure metrics; the 
role of dermal exposure and dermal protection; construction of the job 
exposure matrix; characterization of the risk estimates and their 
uncertainties; and whether a quantitative assessment of lung cancer 
risk, in addition to sensitization and CBD, was warranted.
    Overall, the peer reviewers were highly supportive of the Agency's 
approach and major conclusions. They offered valuable suggestions for 
revisions and additional analysis to improve the clarity and certain 
technical aspects of the risk assessment. These suggestions and the 
steps taken by OSHA to address them are summarized here. A final peer 
review report (ERG, 2010c) and a risk assessment background document 
(OSHA, 2014a) are available in the docket.
    OSHA asked peer reviewers a series of questions regarding its 
selection of surveys from a beryllium ceramics facility, a beryllium 
machining facility, and a beryllium alloy processing facility as the 
critical studies that form the basis of the preliminary risk 
assessment. Research showed that these workplaces had well 
characterized and relatively low beryllium exposures and underwent 
plant-wide screenings for sensitization and CBD before and after 
implementation of exposure controls. The reviewers were requested to 
comment on whether the study discussions were clearly presented, 
whether the role of dermal exposure and dermal protection were 
adequately addressed, and whether the preliminary conclusions regarding 
the observed exposure-related prevalence and reduction in risk were 
reasonable and scientifically credible. They were also asked to 
identify other studies that should be reviewed as part of the 
sensitization/CBD risk assessment.
    Every peer reviewer felt the key studies were appropriate and their 
selection clearly explained in the document. Every peer reviewer 
regarded the preliminary conclusions from the OSHA review of these 
studies to be reasonable and scientifically sound. This conclusion 
stated that substantial risk of sensitization and CBD were observed in 
facilities where the highest exposed processes had median full-shift 
beryllium exposures around 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or higher and that the 
greatest reduction in risk was achieved when exposures for all 
processes were lowered to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or below.
    The reviewers suggested that three additional studies be added to 
the risk assessment review of the

[[Page 47650]]

epidemiological literature. Dr. Balmes felt the document would be 
strengthened by including the Bailey et al. (2010) investigation of 
sensitization in a population of workers at the beryllium metal, alloy, 
and oxide production plant in Elmore, OH and the Arjomandi et al. 
(2010) publication on a group of 50 sensitized workers from a nuclear 
plant. Dr. Breysse suggested the study by Taiwo et al. (2008) on 
sensitization among workers in four aluminum smelters be considered.
    A new subsection VI.A.3 was added to the preliminary risk 
assessment that describes the changes in beryllium exposure 
measurements, prevalence of sensitization and CBD, and implementation 
of exposure controls between 1992 and 2006 at the Elmore plant. This 
subsection includes a discussion of the Bailey et al. study. A summary 
of the Taiwo et al. (2008) study was added as subsection VI.A.5. A 
discussion of the Arjomandi et al. (2010) study was added in subsection 
VI.B as evidence that sensitized workers with primarily low beryllium 
exposure go on to develop CBD. However, the low rates of CBD among this 
group of sensitized workers also suggest that low beryllium exposure 
may reduce CBD risk when compared to worker populations with higher 
exposure levels.
    While the majority of reviewers stated that OSHA adequately 
addressed the role of dermal exposure in sensitization and the 
importance of dermal protection for workers, a few had additional 
suggestions for OSHA's discussion. Dr. Breysse and Dr. Gordon pointed 
out that because the beryllium exposure control programs featured steps 
to reduce both skin contact and inhalation, it was difficult to 
distinguish between the effects of reducing airborne and dermal 
exposure. A statement was added to subsection VI.B that concurrent 
implementation of respirator use, dermal protection and engineering 
changes made it difficult to attribute reduced risk to any single 
control measure. Since the Cullman plant did not require glove use, 
OSHA believes it to be the best data set available for evaluating the 
effects of airborne exposure control on risk of sensitization.
    Dr. Breysse requested additional discussion of the role of 
respiratory protection in achieving reduction in risk. Dr. Gordon 
suggested some additional clarification regarding mean and median 
exposure measures. Additional information on respiratory programs and 
exposure measures (e.g., median, arithmetic and geometric means), where 
available, were presented for each of the studies discussed in 
subsection VI.A.
    The peer reviewers generally agreed that it was reasonable to 
conclude that community-acquired CBD (CA-CBD) resulted from low 
beryllium exposures. Drs. Breysse, Balmes and others noted that higher 
short-term excursions could not be ruled out. Dr. Gordon suggested that 
genetic susceptibility may have a role in cases of CA-CBD. Dr. Rossman 
raised the possibility that some CA-CBD cases could occur from contact 
with beryllium workers. All these points were added to subsection VI.C.
    OSHA asked the peer reviewers to evaluate the choice of the 
National Jewish Medical and Research Center (NJMRC) data set on the 
Cullman, AL machinist population as a basis for exposure-response 
analysis and the reliance on cumulative exposure as the basis for the 
exposure-response analysis of sensitization and CBD. All peer reviewers 
indicated that the choice of the NJMRC data set for exposure-response 
analysis was clearly explained and reasonable and that they knew of no 
better data set for the analysis. Dr. Rossman commented that the NJMRC 
data set was an excellent source of exposures to different levels of 
beryllium and testing and evaluation of the workers. Dr. Steenland and 
Dr. Gordon suggested that the results from the OSHA analysis of the 
NJMRC data be compared with the available data from the studies of 
other beryllium facilities discussed in the epidemiological literature 
analysis. While a rigorous quantitative comparison (e.g., meta 
analysis) is difficult due to differences in the study designs and data 
types available for each study, subsection VI.E.4 compares the results 
of OSHA's prevalence analysis from the Cullman data with results from 
studies of the Tucson and Reading facilities.
    OSHA asked the peer reviewers to evaluate methods used to construct 
the job exposure matrix (JEM) and to estimate beryllium exposure for 
each worker in the NJMRC data set. The JEM procedure was briefly 
summarized in the review document and described in detail as part of a 
risk assessment technical background document made available to the 
reviewers (OSHA, 2014a). Dr. Balmes felt that a more thorough 
discussion of the JEM would strengthen the preamble document. Dr. 
Gordon requested information about values assigned exposures below the 
limit of detection. Dr. Steenland requested that both the preamble and 
technical background document contain additional information on aspects 
of the JEM construction such as the job categories, job-specific 
exposure values, how jobs were grouped, and how non-machining jobs were 
handled in the JEM. He suggested the entire JEM be included in the 
technical background document. OSHA greatly expanded subsection VI.E.2 
on air sampling and JEM to include more detailed discussion of the JEM 
construction. Exposure values for machining and non-machining job 
titles were provided in Tables VI-4 and VI-5. The procedures and 
rationale for grouping job-specific measurements into four time periods 
was explained. Jobs were not grouped in the JEM; rather, individual 
exposure estimates were created for each job in the work history data 
set. The technical background document further clarifies the JEM 
construction and the full JEM is included as an appendix to the revised 
background document (OSHA, 2014a). Subsection VI.E.3 on worker exposure 
reconstruction contains further detail about the work histories.
    Peer reviewers fully supported OSHA's choice of the cumulative 
exposure metric to estimate risk of CBD from the NJMRC data set. As 
explained by Dr. Steenland, ``cumulative exposure is often the choice 
for many chronic diseases as opposed to average or highest exposure.'' 
He pointed out that the cumulative exposure metric also fit the CBD 
data better than other metrics. The reviewers generally felt that 
short-term peak exposure was probably the measure of airborne exposure 
most relevant to risk of beryllium sensitization. However, peer 
reviewers agreed that data required to capture workers' short-term peak 
exposures and to relate the peak exposure levels to sensitization were 
not available. Dr. Breysse explained that ``short-term (hrs to minutes) 
peak exposures may be important to sensitization risk, while long term 
averages are more important for CBD risk. Unfortunately data for short-
term peak exposures may not exist.'' Dr. Steenland explained that of 
the available metrics ``cumulative exposure fits the sensitization data 
better than the two alternatives, and hence is the best metric.'' 
Statements were added to subsection VI.E.3 to indicate that while 
short-term exposures may be highly relevant to risk of sensitization, 
the individual peak exposures leading up to onset of sensitization was 
not able to be determined in the NJRMC Cullman study.
    Peer reviewers found the methods used in the statistical exposure-
response analysis to be clearly described. With the exception of Dr. 
Steenland, reviewers believed that a detailed critique of the 
statistical approach was

[[Page 47651]]

beyond their level of expertise. Dr. Steenland supported OSHA's overall 
approach to the risk modeling and recommended additional analyses to 
explore the sensitivity of OSHA's results to alternate choices and to 
test the validity of aspects of the analysis. Dr. Steenland recommended 
that the logistic regression used by OSHA as a preliminary first 
analysis be dropped as an inappropriate model for a situation where it 
is important to account for changing exposures and case onset over 
time. Instead, he suggested a sensitivity analysis in which exposure-
response coefficients generated using a traditional Cox proportionate 
hazards model be compared to the discrete time Cox model analog (i.e., 
complementary log-log Cox model) used by OSHA. The sensitivity analysis 
would facilitate examination of the proportional hazard assumption 
implied by the use of these models. Dr. Steenland advocated that OSHA 
include a table that displayed the mean number of BeLPT tests for the 
study population in order to address whether the number of 
sensitization tests introduced a potential bias. He inquired about the 
possibility of determining a sensitization incidence rate using 
cumulative or average exposure. Dr. Steenland suggested that the model 
control for additional potential confounders, such as age, smoking 
status, race and gender. He wanted a more complete explanation of the 
model constant for the year of diagnosis in Tables VI-9 through VI-12 
to be included in the preamble as it was in the technical background 
document. Dr. Steenland recommended a sensitivity analysis that 
excludes the highest 5 to 10 percent of cumulative exposures which 
might address potential model uncertainty at the high end exposures. He 
requested that the results of statistical tests for non-linearity be 
included and confidence intervals for the risk estimates in Tables VI-
17 and VI-18 be determined.
    Many of Dr. Steenland's comments were addressed in subsection VI.F 
on the statistical modeling. The logistic regression analysis was 
removed from the section. A sensitivity analysis using the standard Cox 
model that treats survival time as continuous rather than discrete was 
added to the risk assessment background document and results were 
described in subsection VI.F. The interaction between exposure and 
follow-up time was not significant in the models suggesting that the 
proportional hazard assumption should not be rejected. The model 
coefficients using the standard Cox model were similar to model 
coefficients for the discrete model. Given this, OSHA did not feel it 
necessary to further estimate risks using the continuous Cox model at 
specific exposure levels.
    A table of the mean number of BeLPT tests across the study 
population was added to the risk assessment background document. 
Subsection VI.F describes the table results and its impact on the 
statistical modeling. Smoking status and age were included in the 
discrete Cox proportional hazards model and not found to be significant 
predictors of beryllium sensitization. However, the available study 
population composition did not allow a confounder analysis of race and 
gender. OSHA chose not to include a detailed explanation of the model 
constant for the year of diagnosis in the preamble section. OSHA agrees 
with Dr. Steenland that the risk assessment background document 
adequately describes the model terms. For that reason, OSHA prefers 
that the risk assessment preamble focus on the results and major points 
of the analysis and refer the reader to the more technical background 
document for an explanation of model parameters. The linearity 
assumption was assessed using a fractional polynomial approach. The 
best fitting polynomials did not fit significantly better than the 
linear model. The details of the analysis were included in the risk 
assessment background document. Tables VI-17 and VI-18 now include the 
upper 95 percent confidence limits on the model-predicted cases of 
sensitization and CBD for the current and alternative PELs.
    Most peer reviewers felt the major uncertainties of the risk 
assessment were clearly and adequately discussed in the documents they 
reviewed. Dr. Breysse requested that the risk assessment cover 
potential underestimation of risk from exposure misclassification bias. 
He requested further discussion of the degree to which the risk 
estimates from the Cullman machining plant could be extrapolated to 
workplaces that use other physical (e.g., particle size) and chemical 
forms of beryllium. He went on to question the strength of evidence 
that insoluble forms of beryllium cause CBD. Dr. Breysse also suggested 
that the assumptions used in the risk modeling be consolidated and more 
clearly presented. Dr. Steenland felt that there was potential 
underestimation of CBD risk resulting from exclusion of former workers 
and case status of current workers after employment.
    Discussion of these uncertainties was added in the final paragraphs 
of section VI.F. The section was modified to more clearly identify 
assumptions with regard to the risk modeling such as an assumed 
linearity in exposure-response and cumulative dose equivalency when 
extrapolating risks over a 45-year working lifetime. Section VI.F 
recognizes the uncertainties in risk that can result from 
reconstructing individual exposures with very limited sampling data 
prior to 1994. The potential exposure misclassification can limit the 
strength of exposure-response relationships and result in the 
underestimation of risk. A more technical discussion of modeling 
assumptions and exposure measurement error are provided in the risk 
assessment background document. Section VI.F points out that the NJMRC 
data set does not capture CBD that occurred among workers who retired 
or left the Cullman plant. This and the short follow-up time is a 
source of uncertainty that likely leads to underestimation of risk. The 
section indicates that it is not unreasonable to expect the risk 
estimates to generally reflect onset of sensitization and CBD from 
exposure to beryllium forms that are relatively insoluble and enriched 
with respirable particles as encountered at the Cullman machining 
plant. Additional uncertainty is introduced when extrapolating the risk 
estimates to beryllium compounds of vastly different solubility and 
particle characteristics. OSHA does not agree with the comment 
suggesting that the association between CBD and insoluble forms of 
beryllium is weak. The principle sources of beryllium encountered at 
the Cullman machining plant, the Reading copper beryllium processing 
plant and the Tucson ceramics plant where excessive CBD was observed 
are insoluble forms of beryllium, such as beryllium metal, beryllium 
alloy, and beryllium oxide.
    Finally, OSHA asked the peer reviewers to evaluate its treatment of 
lung cancer in the earlier draft preliminary risk assessment (OSHA, 
2010b). When that document was prepared, OSHA had elected not to 
conduct a lung cancer risk assessment. The Agency believed that the 
exposure-response data available to conduct a lung cancer risk 
assessment from a Sanderson et al. study of a Reading, PA beryllium 
plant by was highly problematic. The Sanderson study primarily involved 
workers with extremely high and short-term exposures above airborne 
exposure levels of interest to OSHA (2 [mu]g/m\3\ and below).
    Just prior to arranging the peer review, a NIOSH study was 
published by Schubauer-Berigan et al. updating the Reading, PA cohort 
studied by Sanderson et al. and adding cohorts

[[Page 47652]]

from two additional plants in Elmore, OH and Hazleton, PA (Schubauer-
Berigan, 2011). At OSHA's request, the peer reviewers reviewed this 
study to determine whether it could provide a better basis for lung 
cancer risk analysis than the Sanderson et al. study. The reviewers 
found that the NIOSH update addressed the major concerns OSHA had 
expressed about the Sanderson study. In particular, they pointed out 
that workers in the Elmore and Hazleton cohorts had longer tenure at 
the plants and experienced lower exposures than those at the Reading, 
PA plant. Dr. Steenland recommended that ``OSHA consider the new NIOSH 
data and develop risk estimates for lung cancer as well as 
sensitization and CBD.'' Dr. Breysse believed that the NIOSH data 
``suggest that a risk assessment for lung cancer should be conducted by 
OSHA and the results be compared to the CBD/sensitization risk 
assessment before recommending an appropriate exposure concentration.'' 
While acknowledging the improvements in the quality of the data, other 
reviewers were more restrained in their support for quantitative 
estimates of lung cancer risk. Dr. Gordon stated that despite 
improvements, there was ``still uncertainty associated with the paucity 
of data below the current PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\.'' Dr. Rossman noted that 
the NIOSH study ``did not address the problem of the uncertainty of the 
mechanism of beryllium carcinogenicity.'' He felt that the updated 
NIOSH lung cancer mortality data ``should not change the Agency's 
rationale for choosing to establish its risk findings for the proposed 
rule on its analysis for beryllium sensitization and CBD.'' Dr. Balmes 
agreed that ``the agency will be on firmer ground by focusing on 
sensitization and CBD.''
    The preliminary risk assessment preamble subsection VI.G on lung 
cancer includes a discussion of the quantitative lung cancer risk 
assessment published by NIOSH researchers in 2010 (Schubauer-Berigan, 
2011). The discussion describes the lower exposure levels, longer 
tenure, fewer short-term workers and additional years of observation 
that make the data more suitable for risk assessment. NIOSH relied on 
several modeling approaches to show that lung cancer risk was 
significantly related to both mean and cumulative beryllium exposure. 
Subsection VI.G provides the excess lifetime lung cancer risks 
predicted from several best-fitting NIOSH models at beryllium exposures 
of interest to OSHA (Table VI-20). Using the piecewise log-linear 
proportional hazards model favored by NIOSH, there is a projected drop 
in excess lifetime lung cancer risks from approximately 61 cases per 
1000 exposed workers at the current PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ to 
approximately 6 cases per 1000 at the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Subsection VI.H on preliminary conclusions indicates that these 
projections support a reduced risk of lung cancer from more stringent 
control of beryllium exposures but that the lung cancer risk estimates 
are more uncertain than those for sensitization and CBD.

VIII. Significance of Risk

    To promulgate a standard that regulates workplace exposure to toxic 
materials or harmful physical agents, OSHA must first determine that 
the standard reduces a ``significant risk'' of ``material impairment.'' 
The first part of this requirement, ``significant risk,'' refers to the 
likelihood of harm, whereas the second part, ``material impairment,'' 
refers to the severity of the consequences of exposure.
    The Agency's burden to establish significant risk is based on the 
requirements of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq). Section 3(8) of the 
Act requires that workplace safety and health standards be ``reasonably 
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment'' (29 
U.S.C. 652(8)). The Supreme Court, in the Benzene decision, interpreted 
section 3(8) to mean that ``before promulgating any standard, the 
Secretary must make a finding that the workplaces in question are not 
safe'' (Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum 
Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality opinion)). Examining 
section 3(8) more closely, the Court described OSHA's obligation to 
demonstrate significant risk:

    ``[S]afe'' is not the equivalent of ``risk-free.'' A workplace 
can hardly be considered ``unsafe'' unless it threatens the workers 
with a significant risk of harm. Therefore, before the Secretary can 
promulgate any permanent health or safety standard, he must make a 
threshold finding that the place of employment is unsafe in the 
sense that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or 
lessened by a change in practices (Id).

    As the Court made clear, the Agency has considerable latitude in 
defining significant risk and in determining the significance of any 
particular risk. The Court did not specify a means to distinguish 
significant from insignificant risks, but rather instructed OSHA to 
develop a reasonable approach to making a significant risk 
determination. The Court stated that ``it is the Agency's 
responsibility to determine in the first instance what it considers to 
be a 'significant' risk,'' (448 U.S. at 655) and it did not express 
``any opinion on the . . . difficult question of what factual 
determinations would warrant a conclusion that significant risks are 
present which make promulgation of a new standard reasonably necessary 
or appropriate'' (448 U.S. at 659). The Court also stated that, while 
OSHA's significant risk determination must be supported by substantial 
evidence, the Agency ``is not required to support the finding that a 
significant risk exists with anything approaching scientific 
certainty'' (448 U.S. at 656). Furthermore:

    A reviewing court [is] to give OSHA some leeway where its 
findings must be made on the frontiers of scientific knowledge . . . 
. [T]he Agency is free to use conservative assumptions in 
interpreting the data with respect to carcinogens, risking error on 
the side of overprotection rather than underprotection [so long as 
such assumptions are based on] a body of reputable scientific 
thought (448 U.S. at 656).

Thus, to make the significance of risk determination for a new or 
proposed standard, OSHA uses the best available scientific evidence to 
identify material health impairments associated with potentially 
hazardous occupational exposures and to evaluate exposed workers' risk 
of these impairments.

    The OSH Act also requires that the Agency make a finding that the 
toxic material or harmful physical agent at issue causes material 
impairment to worker health. In that regard, the Act directs the 
Secretary of Labor to set standards based on the available evidence 
where no employee, over his/her working life time, will suffer from 
material impairment of health or functional capacity, even if such 
employee has regular exposure to the hazard, to the exent feasible (29 
U.S.C. 655(b)(5)).
    As with significant risk, what constitutes material impairment in 
any given case is a policy determination for which OSHA is given 
substantial leeway. ``OSHA is not required to state with scientific 
certainty or precision the exact point at which each type of [harm] 
becomes a material impairment'' (AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962, 975 
(11th Cir. 1992)). Courts have also noted that OSHA should consider all 
forms and degrees of material impairment--not just death or serious 
physical harm--and that OSHA may act with a ``pronounced bias towards 
worker safety'' (Id; Bldg & Constr. Trades Dep't v. Brock, 838 F.2d 
1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA's long-standing policy is to 
consider 45 years as a ``working life,''

[[Page 47653]]

over which it must evaluate material impairment and risk.
    In formulating this proposed beryllium standard, OSHA has reviewed 
the best available evidence pertaining to the adverse health effects of 
occupational beryllium exposure, including lung cancer and chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD), and has evaluated the risk of these effects 
from exposures allowed under the current standard as well as the 
expected impact of the proposed standard on risk. Based on its review 
of extensive epidemiological and experimental research, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that long-term exposure at the current 
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) would pose a significant risk of 
material impairment to workers' health, and that adoption of the new 
PEL and other provisions of the proposed rule will substantially reduce 
this risk.

A. Material Impairment of Health

    In this preamble at section V, Health Effects, OSHA reviewed the 
scientific evidence linking occupational beryllium exposure to a 
variety of adverse health effects, including CBD and lung cancer. Based 
on this review, OSHA preliminarily concludes that beryllium exposure 
causes these effects. The Agency's preliminary conclusion was strongly 
supported by a panel of independent peer reviewers, as discussed in 
section VII.
    Here, OSHA discusses its preliminary conclusion that CBD and lung 
cancer constitute material impairments of health, and briefly reviews 
other adverse health effects that can result from beryllium exposure. 
Based on this preliminary conclusion and on the scientific evidence 
linking beryllium exposure to both CBD and lung cancer, OSHA concludes 
that occupational exposure to beryllium causes ``material impairment of 
health or functional capacity'' within the meaning of the OSH Act.
1. Chronic Beryllium Disease
    CBD is a respiratory disease in which the body's immune system 
reacts to the presence of beryllium in the lung, causing a progression 
of pathological changes including chronic inflammation and tissue 
scarring. CBD can also impair other organs such as the liver, skin, 
spleen, and kidneys and cause adverse health effects such as granulomas 
of the skin and lymph nodes and cor pulmonale (i.e., enlargement of the 
heart) (Conradi et al., 1971; ACCP, 1965; Kriebel et al., 1988a and b). 
In early, asymptomatic stages of CBD, small granulomatous lesions and 
mild inflammation occur in the lungs. Early stage CBD among some 
workers has been observed to progress to more serious disease even 
after the worker is removed from exposure (Mroz, 2009), probably 
because common forms of beryllium have slow clearance rates and can 
remain in the lung for years after exposure. Sood et al. has reported 
that cessation of exposure can sometimes have beneficial effects on 
lung function (Sood et al., 2004). However, this was based on a small 
study of six patients with CBD, and more research is needed to better 
determine the relationship between exposure duration and disease 
progression. In general, progression of CBD from early to late stages 
is understood to vary widely, responding differently to exposure 
cessation and treatment for different individuals (Sood, 2009; Mroz, 
2009).
    Over time, the granulomas can spread and lead to lung fibrosis 
(scarring) and moderate to severe loss of pulmonary function, with 
symptoms including a persistent dry cough and shortness of breath 
(Saber and Dweik, 2000). Fatigue, night sweats, chest and joint pain, 
clubbing of fingers (due to impaired oxygen exchange), loss of 
appetite, and unexplained weight loss may occur as the disease 
progresses. Corticosteroid therapy, in workers whose beryllium exposure 
has ceased, has been shown to control inflammation, ease symptoms 
(e.g., difficulty breathing, fever, cough, and weight loss) and in some 
cases prevent the development of fibrosis (Marchand-Adam et al., 2008). 
Thus early treatment can lead to CBD regression in some patients, 
although there is no cure (Sood, 2004). Other patients have shown 
short-term improvements from corticosteroid treatment, but then 
developed serious fibrotic lesions (Marchand-Adam et al., 2008). Once 
fibrosis has developed in the lungs, corticosteroid treatment cannot 
reverse the damage (Sood, 2009). Persons with late-stage CBD experience 
severe respiratory insufficiency and may require supplemental oxygen 
(Rossman, 1991). Historically, late-stage CBD often ended in death 
(NAS, 2008).
    While the use of steroid therapy has mitigated CBD mortality, 
treatment with corticosteroids has side effects that need to be 
measured against the possibility of progression of disease 
(Trikudanathan and McMahon, 2008; Lipworth, 1999; Gibson et al., 1996; 
Zaki et al., 1987). Adverse effects associated with long-term 
corticosteroid use include, but are not limited to, increased risk of 
opportunistic infections (Lionakis and Kontoyiannis, 2003; 
Trikudanathan and McMahon, 2008); accelerated bone loss or osteoporosis 
leading to increased risk of fractures or breaks (Hamida et al., 2011; 
Lehouck et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2011; Sweiss et al., 2011; 
Langhammer et al., 2009); psychiatric effects including depression, 
sleep disturbances, and psychosis (Warrington and Bostwick, 2006; 
Brown, 2009); adrenal suppression (Lipworth, 1999; Frauman, 1996); 
ocular effects including cataracts, ocular hypertension, and glaucoma 
(Ballonzolli and Bourchier, 2010; Trikudanathan and McMahon, 2008; 
Lipworth, 1999); an increase in glucose intolerance (Trikudanathan and 
McMahon, 2008); excessive weight gain (McDonough et al., 2008; Torres 
and Nowson, 2007; Dallman et al., 2007; Wolf, 2002; Cheskin et al., 
1999); increased risk of atherosclerosis and other cardiovascular 
syndromes (Franchimont et al., 2002); skin fragility (Lipworth, 1999); 
and poor wound healing (de Silva and Fellows, 2010). Studies relating 
the long-term effect of corticosteroid use for the treatment of CBD 
need to be undertaken to evaluate the treatment's overall effectiveness 
against the risk of adverse side effects from continued usage.
    OSHA considers late-stage CBD to be a material impairment of 
health, as it involves permanent damage to the pulmonary system, causes 
additional serious adverse health effects, can have adverse 
occupational and social consequences, requires treatment associated 
with severe and lasting side effects, and may in some cases be life-
threatening. Furthermore, OSHA believes that material impairment begins 
prior to the development of symptoms of the disease.
    Although there are no symptoms associated with early-stage CBD, 
during which small lesions and inflammation appear in the lungs, the 
Agency has preliminarily concluded that the earliest stage of CBD is 
material impairment of health. OSHA bases this conclusion on evidence 
showing that early-stage CBD is a measurable change in the state of 
health which, with and sometimes without continued exposure, can 
progress to symptomatic disease. Thus, prevention of the earliest 
stages of CBD will prevent development of more serious disease. The 
OSHA Lead Standard established the Agency's position that a 
`subclinical' health effect may be regarded as a material impairment of 
health. In the preamble to that standard, the Agency said:

    OSHA believes that while incapacitating illness and death 
represent one extreme of a spectrum of responses, other biological 
effects such as metabolic or physiological changes are precursors or 
sentinels of disease which should be prevented . . . Rather than 
revealing beginnings of illness the standard must be selected to 
prevent an earlier point

[[Page 47654]]

of measurable change in the state of health which is the first 
significant indicator of possibly more severe ill health in the 
future. The basis for this decision is twofold--first, 
pathophysiologic changes are early stages in the disease process 
which would grow worse with continued exposure and which may include 
early effects which even at early stages are irreversible, and 
therefore represent material impairment themselves. Secondly, 
prevention of pathophysiologic changes will prevent the onset of the 
more serious, irreversible and debilitating manifestations of 
disease.\11\ (43 FR 52952, 52954, November 14, 1978)

    \11\ Even if asymptomatic CBD were not itself a material 
impairment of health, the D.C. Circuit upheld OSHA's authority to 
regulate to prevent subclinical health effects as precursors to 
disease in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 647 
F.2d 1189, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1980), which reviewed the Lead standard. 
Without deciding whether the early symptoms of disease were 
themselves a material impairment, the court concluded that OSHA may 
regulate subclinical effects if it can demonstrate on the basis of 
substantial evidence that preventing subclinical effects would help 
prevent the clinical phase of disease (Id.).

    Since the Lead rulemaking, OSHA has also found other non-
symptomatic health conditions to be material impairments of health. In 
the Bloodborne Pathogens (BP) rulemaking, OSHA maintained that material 
impairment includes not only workers with clinically ``active'' 
hepatitis from the hepatitis B virus (HBV) but also includes 
asymptomatic HBV ``carriers'' who remain infectious and are able to put 
others at risk of serious disease through contact with body fluids 
(e.g., blood, sexual contact) (56 FR 64004, December 6, 1991). OSHA 
stated: ``Becoming a carrier [of Hepatitis B] is a material impairment 
of health even though the carrier may have no symptoms. This is because 
the carrier will remain infectious, probably for the rest of his or her 
life, and any person who is not immune to HBV who comes in contact with 
the carrier's blood or certain other body fluids will be at risk of 
becoming infected'' (56 FR 64004, 64036).
    OSHA preliminarily finds that early-stage CBD is the type of 
asymptomatic health effect the Agency determined to be a material 
impairment of health in the lead standard. Early stage CBD involves 
lung tissue inflammation without symptomatology that can worsen with--
or without--continued exposure. The lung pathology progresses over time 
from a chronic inflammatory response to tissue scarring and fibrosis 
accompanied by moderate to severe loss in pulmonary function. Early 
stage CBD is clearly a precursor of advanced clinical disease, 
prevention of which will prevent symptomatic disease. OSHA argued in 
the Lead standard that such precursor effects should be considered 
material health impairments in their own right, and that the Agency 
should act to prevent them when it is feasible to do so. Therefore, 
OSHA preliminarily finds all stages of CBD to be material impairments 
of health.
2. Lung Cancer
    OSHA considers lung cancer, a frequently fatal disease, to be a 
material impairment of health. OSHA's finding that inhaled beryllium 
causes lung cancer is based on the best available epidemiological data, 
reflects evidence from animal and mechanistic research, and is 
consistent with the conclusions of other government and public health 
organizations (see this preamble at section V, Health Effects). For 
example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 
National Toxicology Program (NTP), and American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have all classified 
beryllium as a known human carcinogen (IARC, 2009).
    The Agency's epidemiological evidence comes from multiple studies 
of U.S. beryllium workers (Sanderson et al., 2001a; Ward et al., 1992; 
Wagoner et al., 1980; Mancuso et al., 1979). Most recently, a NIOSH 
cohort study found significantly increased lung cancer mortality among 
workers at seven beryllium processing facilities (Schubauer-Berigan et 
al., 2011). The cohort was exposed, on average, to lower levels of 
beryllium than those in most previous studies, had fewer short-term 
workers, and had sufficient follow-up time to observe lung cancer in 
the population. OSHA considers the Schubauer-Berigan study to be the 
best available epidemiological evidence regarding the risk of lung 
cancer from beryllium at exposure levels near the PEL.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The scientific peer review panel for OSHA's Preliminary 
Risk Assessment agreed with the Agency that the Schubauer-Berigan 
analysis improves upon the previously available data for lung cancer 
risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Supporting evidence of beryllium carcinogenicity comes from various 
animal studies as well as in vitro genotoxicity and other studies (EPA, 
1998; ATSDR, 2002; Gordon and Bowser, 2003; NAS, 2008; Nickell-Brady et 
al., 1994; NTP, 1999 and 2005; IARC, 1993 and 2009). Multiple 
mechanisms may be involved in the carcinogenicity of beryllium, and 
factors such as epigenetics, mitogenicity, reactive oxygen-mediated 
indirect genotoxicity, and chronic inflammation may contribute to the 
lung cancer associated with beryllium exposure, although the results of 
studies testing the direct genotoxicity of beryllium are mixed (EPA 
summary, 1998). While there is uncertainty regarding the exact 
mechanism of carcinogenesis for beryllium, the overall weight of 
evidence for the carcinogenicity of beryllium is strong. Therefore, the 
Agency has preliminarily determined beryllium to be an occupational 
carcinogen.
3. Other Impairments
    While OSHA has relied primarily on the relationship between 
occupational beryllium exposure and CBD and lung cancer to demonstrate 
the necessity of the standard, the Agency has also determined that 
several other adverse health effects can result from exposure to 
beryllium. Inhalation of high airborne concentrations of beryllium 
(well above the 2 [mu]g/m\3\ OSHA PEL) can cause acute beryllium 
disease, a severe (sometimes fatal), rapid-onset inflammation of the 
lungs. Hepatic necrosis, damage to the heart and circulatory system, 
chronic renal disease, mucosal irritation and ulceration, and urinary 
tract cancer have also reportedly been associated with occupational 
exposures well above the current PEL (see this preamble at section V, 
Health Effects, subsection E, Epidemiological Studies, and subsection 
F, Other Health Effects). These adverse systemic effects and acute 
beryllium disease mostly occurred prior to the introduction of 
occupational and environmental standards set in 1970-1972 (OSHA, 1971; 
ACGIH, 1971; ANSI, 1970) and 1974 (EPA, 1974) and therefore are less 
relevant today than in the past. Because they occur only rarely in 
current-day occupational environments, they are not addressed in OSHA's 
risk analysis or significance of risk determination.
    The Agency has also determined that beryllium sensitization, a 
precursor which occurs before early stage CBD and is an essential step 
for worker development of the disease, can result from exposure to 
beryllium. The Agency takes no position at this time on whether 
sensitization constitutes a material impairment of health, because it 
was unnecessary to do so as part of this rulemaking. As discussed in 
Section V, Health Effects, only sensitized individuals can develop CBD 
(NAS, 2008). OSHA's risk assessment for sensitization informs the 
Agency's understanding of what exposure control measures have been 
successful in preventing sensitization, which in turn prevents 
development of CBD. Therefore sensitization is considered in the next 
section on significance of risk.

[[Page 47655]]

In AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 617 F.2d 636, 654 n.83 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (Cotton 
Dust), the D.C. Circuit upheld OSHA's authority to regulate to prevent 
precursors to a material impairment of health without deciding whether 
the precursors themselves constituted material impairment of health.

B. Significance of Risk and Risk Reduction

    To evaluate the significance of the health risks that result from 
exposure to hazardous chemical agents, OSHA relies on the best 
available epidemiological, toxicological, and experimental evidence. 
The Agency uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to 
characterize the risk of disease resulting from workers' exposure to a 
given hazard over a working lifetime at levels of exposure reflecting 
compliance with current standards and compliance with the new standards 
being proposed.
    As discussed above, the Agency's characterization of risk is guided 
in part by the Benzene decision. In Benzene, the Court broadly 
describes the range of risks OSHA might determine to be significant:

    It is the Agency's responsibility to determine in the first 
instance what it considers to be a ``significant'' risk. Some risks 
are plainly acceptable and others are plainly unacceptable. If, for 
example, the odds are one in a billion that a person will die from 
cancer by taking a drink of chlorinated water, the risk clearly 
could not be considered significant. On the other hand, if the odds 
are one in a thousand that regular inhalation of gasoline vapors 
that are 2 percent benzene will be fatal, a reasonable person might 
well consider the risk significant and take the appropriate steps to 
decrease or eliminate it (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 655).

The Court further stated, ``The requirement that a 'significant' risk 
be identified is not a mathematical straitjacket. . . . Although the 
Agency has no duty to calculate the exact probability of harm, it does 
have an obligation to find that a significant risk is present before it 
can characterize a place of employment as 'unsafe', ``and proceed to 
promulgate a regulation (Id.).

    In this preamble at section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment, OSHA 
finds that the available epidemiological data are sufficient to 
evaluate risk for beryllium sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer among 
beryllium-exposed workers. The preliminary findings from this 
assessment are summarized below.
1. Risk of Beryllium Sensitization and CBD
    OSHA's preliminary risk assessment for CBD and beryllium 
sensitization relies on studies conducted at a Tucson, AZ beryllium 
ceramics plant (Kreiss et al., 1996; Henneberger et al., 2001; Cummings 
et al., 2006); a Reading, PA alloy processing plant (Schuler et al., 
2005; Thomas et al., 2009); a Cullman, AL beryllium machining plant 
(Kelleher et al., 2001; Madl et al., 2007); and an Elmore, OH metal, 
alloy, and oxide production plant (Kreiss et al., 1997; Bailey et al., 
2010; Schuler et al., 2012). The Agency uses these studies to 
demonstrate the significance of risk at the current PEL and the 
significant reduction in risk expected with reduction of the PEL. In 
addition to the effects OSHA anticipates from reduction of airborne 
beryllium exposure, the Agency expects that dermal protection 
provisions in the proposed rule will further reduce risk. Studies 
conducted in the 1950s by Curtis et al. showed that soluble beryllium 
particles could penetrate the skin and cause beryllium sensitization 
(Curtis 1951, NAS 2008). Tinkle et al. established that 0.5- and 1.0-
[mu]m particles can penetrate intact human skin surface and reach the 
epidermis, where beryllium particles would encounter antigen-presenting 
cells and initiate sensitization (Tinkle et al., 2003). Tinkle et al. 
further demonstrated that beryllium oxide and beryllium sulfate, 
applied to the skin of mice, generate a beryllium-specific, cell-
mediated immune response similar to human beryllium sensitization 
(Tinkle et al., 2003). In the epidemiological studies discussed below, 
the exposure control programs that most effectively reduced the risk of 
beryllium sensitization and CBD incorporated both respiratory and 
dermal protection. OSHA has preliminarily determined that an effective 
exposure control program should incorporate both airborne exposure 
reduction and dermal protection provisions.
    In the Tucson ceramics plant, 4,133 short-term breathing zone 
measurements collected between 1981 and 1992 had a median of 0.3 [mu]g/
m\3\. Kreiss et al. reported that eight (5.9 percent) of 136 workers 
tested for beryllium sensitization in 1992 were sensitized, six (4.4 
percent) of whom were diagnosed with CBD. Exposure control programs 
were initiated in 1992 to reduce workers' airborne beryllium exposure, 
but the programs did not address dermal exposure. Full-shift personal 
samples collected between 1994 and 1999 showed a median beryllium 
exposure of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ in production jobs and 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ in 
production support (Cummings et al., 2007). In 1998, a second screening 
found that 6, (9 percent) of 69 tested workers hired after the 1992 
screening, were sensitized, of whom 1 was diagnosed with CBD. All of 
the sensitized workers had been employed at the plant for less than 2 
years (Henneberger et al., 2001), too short a time period for most 
people to develop CBD following sensitization. Of the 77 Tucson workers 
hired prior to 1992 who were tested in 1998, 8 (10.4 percent) were 
sensitized and all but 1 of these (9.7 percent) were diagnosed with CBD 
(Henneberger et al., 2001).
    Kreiss et al., studied workers at a beryllium metal, alloy, and 
oxide production plant in Elmore, OH. Workers participated in a BeLPT 
survey in 1992 (Kreiss et al., 1997). Personal lapel samples collected 
during 1990-1992 had a median value of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Kreiss et al. 
reported that 43 (6.9 percent) of 627 workers tested in 1992 were 
sensitized, 6 of whom were diagnosed with CBD (4.4 percent).
    Newman et al. conducted a series of BeLPT screenings of workers at 
a Cullman, AL precision machining facility between 1995 and 1999 
(Newman et al., 2001). Personal lapel samples collected at this plant 
in the early 1980s and in 1995 from all machining processes combined 
had a median of 0.33 [mu]g/m\3\ (Madl et al., 2007). After a sentinel 
case of CBD was diagnosed at the plant in 1995, the company implemented 
engineering and administrative controls and PPE designed to reduce 
workers' beryllium exposures in machining operations. Personal lapel 
samples collected extensively between 1996 and 1999 in machining jobs 
have an overall median of 0.16 [mu]g/m\3\, showing that the new 
controls reduced machinists' exposures during this period. However, the 
results of BeLPT screenings conducted in 1995-1999 showed that the 
exposure control program initiated in 1995 did not sufficiently protect 
workers from beryllium sensitization and CBD. In a group of 60 workers 
who had been employed at the plant for less than a year, and thus would 
not have been working there prior to 1995, 4 (6.7 percent) were found 
to be sensitized. Two of these workers (3.35 percent) were diagnosed 
with CBD. (Newman et al., 2001).
    Sensitization and CBD were studied in a population of workers at a 
Reading, PA copper beryllium plant, where alloys containing a low level 
of beryllium were processed (Schuler et al., 2005). Personal lapel 
samples were collected in production and production support jobs 
between 1995 and May 2000. These samples showed primarily very low 
airborne beryllium levels, with a median of 0.073 [mu]g/m\3\. The wire

[[Page 47656]]

annealing and pickling process had the highest personal lapel sample 
values, with a median of 0.149 [mu]g/m\3\. Despite these low exposure 
levels, a BeLPT screening conducted in 2000 showed that 5, (11.5 
percent) workers of 43 hired after 1992 were sensitized (evaluation for 
CBD not reported). Two of the sensitized workers had been hired less 
than a year before the screening (Thomas et al., 2009).
    In summary, the epidemiological literature on beryllium 
sensitization and CBD that OSHA's risk assessment relied on show 
sensitization prevalences ranging from 6.5 percent to 11.5 percent and 
CBD prevalences ranging from 1.3 percent to 9.7 percent among workers 
who had full-shift exposures well below the current PEL and median 
full-shift exposures at or below the proposed PEL, and whose follow-up 
time was less than 45 years. As referenced earlier, OSHA is interested 
in the risk associated with a 45-year (i.e., working lifetime) 
exposure. Because CBD often develops over the course of years following 
sensitization, the risk of CBD that would result from 45 years' 
occupational exposure to airborne beryllium is likely to be higher than 
the prevalence of CBD observed among these workers.\13\ In either case, 
based on these studies, the risks to workers appear to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This point was emphasized by members of the scientific peer 
review panel for OSHA's Preliminary Risk Assessment (see this 
preamble at section VII).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The available epidemiological evidence shows that reducing workers' 
levels of airborne beryllium exposure can substantially reduce risk of 
beryllium sensitization and CBD. The best available evidence on 
effective exposure control programs comes partly from studies of 
programs introduced around 2000 at Reading, Tucson, and Elmore that 
used a combination of engineering controls, dermal and respiratory PPE, 
and stringent housekeeping measures to reduce workers' dermal exposures 
and airborne exposures to levels well below the proposed PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\. These programs have substantially lowered the risk of 
sensitization among new workers. As discussed earlier, prevention of 
beryllium sensitization prevents subsequent development of CBD.
    In the Reading, PA copper beryllium plant, full-shift airborne 
exposures in all jobs were reduced to a median of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or 
below and dermal protection was required for production-area workers 
beginning in 2000-2001 (Thomas et al., 2009). After these adjustments 
were made, 2 (5.4 percent) of 37 newly hired workers became sensitized. 
Thereafter, in 2002, the process with the highest exposures (median 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\) was enclosed and workers involved in that process were 
required to use respiratory protection. As a result, the remaining jobs 
had very low exposures (medians ~ 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\). Among 45 workers 
hired after the enclosure was built and respiratory protection 
instituted, 1 was found to be sensitized (2.2 percent). This is a sharp 
reduction in sensitization from the 11.5 percent of 43 workers, 
discussed above, who were hired after 1992 and had been sensitized by 
the time of testing in 2000.
    In the Tucson beryllium ceramics plant, respiratory and skin 
protection was instituted for all workers in production areas in 2000. 
BeLPT testing done in 2000-2004 showed that only 1 (1 percent) worker 
had been sensitized out of 97 workers hired during that time period 
(Cummings et al., 2007; testing for CBD not reported). This contrasts 
with the prevalence of sensitization in the 1998 Tucson BeLPT 
screening, which found that 6 (9 percent) of 69 workers hired after 
1992 were sensitized (Cummings et al., 2007).
    The modern Elmore facility provides further evidence that combined 
reductions in respiratory exposure (via respirator use) and dermal 
exposure are effective in reducing risk of beryllium sensitization. In 
Elmore, historical beryllium exposures were higher than in Tucson, 
Reading, and Cullman. Personal lapel samples collected at Elmore in 
1990-1992 had a median of 1.0 [micro]g/m\3\. In 1996-1999, the company 
took steps to reduce workers' beryllium exposures, including 
engineering and process controls (Bailey et al., 2010; exposure levels 
not reported). Skin protection was not included in the program until 
after 1999. Beginning in 1999 all new employees were required to wear 
loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) in manufacturing 
buildings (Bailey et al., 2010). Skin protection became part of the 
protection program for new employees in 2000, and glove use was 
required in production areas and for handling work boots beginning in 
2001. Bailey et al., (2010) compared the occurrence of beryllium 
sensitization and CBD in 2 groups of workers: 1) 258 employees who 
began work at the Elmore plant between January 15, 1993 and August 9, 
1999 (the ``pre-program group'') and were tested in 1997 and 1999, and 
2) 290 employees who were hired between February 21, 2000 and December 
18, 2006 and underwent BeLPT testing in at least one of frequent rounds 
of testing conducted after 2000 (the ``program group''). They found 
that, as of 1999, 23 (8.9 percent) of the pre-program group were 
sensitized to beryllium. The prevalence of sensitization among the 
``program group'' workers, who were hired after the respiratory 
protection and PPE measures were put in place, was around 2-3 percent. 
Respiratory protection and skin protection substantially reduced, but 
did not eliminate, risk of sensitization. Evaluation of sensitized 
workers for CBD was not reported.
    OSHA's preliminary risk assessment also includes analysis of a data 
set provided to OSHA by the National Jewish Research and Medical Center 
(NJMRC). The data set describes a population of 319 beryllium-exposed 
workers at a Cullman, AL machining facility. It includes exposure 
samples collected between 1980 and 2005, and has updated work history 
and screening information for over three hundred workers through 2003. 
Seven (2.2 percent) workers in the data set were reported as sensitized 
only. Sixteen (5.0 percent) workers were listed as sensitized and 
diagnosed with CBD upon initial clinical evaluation. Three (1.0 
percent) workers, first shown to be sensitized only, were later 
diagnosed with CBD. The data set includes workers exposed at airborne 
beryllium levels near the proposed PEL, and extensive exposure data 
collected in workers' breathing zones, as is preferred by OSHA. Unlike 
the Tucson, Reading, and Elmore facilities, respirator use was not 
generally required for workers at the Cullman facility. Thus, analysis 
of this data set shows the risk associated with varying levels of 
airborne exposure, rather than the virtual elimination of airborne 
exposure via respiratory PPE. Also unlike the Tucson, Elmore, and 
Reading facilities, glove use was not reported to be mandatory in the 
Cullman facility. Thus, OSHA believes reductions in risk at the Cullman 
facility to be the result of airborne exposure control, rather than the 
combination of airborne and dermal exposure controls at the Tucson, 
Elmore, and Reading facilities.
    OSHA analyzed the prevalence of beryllium sensitization and CBD 
among workers at the Cullman facility who were exposed to airborne 
beryllium levels at and below the current PEL of 2 [micro]g/m\3\. In 
addition, a statistical modeling analysis of the NJMRC Cullman data set 
was conducted under contract with Dr. Roslyn Stone of the University of 
Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Heath, Department of 
Biostatistics. OSHA summarizes these analyses briefly below, and in 
more detail in this preamble at section VI, Preliminary Risk 
Assessment.

[[Page 47657]]

    Tables 1 and 2 below present the prevalence of sensitization and 
CBD cases across several categories of lifetime-weighted (LTW) average 
and highest-exposed job (HEJ) exposure at the Cullman facility. The HEJ 
exposure is the exposure level associated with the highest-exposure job 
and time period experienced by each worker. The columns ``Total'' and 
``Total percent'' refer to all sensitized workers in the dataset, 
including workers with and without a diagnosis of CBD.

               Table 1--Prevalence of Sensitization and CBD by Lifetime Weighted Average Exposure Quartile, Cullman, AL Machining Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Sensitized
            LTW Average exposure ([mu]g/m\3\)               Group size         only             CBD            Total          Total %          CBD %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0-0.080...............................................              91               1               1               2             2.2             1.0
0.081-0.18..............................................              73               2               4               6             8.2             5.5
0.19-0.51...............................................              77               0               6               6             7.8             7.8
0.51-2.15...............................................              78               4               8              12            15.4            10.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             319               7              19              26             8.2             6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.


                  Table 2--Prevalence of Sensitization and CBD by Highest-Exposed Job Exposure Quartile, Cullman, AL Machining Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Sensitized
                HEJ Exposure ([mu]g/m\3\)                   Group size         only             CBD            Total          Total %          CBD %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0-0.086...............................................              86               1               0               1             1.2             0.0
0.091-0.214.............................................              81               1               6               7             8.6             7.4
0.387-0.691.............................................              76               2               9              11            14.5            11.8
0.954-2.213.............................................              76               3               4               7             9.2             5.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             319               7              19              26             8.2             6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.

    The current PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ is close to the upper bound of the 
highest quartile of LTW average (0.51-2.15 [mu]g/m\3\) and HEJ (0.954-
2.213) exposure levels. In the highest quartile of LTW average 
exposure, there were 12 cases of sensitization (15.4 percent), 
including 8 (10.3 percent) diagnosed with CBD. Notably, the Cullman 
workers had been exposed to beryllium dust for considerably less than 
45 years at the time of testing. A high prevalence of sensitization 
(9.2 percent) and CBD (5.3 percent) is seen in the top quartile of HEJ 
exposure as well, with even higher prevalences in the third quartile 
(0.387-0.691 [mu]g/m\3\).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This exposure-response pattern is sometimes attributed to a 
``healthy worker effect'' or to exposure misclassification, as 
discussed in this preamble at section VI, Preliminary Risk 
Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is close to the upper bound of 
the second quartile of LTW average (0.81-0.18 [mu]g/m\3\) and HEJ 
(0.091-0.214 [mu]g/m\3\) exposure levels and to the lower bound of the 
third quartile of LTW average (0.19-0.50 [mu]g/m\3\) exposures. The 
second quartile of LTW average exposure shows a high prevalence of 
beryllium-related health effects, with six workers sensitized (8.2 
percent), of whom four (5.5 percent) were diagnosed with CBD. The 
second quartile of HEJ exposure also shows a high prevalence of 
beryllium-related health effects, with seven workers sensitized (8.6 
percent), of whom 6 (7.4 percent) were diagnosed with CBD. Among six 
sensitized workers in the third quartile of LTW average exposures, all 
were diagnosed with CBD (7.8 percent). The prevalence of CBD among 
workers in these quartiles was approximately 5-8 percent, and overall 
sensitization (including workers with and without CBD) was about 8 
percent. OSHA considers these rates as evidence that the risk of 
developing CBD is significant among workers exposed at and below the 
current PEL, even down to the proposed PEL. Much lower prevalences of 
sensitization and CBD were found among workers with exposure levels 
less than or equal to about 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\. Two sensitized workers 
(2.2 percent), including 1 case of CBD (1.0 percent), were found among 
workers with LTW average exposure levels and HEJ exposure levels less 
than or equal to 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.086 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. 
Strict control of airborne exposure to levels below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ can, 
therefore, significantly reduce risk of sensitization and CBD. Although 
OSHA recognizes that maintaining exposure levels below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ 
may not be feasible in some operations (see this preamble at section 
IX, Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis), the Agency believes that workers in facilities 
that meet the proposed action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ will be at less 
risk of sensitization and CBD than workers in facilities that cannot 
meet the action level.
    Table 3 below presents the prevalence of sensitization and CBD 
cases across cumulative exposure quartiles, based on the same Cullman 
data used to derive Tables 1 and 2. Cumulative exposure is the sum of a 
worker's exposure across the duration of his employment.

[[Page 47658]]



                       Table 3--Prevalence of Sensitization and CBD by Cumulative Exposure Quartile Cullman, AL Machining Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Sensitized
          Cumulative exposure ([mu]g/m\3\ yrs)              Group size         only             CBD            Total          Total %          CBD %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.0-0.147...............................................              81               2               2               4             4.9             2.5
0.148-1.467.............................................              79               0               2               2             2.5             2.5
1.468-7.008.............................................              79               3               8              11            13.9             8.0
7.009-61.86.............................................              80               2               7               9            11.3             8.8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             319               7              19              26             8.2             6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.

    A 45-year working lifetime of occupational exposure at the current 
PEL would result in 90 [mu]g/m \3\-years, a value far higher than the 
cumulative exposures of workers in this data set, who worked for 
periods of time less than 45 years and whose exposure levels were 
mostly well below the PEL. Workers with 45 years of exposure to the 
proposed PEL would have a cumulative exposure (9 [mu]g/m \3\-years) in 
the highest quartile for this worker population. As with the average 
and HEJ exposures, the greatest risk of sensitization and CBD appears 
at high exposure levels (> 1.468 [mu]g/m \3\-years). The third 
cumulative quartile, at which a sharp increase in sensitization and CBD 
appears, is bounded by 1.468 and 7.008 [mu]g/m \3\-years. This is 
equivalent to 0.73-3.50 years of exposure at the current PEL of 2 
[mu]g/m \3\, or 7.34-35.04 years of exposure at the proposed PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m \3\. Prevalence of both sensitization and CBD is substantially 
lower in the second cumulative quartile (0.148-1.467 [mu]g/m \3\-
years). This is equivalent to approximately 0.7 to 7 years at the 
proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m \3\, or 1.5 to 15 years at the proposed 
action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m \3\. This supports that maintaining 
exposure levels below the proposed PEL, where feasible, will help to 
protect long-term workers against risk of beryllium sensitization and 
early stage CBD.
    As discussed in the Health Effects section (V.D), CBD often worsens 
with increased time and level of exposure. In a longitudinal study, 
workers initially identified as beryllium sensitized through workplace 
surveillance developed early stage CBD defined by granulomatous 
inflammation but no apparent physiological abnormalities (Newman et 
al., 2005). A study of workers with this early stage CBD showed 
significant declines in breathing capacity and gas exchange over the 30 
years from first exposure (Mroz et al., 2009). Many of the workers went 
on to develop more severe disease that required immunosuppressive 
therapy despite being removed from exposure. While precise beryllium 
exposure levels were not available on the individuals in these studies, 
most started work in the 1980s and 1990s and were likely exposed to 
average levels below the current 2 [mu]g/m \3\ PEL. The evidence for 
time-dependent disease progression indicates that the CBD risk 
estimates for a 45-year lifetime exposure at the current PEL will 
include a higher proportion of individuals with advanced clinical CBD 
than found among the workers in the NJMRC data set.
    Studies of community-acquired (CA) CBD support the occurrence of 
advanced clinical CBD from long-term exposure to airborne beryllium 
(Eisenbud, 1998; Maier et al., 2008). A discussion of the study 
findings can be found in this preamble at section VI.C, Preliminary 
Risk Assessment. For example, one study evaluated 16 potential cases of 
CA-CBD in individuals that resided near a beryllium production facility 
in the years between 1943 and 2001 (Maier et al., 2008). Five cases of 
definite CBD and three cases of probable CBD were found. Two of the 
subjects with probable cases died before they could be confirmed with 
the BeLPT; the third had an abnormal BeLPT and radiography consistent 
with CBD, but granulomatous disease was not pathologically proven. The 
individuals with CA-CBD identified in this study suffered significant 
health impacts from the disease, including obstructive, restrictive, 
and gas exchange pulmonary defects. Six of the eight cases required 
treatment with prednisone, a step typically reserved for severe cases 
due to the adverse side effects of steroid treatment. Despite 
treatment, three had died of respiratory impairment as of 2002. There 
was insufficient information to estimate exposure to the individuals, 
but the limited amount of ambient air sampling in the 1950s suggested 
that average beryllium levels in the area where the cases resided were 
below 2 [mu]g/m \3\. The authors concluded that ``low levels of 
exposures with significant disease latency can result in significant 
morbidity and mortality'' (Maier et al., 2008, p. 1017).
    OSHA believes that the literature review, prevalence analysis, and 
the evidence for time-dependent progression of CBD described above 
provide sufficient information to draw preliminary conclusions about 
significance of risk, and that further quantitative analysis of the 
NJMRC data set is not necessary to support the proposed rule. The 
studies OSHA used to support its preliminary conclusions regarding risk 
of beryllium sensitization and CBD were conducted at modern industrial 
facilities with exposure levels in the range of interest for this 
rulemaking, so a model is not needed to extrapolate risk estimates from 
high to low exposures, as has often been the case in previous rules. 
Nevertheless, the Agency felt further quantitative analysis might 
provide additional insight into the exposure-response relationship for 
sensitization and CBD.
    Using the NJMRC data set, Dr. Stone ran a complementary log-log 
proportional hazards model, an extension of logistic regression that 
allows for time-dependent exposures and differential time at risk. 
Relative risk of sensitization increased with cumulative exposure (p = 
0.05). A positive, but not statistically significant association was 
observed with LTW average exposure (p = 0.09). There was little 
association with highest-exposed job (HEJ) exposure (p = 0.3). 
Similarly, the proportional hazards models for the CBD endpoint showed 
positive relationships with cumulative exposure (p = 0.09), but LTW 
average exposure and HEJ exposure were not closely related to relative 
risk of CBD (p-values > 0.5). Dr. Stone used the cumulative exposure 
models to generate risk estimates for sensitization and CBD.
    Tables 4 and 5 below present risk estimates from these models, 
assuming 5, 10, 20, and 45 years of beryllium exposure. The tables 
present sensitization and CBD risk estimates based on year-specific 
intercepts, as

[[Page 47659]]

explained in the section on Risk Assessment and the accompanying 
background document. Each estimate represents the number of sensitized 
workers the model predicts in a group of 1000 workers at risk during 
the given year with an exposure history at the specified level and 
duration. For example, in the exposure scenario for 1995, if 1000 
workers were occupationally exposed to 2 [mu]g/m \3\ for 10 years, the 
model predicts that about 56 (55.7) workers would be identified as 
sensitized. The model for CBD predicts that about 42 (41.9) workers 
would be diagnosed with CBD that year. The year 1995 shows the highest 
risk estimates generated by the model for both sensitization and CBD, 
while 1999 and 2002 show the lowest risk estimates generated by the 
model for sensitization and CBD, respectively. The corresponding 95 
percent confidence intervals are based on the uncertainty in the 
exposure coefficient.

    Table 4a--Predicted Cases of Sensitization per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternate PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                    Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient. 1995 Baseline.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1995                                                                   Exposure duration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Exposure level  ([mu]g/m\3\)             Cumulative
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\-  cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000
                                                      yrs)                      yrs                       yrs                       yrs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0.............................................         10.0         41.1         20.0         55.7         40.0        101.0         90.0        394.4
                                                                 30.3-56.2                30.3-102.9                30.3-318.1                30.3-999.9
1.0.............................................          5.0         35.3         10.0         41.1         20.0         55.7         45.0        116.9
                                                                 30.3-41.3                 30.3-56.2                30.3-102.9                30.3-408.2
0.5.............................................          2.5         32.7          5.0         35.3         10.0         41.1         22.5         60.0
                                                                 30.3-35.4                 30.3-41.3                 30.3-56.2                30.3-119.4
0.2.............................................          1.0         31.3          2.0         32.2          4.0         34.3          9.0         39.9
                                                                 30.3-32.3                 30.3-34.3                 30.3-38.9                 30.3-52.9
0.1.............................................          0.5         30.8          1.0         31.3          2.0         32.2          4.5         34.8
                                                                 30.3-31.3                 30.3-32.3                 30.3-34.3                 30.3-40.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.


    Table 4b--Predicted Cases of Sensitization per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternate PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                    Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient. 1999 Baseline.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1999                                                                   Exposure duration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Exposure level ([mu]g/m\3\)             Cumulative
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\-  cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000
                                                      yrs)                      yrs                       yrs                       yrs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0.............................................         10.0          8.4         20.0         11.5         40.0         21.3         90.0         96.3
                                                                  6.2-11.6                  6.2-21.7                  6.2-74.4                 6.2-835.4
1.0.............................................          5.0          7.2         10.0          8.4         20.0         11.5         45.0         24.8
                                                                   6.2-8.5                  6.2-11.6                  6.2-21.7                 6.2-100.5
0.5.............................................          2.5          6.7          5.0          7.2         10.0          8.4         22.5         12.4
                                                                   6.2-7.3                   6.2-8.5                  6.2-11.6                  6.2-25.3
0.2.............................................          1.0          6.4          2.0          6.6          4.0          7.0          9.0          8.2
                                                                   6.2-6.6                   6.2-7.0                   6.2-8.0                  6.2-10.9
0.1.............................................          0.5          6.3          1.0          6.4          2.0          6.6          4.5          7.1
                                                                   6.2-6.4                   6.2-6.6                   6.2-7.0                   6.2-8.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.


   Table 5a--Predicted Number of Cases of CBD per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternative PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                    Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient. 1995 Baseline.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1995                                                                   Exposure duration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Exposure level ([mu]g/m\3\)             Cumulative    Estimated                Estimated                  Estimated                Estimated
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\-  cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000
                                                      yrs)      (95% c.i.)      yrs       (95% c.i.)      yrs       (95% c.i.)      yrs       (95% c.i.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0.............................................         10.0         30.9         20.0         41.9         40.0         76.6         90.0        312.9
                                                                 22.8-44.0                 22.8-84.3                22.8-285.5                22.8-999.9
1.0.............................................          5.0         26.6         10.0         30.9         20.0         41.9         45.0         88.8
                                                                 22.8-31.7                 22.8-44.0                 22.8-84.3                22.8-375.0

[[Page 47660]]

 
0.5.............................................          2.5         24.6          5.0         26.6         10.0         30.9         22.5         45.2
                                                                 22.8-26.9                 22.8-31.7                 22.8-44.0                 22.8-98.9
0.2.............................................          1.0         23.5          2.0         24.2          4.0         25.8          9.0         30.0
                                                                 22.8-24.3                 22.8-26.0                 22.8-29.7                 22.8-41.3
0.1.............................................          0.5         23.1          1.0         23.5          2.0         24.2          4.5         26.2
                                                                 22.8-23.6                 22.8-24.3                 22.8-26.0                 22.8-30.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.


   Table 5b--Predicted Number of Cases of CBD per 1000 Workers Exposed at Current and Alternative PELs Based on Proportional Hazards Model, Cumulative
                    Exposure Metric, With Corresponding Interval Based on the Uncertainty in the Exposure Coefficient. 2002 Baseline.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      2002                                                                   Exposure duration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5 years                  10 years                  20 years                  45 years
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Exposure level ([mu]g/m\3\)             Cumulative    Estimated                Estimated                  Estimated                Estimated
                                                  ([mu]g/m\3\-  cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000  [mu]g/m\3\-   cases/1000
                                                      yrs)      (95% c.i.)      yrs       (95% c.i.)      yrs       (95% c.i.)      yrs       (95% c.i.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0.............................................         10.0          3.7         20.0          5.1         40.0          9.4         90.0         43.6
                                                                   2.7-5.3                  2.7-10.4                  2.7-39.2                 2.7-679.8
1.0.............................................          5.0          3.2         10.0          3.7         20.0          5.1         45.0         11.0
                                                                   2.7-3.8                   2.7-5.3                  2.7-10.4                  2.7-54.3
0.5.............................................          2.5          3.0          5.0          3.2         10.0          3.7         22.5          5.5
                                                                   2.7-3.2                   2.7-3.8                   2.7-5.3                  2.7-12.3
0.2.............................................          1.0          2.8          2.0          2.9          4.0          3.1          9.0          3.6
                                                                   2.7-2.9                   2.7-3.1                   2.7-3.6                   2.7-5.0
0.1.............................................          0.5          2.8          1.0          2.8          2.0          2.9          4.5          3.1
                                                                   2.7-2.8                   2.7-2.9                   2.7-3.1                   2.7-3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.

    As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the exposure-response models Dr. Stone 
developed based on the Cullman data set predict a high risk of both 
sensitization (about 96-394 cases per 1000 exposed workers) and CBD 
(about 44-313 cases per 1000) at the current PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ for an 
exposure duration of 45 years (90 [mu]g/m\3\-yr). For a 45-year 
exposure at the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, risk estimates for 
sensitization (about 8-40 cases per 1000 exposed workers) and CBD 
(about 4-30 per 1000 exposed workers) are substantially reduced. Thus, 
the model predicts that the risk of sensitization and CBD at a PEL of 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ will be about 10 percent of the risk at the current PEL 
of 2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    OSHA does not believe the risk estimates generated by these 
exposure-response models to be highly accurate. Limitations of the 
analysis include the size of the dataset, relatively sparse exposure 
data from the plant's early years, study size-related constraints on 
the statistical analysis of the dataset, and limited follow-up time on 
many workers. The Cullman study population is a relatively small group 
and can support only limited statistical analysis. For example, its 
size precludes inclusion of multiple covariates in the exposure-
response models or a two-stage exposure-response analysis to model both 
sensitization and the subsequent development of CBD within the 
subpopulation of sensitized workers. The limited size of the Cullman 
dataset is characteristic of studies on beryllium-exposed workers in 
modern, low-exposure environments, which are typically small-scale 
processing plants (up to several hundred workers, up to 20-30 cases).
    Despite these issues with the statistical analysis, OSHA believes 
its main policy determinations are well supported by the best available 
evidence, including the literature review and careful examination of 
the prevalence of sensitization and CBD among workers with exposure 
levels comparable to the current and proposed PELs in the NJMRC data 
set. The previously described literature analysis and prevalence 
analysis demonstrate that workers with occupational exposure to 
airborne beryllium at the current PEL face a risk of becoming 
sensitized to beryllium and progressing to both early and advanced 
stages of CBD that far exceeds the value of 1 in 1000 used by OSHA as a 
benchmark of clearly significant risk. Furthermore, OSHA's preliminary 
risk assessment indicates that risk of beryllium sensitization and CBD 
can be significantly reduced by reduction of airborne exposure levels, 
along with respiratory and dermal protection measures, as demonstrated 
in facilities such as the Tucson ceramics plant, the Elmore beryllium 
production facility, and the Reading copper beryllium facility 
described in the literature review.

[[Page 47661]]

    OSHA's preliminary risk assessment also indicates that despite the 
reduction in risk expected with the proposed PEL, the risk to workers 
with average exposure levels of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is still clearly 
significant (see this preamble at section VI). In the prevalence 
analysis, workers with LTW average or HEJ exposures close to 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ experienced high levels of sensitization and CBD. This finding is 
corroborated by the literature analysis, which showed that workers 
exposed to mean plant-wide airborne exposures between 0.1 and 0.5 
[mu]g/m\3\ had a similarly high prevalence of sensitization and CBD. 
Given the significant risk at these levels of exposure, the Agency 
believes that the proposed action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, dermal 
protection requirements, and other ancillary provisions of the proposed 
rule are key to reducing the risk of beryllium sensitization and CBD 
among exposed workers. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed 
standard, including the PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, the action level of 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\, and provisions to limit dermal exposure to beryllium, 
together will significantly reduce workers' risk of beryllium 
sensitization and CBD from occupational beryllium exposure.
2. Risk of Lung Cancer
    OSHA's review of epidemiological studies of lung cancer mortality 
among beryllium workers found that most did not characterize exposure 
levels sufficiently to characterize risk of lung cancer at the current 
and proposed PELs. However, as discussed in this preamble at section V, 
Health Effects and section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment, NIOSH 
recently published a quantitative risk assessment based on beryllium 
exposure and lung cancer mortality among 5436 male workers employed at 
beryllium processing plants in Reading, PA; Elmore, OH; and Hazleton, 
PA, prior to 1970 (Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2010b). This new risk 
assessment addresses important sources of uncertainty for previous lung 
cancer analyses, including the sole prior exposure-response analysis 
for beryllium and lung cancer, conducted by Sanderson et al. (2001) on 
workers from the Reading plant alone. Workers from the Elmore and 
Hazleton plants who were added to the analysis by Schubauer-Berigan et 
al. were, in general, exposed to lower levels of beryllium than those 
at the Reading plant. The median worker from Hazleton had a mean 
exposure across his tenure of less than 2 [mu]g/m\3\, while the median 
worker from Elmore had a mean exposure of less than 1 [mu]g/m\3\. The 
Elmore and Hazleton worker populations also had fewer short-term 
workers than the Reading population. Finally, the updated cohorts 
followed the worker populations through 2005, increasing the length of 
follow-up time compared to the previous exposure-response analysis. For 
these reasons, OSHA based its preliminary risk assessment for lung 
cancer on the Schubauer-Berigan risk analysis.
    Schubauer-Berigan et al. (2011) analyzed the data set using a 
variety of exposure-response modeling approaches, described in this 
preamble at section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment. The authors found 
that lung cancer mortality risk was strongly and significantly related 
to mean, cumulative, and maximum measures of workers' exposure to 
beryllium (all models reported in Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2011). They 
selected the best-fitting models to generate risk estimates for male 
workers with a mean exposure of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ (the current NIOSH 
Recommended Exposure Limit for beryllium). In addition, they estimated 
the mean exposure that would be associated with an excess lung cancer 
mortality risk of one in one thousand. At OSHA's request, the authors 
also estimated excess risks for workers with mean exposures at each of 
the other alternate PELs under consideration: 1 [mu]g/m\3\, 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\, and 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. Table 6 presents the estimated excess risk of 
lung cancer mortality associated with various levels of beryllium 
exposure allowed under the current rule, based on the final models 
presented in Schubauer-Berigan et al's risk assessment.

      Table 6--Excess Risk of Lung Cancer Mortality per 1000 Male Workers at Alternate PELs (NIOSH Models)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Mean exposure
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Exposure-response model       0.1 [micro]g/   0.2 [micro]g/   0.5 [micro]g/    1 [micro]g/     2 [micro]g/
                                       m\3\            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best monotonic PWL--all workers.             7.3              15              45             120             200
Best monotonic PWL--excluding                3.1             6.4              17              39              61
 professional and asbestos
 workers........................
Best categorical--all workers...             4.4               9              25              59             170
Best categorical--excluding                  1.4             2.7             7.1              15              33
 professional and asbestos
 workers........................
Power model--all workers........              12              19              30              40              52
Power model--excluding                        19              30              49              68              90
 professional and asbestos
 workers........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.

    The lowest estimate of excess lung cancer deaths from the six final 
models presented by Schubauer-Berigan et al. is 33 per 1000 workers 
exposed at a mean level of 2 [mu]g/m\3\, the current PEL. Risk 
estimates as high as 200 lung cancer deaths per 1000 result from the 
other five models presented. Regardless of the model chosen, the excess 
risk of about 33 to 200 per 1000 workers is clearly significant, 
falling well above the level of risk the Supreme Court indicated a 
reasonable person might consider acceptable (See Benzene, 448 U.S. at 
655). The proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is expected to reduce these 
risks significantly, to somewhere between 2.7-30 excess lung cancer 
deaths per 1000 workers. These risk estimates still fall above the 
threshold of 1 in 1000 that OSHA considers clearly significant. 
However, the Agency believes the lung cancer risks should be regarded 
with a greater degree of uncertainty than the risk estimates for CBD 
discussed previously. While the risk estimates for CBD at the proposed 
PEL were determined from exposure levels observed in occupational 
studies, the lung cancer risks are extrapolated from much higher 
exposure levels.

C. Conclusions

    As discussed above, OSHA used the best available scientific 
evidence to identify adverse health effects of

[[Page 47662]]

occupational beryllium exposure, and to evaluate exposed workers' risk 
of these impairments. The Agency reviewed extensive epidemiological and 
experimental research pertaining to adverse health effects of 
occupational beryllium exposure, including lung cancer, immunological 
sensitization to beryllium, and CBD, and has evaluated the risk of 
these effects from exposures allowed under the current and proposed 
standards. The Agency has, additionally, reviewed previous policy 
determinations and case law regarding material impairment of health, 
and has preliminarily determined that CBD, in all stages, and lung 
cancer constitute material health impairments. Furthermore, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that long-term exposure to beryllium at the 
current PEL would pose a risk of CBD and lung cancer greater than the 
risk of 1 per 1000 exposed workers the Agency considers clearly 
significant. OSHA's risk assessment for beryllium indicates that 
adoption of the new PEL, action level, and dermal protection provisions 
of the proposed rule will significantly reduce this risk. OSHA 
therefore believes it has met the statutory requirements pertaining to 
significance of risk, consistent with the OSH Act, Supreme Court 
precedent, and the Agency's previous policy decisions.

IX. Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis

A. Introduction and Summary

    OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (PEA) addresses issues related to the costs, 
benefits, technological and economic feasibility, and the economic 
impacts (including impacts on small entities) of this proposed 
respirable beryllium rule and evaluates regulatory alternatives to the 
proposed rule. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to 
assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, 
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and 
public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity), 
unless a statute requires another regulatory approach. Executive Order 
13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
The full PEA has been placed in OSHA rulemaking docket OSHA-H005C-2006-
0870. This rule is an economically significant regulatory action under 
Sec. 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 
Management and Budget, as required by executive order.
    The purpose of the PEA is to:
     Identify the establishments and industries potentially 
affected by the proposed rule;
     Estimate current exposures and the technologically 
feasible methods of controlling these exposures;
     Estimate the benefits resulting from employers coming into 
compliance with the proposed rule in terms of reductions in cases of 
lung cancer and chronic beryllium disease;
     Evaluate the costs and economic impacts that 
establishments in the regulated community will incur to achieve 
compliance with the proposed rule;
     Assess the economic feasibility of the proposed rule for 
affected industries; and
     Assess the impact of the proposed rule on small entities 
through an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), to include 
an evaluation of significant regulatory alternatives to the proposed 
rule that OSHA has considered.
    The PEA contains the following chapters:

Chapter I. Introduction
Chapter II. Assessing the Need for Regulation
Chapter III. Profile of Affected Industries
Chapter IV. Technological Feasibility
Chapter V. Costs of Compliance
Chapter VI. Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination
Chapter VII. Benefits and Net Benefits
Chapter VIII. Regulatory Alternatives
Chapter IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The PEA includes all of the economic analyses OSHA is required to 
perform, including the findings of technological and economic 
feasibility and their supporting materials required by the OSH Act as 
interpreted by the courts (in Chapters III, IV, V, and VI); those 
required by EO 12866 and EO 13563 (primarily in Chapters III, V, and 
VII, though these depend on material in other chapters); and those 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (in Chapters VI, VIII, and 
IX, though these depend, in part, on materials presented in other 
chapters).
    Key findings of these chapters are summarized below and in sections 
IX.B through IX.I of this PEA summary.
Profile of Affected Industries
    This proposed rule would affect employers and employees in many 
different industries across the economy. As described in Section IX.C 
and reported in Table IX-2 of this preamble, OSHA estimates that a 
total of 35,051 employees in 4,088 establishments are potentially at 
risk from exposure to beryllium.
Technological Feasibility
    As described in more detail in Section IX.D of this preamble and in 
Chapter IV of the PEA, OSHA assessed, for all affected sectors, the 
current exposures and the technological feasibility of the proposed PEL 
of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Tables IX-5 in section IX.D of this preamble summarizes all nine 
application groups (industry sectors and production processes) studied 
in the technological feasibility analysis. The technological 
feasibility analysis includes information on current exposures, 
descriptions of engineering controls and other measures to reduce 
exposures, and a preliminary assessment of the technological 
feasibility of compliance with the proposed PELs.
    The preliminary technological feasibility analysis shows that for 
the majority of the job groups evaluated, exposures are either already 
at or below the proposed PEL, or can be adequately controlled with 
additional engineering and work practice controls. Therefore, OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is 
technologically feasible for most operations most of the time.
    Based on the currently available evidence, it is more difficult to 
determine whether an alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ would also be 
feasible in most operations. For some application groups, a PEL of 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ would almost certainly be feasible. In other application 
groups, a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ appears feasible, except for 
establishments working with high beryllium content alloys. For 
application groups with the highest exposure, the exposure monitoring 
data necessary to more fully evaluate the effectiveness of exposure 
controls adopted after 2000 are not currently available to OSHA, which 
makes it difficult to determine the feasibility of achieving exposure 
levels at or below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\.
    OSHA also evaluated the feasibility of a STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 
The majority of the available short-term measurements are below 2.0 
[mu]g/m\3\; therefore OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed 
STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ can be achieved for most operations most of the 
time. OSHA recognizes that for a small number of tasks, short-term 
exposures may exceed the proposed STEL, even after feasible control 
measures to reduce TWA exposure to below the proposed PEL have been 
implemented, and therefore assumes that the use of

[[Page 47663]]

respiratory protection will continue to be required for some short-term 
tasks. It is more difficult based on the currently available evidence 
to determine whether the alternative STEL of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ would also 
be feasible in most operations based on lack of detail in the 
activities of the workers presented in the data. OSHA expects 
additional use of respiratory protection would be required for tasks in 
which peak exposures can be reduced to less than 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ but not 
less than 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Due to limitations in the available sampling 
data and the higher detection limits for short term measurements, OSHA 
could not determine the percentage of the STEL measurements that are 
less than or equal to 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\.
Costs of Compliance
    As described in more detail in Section IX.E and reported, by 
application group and NAICS code, in Table IX-7 of this preamble, the 
total annualized cost of compliance with the proposed standard is 
estimated to be about $37.6 million. The major cost elements associated 
with the revisions to the standard are housekeeping ($12.6 million), 
engineering controls ($9.5 million), training ($5.8 million), and 
medical surveillance ($2.9 million).
    The compliance costs are expressed as annualized costs in order to 
evaluate economic impacts against annual revenue and annual profits, to 
be able to compare the economic impact of the rulemaking with other 
OSHA regulatory actions, and to be able to add and track Federal 
regulatory compliance costs and economic impacts in a consistent 
manner. Annualized costs also represent a better measure for assessing 
the longer-term potential impacts of the rulemaking. The annualized 
costs were calculated by annualizing the one-time costs over a period 
of 10 years and applying a discount rate of 3 percent (and an 
alternative discount rate of 7 percent).
    The estimated costs for the proposed beryllium standard represent 
the additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full 
compliance. They do not include costs associated with current 
compliance that has already been achieved with regard to the new 
requirements or costs necessary to achieve compliance with existing 
beryllium requirements, to the extent that some employers may currently 
not be fully complying with applicable regulatory requirements.
Economic Impacts
    To assess the nature and magnitude of the economic impacts 
associated with compliance with the proposed rule, OSHA developed 
quantitative estimates of the potential economic impact of the new 
requirements on entities in each of the affected industry sectors. The 
estimated compliance costs were compared with industry revenues and 
profits to provide an assessment of the economic feasibility of 
complying with the revised standard and an evaluation of the potential 
economic impacts.
    As described in greater detail in Section IX.F of this preamble and 
in Chapter VI of the PEA, the costs of compliance with the proposed 
rulemaking are not large in relation to the corresponding annual 
financial flows associated with each of the affected industry sectors. 
The estimated annualized costs of compliance represent about 0.11 
percent of annual revenues and about 1.52 percent of annual profits, on 
average, across all affected firms. Compliance costs do not represent 
more than 1 percent of revenues or more than 16.25 percent of profits 
in any affected industry.
    Based on its analysis of the relative inelasticity of demand for 
beryllium-containing inputs and products and of possible international 
trade effects, OSHA concluded that most or all costs arising from this 
proposed beryllium rule would be passed on in higher prices rather than 
absorbed in lost profits and that any price increases would result in 
minimal loss of business to foreign competition.
    Given the minimal potential impact on prices or profits in the 
affected industries, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that compliance 
with the requirements of the proposed rulemaking would be economically 
feasible in every affected industry sector.
Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost-Effectiveness
    As described in more detail in Section VIII.G of this preamble, 
OSHA estimated the benefits, net benefits, and incremental benefits of 
the proposed beryllium rule. That section also contains a sensitivity 
analysis to show how robust the estimates of net benefits are to 
changes in various cost and benefit parameters. A full explanation of 
the derivation of the estimates presented there is provided in Chapter 
VII of the PEA for the proposed rule.
    OSHA estimated the benefits associated with the proposed beryllium 
PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and, for analytical purposes to comply with OMB 
Circular A-4, with alternative beryllium PELs of .1 [mu]g/m\3\ and .5 
[mu]g/m\3\ by applying the dose-response relationship developed in the 
Agency's preliminary risk assessment--summarized in Section VI of this 
preamble--to current exposure levels. OSHA determined current exposure 
levels by first developing an exposure profile for industries with 
workers exposed to beryllium, using OSHA inspection and site-visit 
data, and then applying this exposure profile to the total current 
worker population. The industry-by-industry exposure profile is 
summarized in Table IX-3 in Section IX.C of this preamble.
    By applying the dose-response relationship to estimates of current 
exposure levels across industries, it is possible to project the number 
of cases of the following diseases expected to occur in the worker 
population given current exposure levels (the ``baseline''):
     fatal cases of lung cancer,
     fatal cases of chronic beryllium disease (CBD), and
     morbidity related to chronic beryllium disease.
    Table IX-1 provides a summary of OSHA's best estimate of the costs 
and benefits of the proposed rule. As shown, the proposed rule, once it 
is fully effective, is estimated to prevent 96 fatalities and 50 non-
fatal beryllium-related illnesses annually, and the monetized 
annualized benefits of the proposed rule are estimated to be $575.8 
million using a 3-percent discount rate and $255.3 million using a 7-
percent discount rate. Also as shown in Table IX-1, the estimated 
annualized cost of the rule is $37.6 million using a 3-percent discount 
rate and $39.1 million using a 7-percent discount rate. The proposed 
rule is estimated to generate net benefits of $538.2 million annually 
using a 3-percent discount rate and $216.2 million annually using a 7-
percent discount rate. The estimated costs and benefits of the proposed 
rule, disaggregated by industry sector, were previously presented in 
Table I-1 in this preamble.

 Table IX-1--Annualized Costs, Benefits and Net Benefits of OSHA's Proposed Beryllium Standard of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Rate................................................                              3%                 7%
                                                                           -------------------------------------

[[Page 47664]]

 
Annualized Costs
    Engineering Controls.....................................                      $9,540,189        $10,334,036
    Respirators..............................................                         249,684            252,281
    Exposure Assessment......................................                       2,208,950          2,411,851
    Regulated Areas and Beryllium Work Areas.................                         629,031            652,823
    Medical Surveillance.....................................                       2,882,076          2,959,448
    Medical Removal..........................................                         148,826            166,054
    Exposure Control Plan....................................                       1,769,506          1,828,766
    Protective Clothing and Equipment........................                       1,407,365          1,407,365
    Hygiene Areas and Practices..............................                         389,241            389,891
    Housekeeping.............................................                      12,574,921         12,917,944
    Training.................................................                       5,797,535          5,826,975
                                                                           -------------------------------------
Total Annualized Costs (Point Estimate)......................                      37,597,325         39,147,434
Annual Benefits: Number of Cases Prevented
    Fatal Lung Cancer........................................          4.0
    CBD-Related Mortality....................................         92.0
    Total Beryllium Related Mortality........................         96.0       $572,981,864       $253,743,368
    Morbidity................................................         49.5          2,844,770          1,590,927
Monetized Annual Benefits (midpoint estimate)................                     575,826,633        255,334,295
Net Benefits.................................................                     538,229,308        216,186,861
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    OSHA has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
as amended in 1996. Among the contents of the IRFA are an analysis of 
the potential impact of the proposed rule on small entities and a 
description and discussion of significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule that OSHA has considered. The IRFA is presented in its entirety 
both in Chapter IX of the PEA and in Section IX.I of this preamble.
    The remainder of this section (Section IX) of the preamble is 
organized as follows:

B. The Need for Regulation
C. Profile of Affected Industry
D. Technological Feasibility Analysis
E. Costs of Compliance
F. Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination
G. Benefits and Net Benefits
H. Regulatory Alternatives
I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

B. Need for Regulation

    Employees in work environments addressed by the proposed beryllium 
rule are exposed to a variety of significant hazards that can and do 
cause serious injury and death. As described in Chapter II of the PEA 
in support of the proposed rule, the risks to employees are excessively 
large due to the existence of various types of market failure, and 
existing and alternative methods of overcoming these negative 
consequences--such as workers' compensation systems, tort liability 
options, and information dissemination programs--have been shown to 
provide insufficient worker protection.
    After carefully weighing the various potential advantages and 
disadvantages of using a regulatory approach to improve upon the 
current situation, OSHA preliminarily concludes that, in the case of 
beryllium exposure, the proposed mandatory standards represent the best 
choice for reducing the risks to employees. In addition, rulemaking is 
necessary in this case in order to replace older existing standards 
with updated, clear, and consistent health standards.

C. Profile of Affected Industries

1. Introduction
    Chapter III of the PEA presents a profile of industries that use 
beryllium, beryllium oxide, and/or beryllium alloys. The discussion 
below summarizes the findings in that chapter. For each industry sector 
identified, the Agency describes the uses of beryllium and estimates 
the number of establishments and employees that may be affected by this 
proposed rulemaking. Employee exposure to beryllium can also occur as a 
result of certain processes such as welding that are found in many 
industries. OSHA uses the umbrella term ``application group'' to refer 
either to an industrial sector or a cross-industry group with a common 
process. These groups are all mutually exclusive and are analyzed in 
separate sections in Chapter III of the PEA. These sections briefly 
describe each application group and then explain how OSHA estimated the 
number of establishments working with beryllium and the number of 
employees exposed to beryllium. Beryllium is rarely used by all 
establishments in any particular application group because its unique 
properties and relatively high cost typically result in only very 
specific and limited usage within a portion of a group.
    The information in Chapter III of the PEA is based on reports 
prepared under task order by Eastern Research Group (ERG), an OSHA 
contractor; information collected during OSHA's Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel (OSHA 2008b); and Agency research and analysis. 
Technological feasibility reports (summarized in Chapter IV of the PEA) 
for each beryllium-using application group provide a detailed 
presentation of processes and occupations with beryllium exposure, 
including available sampling exposure measurements and estimates of how 
many employees are affected in each specific occupation.
    OSHA has identified nine application groups that would be 
potentially affected by the proposed beryllium standard:
    1. Beryllium Production
    2. Beryllium Oxide Ceramics and Composites
    3. Nonferrous Foundries
    4. Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying
    5. Precision Turned Products
    6. Copper Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
    7. Fabrication of Beryllium Alloy Products
    8. Welding
    9. Dental Laboratories
    These application groups are broadly defined, and some include 
establishments in several North

[[Page 47665]]

American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. For example, 
the Copper Rolling and Drawing, and Extruding application group is made 
up both of NAICS 331421 Copper Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding and 
NAICS 331422 Copper Wire Drawing. While an application group may 
contain numerous NAICS six-digit industry codes, in most cases only a 
fraction of the establishments in any individual six-digit NAICS 
industry use beryllium and would be affected by the proposed rule. For 
example, not all companies in the above application group work with 
copper that contains beryllium.
    One application group, welding, reflects industrial activities or 
processes that take place in various industry sectors. All of the 
industries in which a given activity or process may result in worker 
exposure to beryllium are identified in the sections on the application 
group. The section on each application group describes the production 
processes where occupational contact with beryllium can occur and 
contains estimates of the total number of firms, employees, affected 
establishments, and affected employees.
    Chapter III of the PEA presents formulas in the text, usually in 
parentheses, to help explain the derivation of estimates. Because the 
values used in the formulas shown in the text are sometimes rounded, 
while the actual spreadsheet formulas used to create final costs are 
not, the calculation using the presented formula will sometimes differ 
slightly from the total presented in the text--which is the actual 
total as shown in the tables.
    At the end of Chapter III in the PEA, OSHA discusses other industry 
sectors that have reportedly used beryllium in the past or for which 
there are anecdotal or informal reports of beryllium use. The Agency 
was unable to verify beryllium use in these sectors that would be 
affected by the proposed standard, and seeks further information in 
this rulemaking on these or other industries where there may be 
significant beryllium use and employee exposure.
2. Summary of Affected Establishments and Employers
    As shown in Table IX-2, OSHA estimates that a total of 35,051 
workers in 4,088 establishments will be affected by the proposed 
beryllium standard. Also shown are the estimated annual revenues for 
these entities.

[[Page 47666]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.003


[[Page 47667]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.004


[[Page 47668]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.005


[[Page 47669]]


3. Beryllium Exposure Profile of At-Risk Workers
    The technological feasibility analyses presented in Chapter IV of 
the PEA contain data and discussion of worker exposures to beryllium 
throughout industry. Exposure profiles, by job category, were developed 
from individual exposure measurements that were judged to be 
substantive and to contain sufficient accompanying description to allow 
interpretation of the circumstance of each measurement. The resulting 
exposure profiles show the job categories with current overexposures to 
beryllium and, thus, the workers for whom beryllium controls would be 
implemented under the proposed rule.
    Table IX-3 summarizes, from the exposure profiles, the number of 
workers at risk from beryllium exposure and the distribution of 8-hour 
TWA respirable beryllium exposures by affected job category and sector. 
Exposures are grouped into the following ranges: Less than 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\; >= 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and <= 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\; > 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and <= 
0.5 [mu]g/m\3\; > 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and <= 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\; > 1.0 [mu]g/
m\3\ and <= 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\; and greater than 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. These 
frequencies represent the percentages of production employees in each 
job category and sector currently exposed at levels within the 
indicated range.
    Table IX-4 presents data by NAICS code on the estimated number of 
workers currently at risk from beryllium exposure, as well as the 
estimated number of workers at risk of beryllium exposure above 0 
[mu]g/m\3\, at or above 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, at or above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, at 
or above 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, at or above 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and at or above 
2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. As shown, an estimated 12,101 workers currently have 
beryllium exposures at or above the proposed action level of 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\; and an estimated 8,091 workers currently have beryllium exposures 
above the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.

[[Page 47670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.006


[[Page 47671]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.007


[[Page 47672]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.008

D. Technological Feasibility Analysis of the Proposed Permissible 
Exposure Limit to Beryllium Exposures

    This section summarizes the technological feasibility analysis 
presented in Chapter IV of the PEA (OSHA, 2014). The technological 
feasibility analysis includes information on current exposures, 
descriptions of engineering controls and other measures to reduce 
exposures, and a preliminary assessment of the technological 
feasibility of compliance with the proposed standard, including a 
reduction in OSHA's permissible exposure limits (PELs) in nine affected 
application groups. The current PELs for beryllium are 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ 
as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA), and 5.0 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 
acceptable ceiling concentration. OSHA is proposing a PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA and is additionally considering alternative TWA 
PELs of 0.1 and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\. OSHA is also proposing a 15-minute 
short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and is considering 
alternative STELs of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.5 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The technological feasibility analysis includes nine application 
groups that correspond to specific industries or production processes 
that OSHA has preliminarily determined fall within the scope of the 
proposed standard. Within each of these application groups, exposure 
profiles have been developed

[[Page 47673]]

that characterize the distribution of the available exposure 
measurements by job title or group of jobs. Descriptions of existing 
engineering controls for operations that create sources of beryllium 
exposure, and of additional engineering and work practice controls that 
can be used to reduce exposure are also provided. For each application 
group, a preliminary determination is made regarding the feasibility of 
achieving the proposed permissible exposure limits. For application 
groups in which the median exposures for some jobs exceed the proposed 
TWA PEL, a more detailed analysis is presented by job or group of jobs 
within the application group. The analysis is based on the best 
information currently available to the Agency, including a 
comprehensive review of the industrial hygiene literature, National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health Hazard 
Evaluations and case studies of beryllium exposure, site visits 
conducted by an OSHA contractor (Eastern Research Group (ERG)), 
submissions to OSHA's rulemaking docket, and inspection data from 
OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). OSHA also 
obtained information on production processes, worker exposures, and the 
effectiveness of existing control measures from the primary beryllium 
producer in the United States, Materion Corporation, and from 
interviews with industry experts.
    The nine application groups included in this analysis were 
identified based on information obtained during preliminary rulemaking 
activities that included a SBRFA panel, a comprehensive review of the 
published literature, stakeholder input, and an analysis of IMIS data 
collected during OSHA workplace inspections where detectable airborne 
beryllium was found. The nine application groups and their 
corresponding section numbers in Chapter IV of the PEA are:
     Section 3--Beryllium Production,
     Section 4--Beryllium Oxide Ceramics and Composites,
     Section 5--Nonferrous Foundries,
     Section 6--Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying,
     Section 7--Precision Turned Products,
     Section 8--Copper Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding,
     Section 9--Fabrication of Beryllium Alloy Products,
     Section 10--Welding, and
     Section 11--Dental Laboratories.
    OSHA developed exposure profiles by job or group of jobs using 
exposure data at the application, operation or task level to the extent 
that such data were available. In those instances where there were 
insufficient exposure data to create a profile, OSHA used analogous 
operations to characterize the operations. The exposure profiles 
represent baseline conditions with existing controls for each operation 
with potential exposure. For job groups where exposures were above the 
proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, OSHA identified additional controls 
that could be implemented to reduce employee exposures to beryllium. 
These included engineering controls, such as process containment, local 
exhaust ventilation and wet methods for dust suppression, and work 
practices, such as improved housekeeping and the prohibition of 
compressed air for cleaning beryllium-contaminated surfaces.
    For the purposes of this technological feasibility assessment, 
these nine application groups can be divided into three general 
categories based on current exposure levels:
    (1) application groups in which current exposures for most jobs are 
already below the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\;
    (2) application groups in which exposures for most jobs are below 
the current PEL, but exceed the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and 
therefore additional controls would be required; and
    (3) application groups in which exposures in one or more jobs 
routinely exceed the current PEL, and therefore substantial reductions 
in exposure would be required to achieve the proposed PEL.
    The majority of exposure measurements taken in the application 
groups in the first category are already at or below the proposed PEL 
of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and most of the jobs with exposure to beryllium in 
these four application groups have median exposures below the 
alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (See Table IX-5). These four 
application groups include rolling, drawing, and extruding; fabrication 
of beryllium alloy products; welding; and dental laboratories.
    The two application groups in the second category include: 
precision turned products and secondary smelting. For these two groups, 
the median exposures in most jobs are below the current PEL, but the 
median exposure levels for some job groups currently exceed the 
proposed PEL. Additional exposure controls and work practices could be 
implemented that the Agency has preliminarily concluded would reduce 
exposures to or below the proposed PEL for most jobs most of the time. 
One exception is furnace operations in secondary smelting, in which the 
median exposure exceeds the current PEL. Furnace operations involve 
high temperatures that produce significant amounts of fumes and 
particulate that can be difficult to contain. Therefore, the proposed 
PEL may not be feasible for most furnace operations involved with 
secondary smelting, and in some cases, respiratory protection would be 
required to adequately protect furnace workers when exposures exceed 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ despite the implementation of all feasible controls.
    Exposures in the third category of application groups routinely 
exceed the current PEL for several jobs. The three application groups 
in this category include: Beryllium production, beryllium oxide 
ceramics production, and nonferrous foundries. The individual job 
groups for which exposures exceed the current PEL are discussed in the 
application group specific sections later in this summary, and 
described in greater detail in the PEA. For the jobs that routinely 
exceed the current PEL, OSHA identified additional exposure controls 
and work practices that the Agency preliminarily concludes would reduce 
exposures to or below the proposed PEL most of the time, with three 
exceptions: Furnace operations in primary beryllium production and 
nonferrous foundries, and shakeout operations at nonferrous foundries. 
For these jobs, OSHA recognizes that even after installation of 
feasible controls, respiratory protection may be needed to adequately 
protect workers.
    In conclusion, the preliminary technological feasibility analysis 
shows that for the majority of the job groups evaluated, exposures are 
either already at or below the proposed PEL, or can be adequately 
controlled with additional engineering and work practice controls. 
Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ is feasible for most operations most of the time. The 
preliminary feasibility determination for the proposed PEL is also 
supported by Materion Corporation, the sole primary beryllium 
production company in the U.S., and by the United Steelworkers, who 
jointly submitted a draft proposed standard that specified an exposure 
limit of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ to OSHA (Materion and USW, 2012). The 
technological feasibility analysis conducted for each application group 
is briefly summarized below, and a more detailed discussion is 
presented in Sections 3 through 11 of Chapter IV of the PEA (OSHA, 
2014).
    Based on the currently available evidence, it is more difficult to 
determine whether an alternative PEL of

[[Page 47674]]

0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ would also be feasible in most operations. For some 
application groups, such as fabrication of beryllium alloy products, a 
PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ would almost certainly be feasible. In other 
application groups, such as precision turned products, a PEL of 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ appears feasible, except for establishments working with 
high beryllium content alloys. For application groups with the highest 
exposure, the exposure monitoring data necessary to more fully evaluate 
the effectiveness of exposure controls adopted after 2000 are not 
currently available to OSHA, which makes it difficult to determine the 
feasibility of achieving exposure levels at or below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\.
    OSHA also evaluated the feasibility of a STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, 
and alternative STELs of 0.5 and 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\. An analysis of the 
available short-term exposure measurements indicates that elevated 
exposures can occur during short-term tasks such as those associated 
with the operation and maintenance of furnaces at primary beryllium 
production facilities, at nonferrous foundries, and at secondary 
smelting operations. Peak exposure can also occur during the transfer 
and handling of beryllium oxide powders. OSHA believes that in many 
cases, reducing short-term exposures will be necessary to reduce 
workers' TWA exposures to or below the proposed PEL. The majority of 
the available short-term measurements are below 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, 
therefore OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed STEL of 2.0 
[mu]g/m\3\ can be achieved for most operations most of the time. OSHA 
recognizes that for a small number of tasks, short-term exposures may 
exceed the proposed STEL, even after feasible control measures to 
reduce TWA exposure to below the proposed PEL have been implemented, 
and therefore assumes that the use of respiratory protection will 
continue to be required for some short-term tasks. It is more difficult 
based on the currently available evidence to determine whether the 
alternative STEL of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ would also be feasible in most 
operations based on lack of detail in the activities of the workers 
presented in the data. OSHA expects additional use of respiratory 
protection would be required for tasks in which peak exposures can be 
reduced to less than 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ but not less than 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Due to limitations in the available sampling data and the higher 
detection limits for short term measurements, OSHA could not determine 
the percentage of the STEL measurements that are less than or equal to 
0.5 [mu]g/m\3\. A detailed discussion of the STELs being considered by 
OSHA is presented in Section 12 of Chapter IV of the PEA (OSHA, 2014).
    OSHA requests available exposure monitoring data and comments 
regarding the effectiveness of currently implemented control measures 
and the feasibility of the PELs under consideration, particularly the 
proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, the alternative TWA PEL of 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\, the proposed STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and the alternative 
STEL of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ to inform the Agency's final feasibility 
determinations.
Application Group Summaries
    This section summarizes the technological feasibility analysis for 
each of the nine application groups affected by the proposed standard. 
Chapter IV of the PEA, Technological Feasibility Analysis, identifies 
specific jobs or job groups with potential exposure to beryllium, and 
presents exposure profiles for each of these job groups (OSHA, 2014). 
Control measures and work practices that OSHA believes can reduce 
exposures are described along with preliminary conclusions regarding 
the feasibility of the proposed PEL. Table IX-5, located at the end of 
this summary, presents summary statistics for the personal breathing 
zone samples taken to measure full-shift exposures to beryllium in each 
application group. For the five application groups in which the median 
exposure level for at least one job group exceeds the proposed PEL, the 
sampling results are presented by job group. Table IX-5 displays the 
number of measurements; the range, the mean and the median of the 
measurement results; and the percentage of measurements less than 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\, less than or equal to the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, 
and less than or equal to the current PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. A more 
detailed discussion of exposure levels by job or job group for each 
application group is provided in Chapter IV of the PEA, sections 3 
through 11, along with a description of the available exposure 
measurement data, existing controls, and additional controls that would 
be required to achieve the proposed PEL.
Beryllium Production
    Only one primary beryllium production facility is currently in 
operation in the United States, a plant owned and operated by Materion 
Corporation,\15\ located in Elmore, Ohio. OSHA identified eight job 
groups at this facility in which workers are exposed to beryllium. 
These include: Chemical operations, powdering operations, production 
support, cold work, hot work, site support, furnace operations, and 
administrative work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Materion Corporation was previously named Brush Wellman. In 
2011, subsequent to the collection of the information presented in 
this chapter, the name changed. ``Brush Wellman'' is used whenever 
the data being discussed pre-dated the name change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency developed an exposure profile for each of these eight 
job groups to analyze the distribution of exposure levels associated 
with primary beryllium production. The job exposure profiles are based 
primarily on full-shift personal breathing zone (PBZ) (lapel-type) 
sample results from air monitoring conducted by Brush Wellman's primary 
production facility in 1999 (Brush Wellman, 2004). Starting in 2000, 
the company developed the Materion Worker Protection Program (MWPP), a 
multi-faceted beryllium exposure control program designed to reduce 
airborne exposures for the vast majority of workers to less than an 
internally established exposure limit of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. According to 
information provided by Materion, a combination of engineering 
controls, work practices, and housekeeping were used together to reduce 
average exposure levels to below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for the majority of 
workers (Materion Information Meeting, 2012). Also, two operations with 
historically high exposures, the wet plant and pebble plants, were 
decommissioned in 2000, thereby reducing average exposure levels. 
Therefore, the samples taken prior to 2000 may overestimate current 
exposures.
    Additional exposure samples were taken by NIOSH at the Elmore 
facility from 2007 through 2008 (NIOSH, 2011). This dataset, which was 
made available to OSHA by Materion, contains fewer samples than the 
1999 survey. OSHA did not incorporate these samples into the exposure 
profile due to the limited documentation associated with the sampling 
data. The lack of detailed information for individual samples has made 
it difficult for OSHA to correlate job classifications and identify the 
working conditions associated with the samples. Sampling data provided 
by Materion for 2007 and 2008 were not incorporated into the exposure 
profiles because the data lacked specific information on jobs and 
workplace conditions. In a meeting in May 2012 held between OSHA and 
Materion Corporation at the Elmore facility, the Agency was able to 
obtain some general information on the exposure control modifications 
that Materion Corporation made between 1999 and 2007, but has been 
unable to determine what specific

[[Page 47675]]

controls were in place at the time NIOSH conducted sampling (Materion 
Information Meeting, 2012).
    In five of the primary production job groups (i.e., hot work, cold 
work, production support, site support, and administrative work), the 
baseline exposure profile indicates that exposures are already lower 
than the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Median exposure values for 
these job groups range from nondetectable to 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\.
    For three of the job groups involved with primary beryllium 
production, (i.e., chemical operations, powdering, and furnace 
operations), the median exposure level exceeds the proposed PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\. Median exposure values for these job groups are 0.47, 0.37, 
and 0.68 [mu]g/m\3\ respectively, and only 17 percent to 29 percent of 
the available measurements are less than or equal to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Therefore, additional control measures for these job groups would be 
required to achieve compliance with the proposed PEL. OSHA has 
identified several engineering controls that the Agency preliminarily 
concludes can reduce exposures in chemical processes and powdering 
operations to less than or equal to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. In chemical 
processes, these include fail-safe drum-handling systems, full 
enclosure of drum-handling systems, ventilated enclosures around 
existing drum positions, automated systems to prevent drum overflow, 
and automated systems for container cleaning and disposal such as those 
designed for hazardous powders in the pharmaceutical industry. Similar 
engineering controls would reduce exposures in powdering operations. In 
addition, installing remote viewing equipment (or other equally 
effective engineering controls) to eliminate the need for workers to 
enter the die-loading hood during die filling will reduce exposures 
associated with this powdering task and reduce powder spills. Based on 
the availability of control methods to reduce exposures for each of the 
major sources of exposure in chemical operations, OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that exposures at or below the proposed 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL 
can be achieved in most chemical and powdering operations most of the 
time. OSHA believes furnace operators' exposures can be reduced using 
appropriate ventilation, including fume capture hoods, and other 
controls to reduce overall beryllium levels in foundries, but is not 
certain whether the exposures of furnace operators can be reduced to 
the proposed PEL with currently available technology. OSHA requests 
additional information on current exposure levels and the effectiveness 
of potential control measures for primary beryllium production 
operations to further refine this analysis.
Beryllium Oxide Ceramics Production
    OSHA identified seven job groups involved with beryllium oxide 
ceramics production. These include: Material preparation operator, 
forming operator, machining operator, kiln operator, production 
support, metallization, and administrative work. Four of these jobs 
(material preparation, forming operator, machining operator and kiln 
operator) work directly with beryllium oxides, and therefore these jobs 
have a high potential for exposure. The other three job groups 
(production support work, metallization, and administrative work) have 
primarily indirect exposure that occurs only when workers in these jobs 
groups enter production areas and are exposed to the same sources to 
which the material preparation, forming, machining and kiln operators 
are directly exposed. However, some production support and 
metallization activities do require workers to handle beryllium 
directly, and workers performing these tasks may at times be directly 
exposed to beryllium.
    The Agency developed exposure profiles for these jobs based on air 
sampling data from four sources: (1) Samples taken between 1994 and 
2003 at a large beryllium oxide ceramics facility, (2) air sampling 
data obtained during a site visit to a primary beryllium oxide ceramics 
producer, (3) a published report that provides information on beryllium 
oxide ceramics product manufacturing for a slightly earlier time 
period, and (4) exposure data from OSHA's Integrated Management 
Information System (OSHA, 2009). The exposure profile indicates that 
the three job groups with mostly indirect exposure (production support 
work, metallization, and administrative work) already achieve the 
proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Median exposure sample values for these 
job groups did not exceed 0.06 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The four job groups with direct exposure had higher exposures. In 
forming operations and machining operations, the median exposure levels 
of 0.18 and 0.15 ug/m\3\, respectively, are below the proposed PEL, 
while the median exposure levels for material preparation and kiln 
operations of 0.41 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.25 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, exceed 
the proposed PEL.
    The profile for the directly exposed jobs may overestimate 
exposures due to the preponderance of data from the mid-1990s, a time 
period prior to the implementation of a variety of exposure control 
measures introduced after 2000. In forming operations, 44 percent of 
sample values in the exposure profile exceeded 0.2 ug/m\3\. However, 
the median exposure levels for some tasks, such as small-press and 
large-press operation, based on sampling conducted in 2003 were below 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. The exposure profile for kiln operation was based on 
three samples taken from a single facility in 1995, and are all above 
0.2 ug/m\3\. Since then, exposures at the facility have declined due to 
changes in operations that reduced the amount of time kiln operators 
spend in the immediate vicinity of the kilns, as well as the 
discontinuation of a nearby high-exposure process. More recent 
information communicated to OSHA suggests that current exposures for 
kiln operators at the facility are currently below 0.1 ug/m\3\. 
Exposures in machining operations, most of which were already below 0.2 
ug/m\3\ during the 1990s, may have been further reduced since then 
through improved work practices and exposure controls (PEA Chapter IV, 
Section 7). For forming, kiln, and machining operations, OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that the installation of additional controls 
such as machine interlocks (for forming) and improved enclosures and 
ventilation will reduce exposures to or below the proposed PEL most of 
the time. OSHA requests information on recent exposure levels and 
controls in beryllium oxide forming and kiln operations to help the 
Agency evaluate the effectiveness of available exposure controls for 
this application group.
    In the exposure profile for material preparation, 73 percent of 
sample values exceeded 0.2 ug/m\3\. As with other parts of the exposure 
profile, exposure values from the mid-1990s may overestimate airborne 
beryllium levels for current operations. During most material 
preparation tasks, such as material loading, transfer, and spray 
drying, OSHA preliminarily concludes that exposures can be reduced to 
or below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ with process enclosures, ventilation hoods, and 
improved housekeeping procedures. However, OSHA acknowledges that peak 
exposures from some short-term tasks such as servicing of the spray 
chamber might continue to drive the TWA exposures above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ 
on days when these material preparation tasks are performed. 
Respirators may be needed to protect workers from exposures above the 
proposed TWA PEL

[[Page 47676]]

during these tasks.\16\ OSHA notes that material preparation for 
production of beryllium oxide ceramics currently takes place at only 
two facilities in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ One facility visited by ERG has reportedly modified this 
process to reduce worker exposures, but OSHA has no data to quantify 
the reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonferrous Foundries
    OSHA identified eight job groups in aluminum and copper foundries 
with beryllium exposure: Molding, material handling, furnace operation, 
pouring, shakeout operation, abrasive blasting, grinding/finishing, and 
maintenance. The Agency developed exposure profiles based on an air 
monitoring survey conducted by NIOSH in 2007, a Health Hazard 
Evaluation (HHE) conducted by NIOSH in 1975, a site visit by ERG in 
2003, a site visit report from 1999 by the California Cast Metals 
Association (CCMA); and two sets of data from air monitoring surveys 
obtained from Materion in 2004 and 2010.
    The exposure profile indicates that in foundries processing 
beryllium alloys, six of the eight job groups have median exposures 
that exceed the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ with baseline working 
conditions. One exception is grinding/finishing operations, where the 
median value is 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\ and 73 percent of exposure samples are 
below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. The other exception is abrasive blasting. The 
samples for abrasive blasting used in the exposure profile were 
obtained during blasting operations using enclosed cabinets, and all 5 
samples were below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Exposures for other job groups 
ranged from just below to well above the proposed PEL, including molder 
(all samples above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\), material handler (1 sample total, 
above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\), furnace operator (81.8 percent of samples above 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\), pouring operator (60 percent of samples above 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\), shakeout operator (1 sample total, above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\), 
and maintenance worker (50 percent of samples above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\).
    In some of the foundries at which the air samples included in the 
exposure profile were collected, there are indications that the 
ventilation systems were not properly used or maintained, and dry 
sweeping or brushing and the use of compressed air systems for cleaning 
may have contributed to high dust levels. OSHA believes that exposures 
in foundries can be substantially reduced by improving and properly 
using and maintaining the ventilation systems; switching from dry 
brushing, sweeping and compressed air to wet methods and use of HEPA-
filtered vacuums for cleaning molds and work areas; enclosing 
processes; automation of high-exposure tasks; and modification of 
processes (e.g., switching from sand-based to alternative casting 
methods). OSHA preliminarily concludes that these additional 
engineering controls and modified work practices can be implemented to 
achieve the proposed PEL most of the time for molding, material 
handling, maintenance, abrasive blasting, grinding/finishing, and 
pouring operations at foundries that produce aluminum and copper 
beryllium alloys.
    The Agency is less confident that exposure can be reliably reduced 
to the proposed PEL for furnace and shakeout operators. Beryllium 
concentrations in the proximity of the furnaces are typically higher 
than in other areas due to the fumes generated and the difficulty of 
controlling emissions during furnace operations. The exposure profile 
for furnace operations shows a median beryllium exposure level of 1.14 
[mu]g/m\3\. OSHA believes that furnace operators' exposures can be 
reduced using local exhaust ventilation and other controls to reduce 
overall beryllium levels in foundries, but it is not clear that they 
can be reduced to the proposed PEL with currently available technology. 
In foundries that use sand molds, the shakeout operation typically 
involves removing the freshly cast parts from the sand mold using a 
vibrating grate that shakes the sand from castings. The shakeout 
equipment generates substantial amounts of airborne dust that can be 
difficult to contain, and therefore shakeout operators are typically 
exposed to high dust levels. During casting of beryllium alloys, the 
dust may contain beryllium and beryllium oxide residues dislodged from 
the casting during the shakeout process. The exposure profile for the 
shakeout operations contains only one result of 1.3 [mu]g/m\3\. This 
suggests that a substantial reduction would be necessary to achieve 
compliance with a proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. OSHA requests 
additional information on recent employee exposure levels and the 
effectiveness of dust controls for shakeout operations for copper and 
aluminum alloy foundries.
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying
    OSHA identified two job groups in this application group with 
exposure to beryllium: Mechanical process operators and furnace 
operations workers. Mechanical operators handle and treat source 
material, and furnace operators run heating processes for refining, 
melting, and casting metal alloy. OSHA developed exposure profiles for 
these jobs based on exposure data from ERG site visits to a precious/
base metals recovery facility and a facility that melts and casts 
beryllium-containing alloys, both conducted in 2003. The available 
exposure data for this application group are limited, and therefore, 
the exposure profile is supplemented in part by summary data presented 
in secondary sources of information on beryllium exposures in this 
application group.
    The exposure profile for mechanical processing operators indicates 
low exposures (3 samples less than 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\), even though these 
samples were collected at a facility where the ventilation system was 
allowing visible emissions to escape exhaust hoods. Summary data from 
studies and reports published in 2005-2009 showed that mechanical 
processing operator exposures averaged between 0.01 and 0.04 [mu]g/m\3\ 
at facilities where mixed or electronic waste including beryllium alloy 
parts were refined. Based on these results, OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that the proposed PEL is already achieved for most mechanical 
processing operations most of the time, and exposures could be further 
reduced through improved ventilation system design and other measures, 
such as process enclosures.
    As with furnace operations examined in other application groups, 
the exposure profile indicates higher worker exposures for furnace 
operators in the secondary smelting, refining, and alloying application 
group (six samples with a median of 2.15 [mu]g/m\3\, and 83.3 percent 
above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\). The two lowest samples in this job's exposure 
profile (0.03 and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\) were collected at a facility engaged 
in recycling and recovery of precious metals where work with beryllium-
containing material is incidental. At this facility, the furnace is 
enclosed and fumes are ducted into a filtration system. The four higher 
samples, ranging from 1.92 to 14.08 [mu]g/m\3\, were collected at a 
facility engaged primarily in beryllium alloying operations, where 
beryllium content is significantly higher than in recycling and 
precious metal recovery activities, the furnace is not enclosed, and 
workers are positioned directly in the path of the exhaust ventilation 
over the furnace. OSHA believes these exposures could be reduced by 
enclosing the furnace and repositioning the worker, but is not certain 
whether the reduction achieved would be enough to bring exposures down 
to the proposed PEL. Based on the limited number of samples in the 
exposure profile and surrogate data from furnace operations, the 
proposed PEL

[[Page 47677]]

may not be feasible for furnace work in beryllium recovery and 
alloying, and respirators may be necessary to protect employees 
performing these tasks.
Precision Turned Products
    OSHA's preliminary feasibility analysis for precision turned 
products focuses on machinists who work with beryllium-containing 
alloys. The Agency also examined the available exposure data for non-
machinists and has preliminarily concluded that, in most cases, 
controlling the sources of exposures for machinists will also reduce 
exposures for other job groups with indirect exposure when working in 
the vicinity of machining operations.
    OSHA developed exposure profiles based on exposure data from four 
NIOSH surveys conducted between 1976 and 2008; ERG site visits to 
precision machining facilities in 2002, 2003, and 2004; case study 
reports from six facilities machining copper-beryllium alloys; and 
exposure data collected between 1987 and 2001 by the U.S. Navy 
Environmental Health Center (NEHC). Analysis of the exposure data 
showed a substantial difference between the median exposure level for 
workers machining pure beryllium and/or high-beryllium alloys compared 
to workers machining low-beryllium alloys. Most establishments in the 
precision turned products application group work only with low-
beryllium alloys, such as copper-beryllium. A relatively small number 
of establishments (estimated at 15) specialize in precision machining 
of pure beryllium and/or high-beryllium alloys.
    The exposure profile indicates that machinists working with low-
beryllium alloys have mostly low exposure to airborne beryllium. 
Approximately 85 percent of the 80 exposure results are less than or 
equal to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and 74 percent are less than or equal to 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\. Some of the results below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ were collected at 
a facility where machining operations were enclosed, and metal cutting 
fluids were used to control the release of airborne contaminants. 
Higher results (0.1 [mu]g/m\3\-1.07 [mu]g/m\3\) were found at a 
facility where cutting and grinding operations were conducted in 
partially enclosed booths equipped with LEV, but some LEV was not 
functioning properly. A few very high results (0.77 [mu]g/m\3\-24 
[mu]g/m\3\) were collected at a facility where exposure controls were 
reportedly inadequate and poor work practices were observed (e.g., 
improper use of downdraft tables, use of compressed air for cleaning). 
Based on these results, OSHA preliminarily concludes that exposures 
below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ can be achieved most of the time for most 
machinists at facilities dealing primarily with low-beryllium alloys. 
OSHA recognizes that higher exposures may sometimes occur during some 
tasks where exposures are difficult to control with engineering 
methods, such as cleaning, and that respiratory protection may be 
needed at these times.
    Machinists working with high-beryllium alloys have higher exposure 
than those working with low-beryllium alloys. This difference is 
reflected in the exposure profile for this job, where the median of 
exposure is 0.31 [mu]g/m\3\ and 75 percent of samples exceed the 
proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. The exposure profile was based on two 
machining facilities at which LEV was used and machining operations 
were performed under a liquid coolant flood. Like most facilities where 
pure beryllium and high-beryllium alloys are machined, these facilities 
also used some combination of full or partial enclosures, as well as 
work practices to minimize exposure such as prohibiting the use of 
compressed air and dry sweeping and implementing dust migration control 
practices to prevent the spread of beryllium contamination outside 
production areas. At one facility machining high-beryllium alloys, 
where all machining operations were fully enclosed and ventilated, 
exposures were mostly below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (median 0.035 [mu]g/m\3\, 
range 0.02-0.11 [mu]g/m\3\). Exposures were initially higher at the 
second facility, where some machining operations were not enclosed, 
existing LEV system were in need of upgrades, and some exhaust systems 
were improperly positioned. Samples collected there in 2003 and 2004 
were mostly below the proposed PEL in 2003 (median 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\) but 
higher in 2004 (median 0.25 [mu]g/m\3\), and high exposure means in 
both years (1.65 and 0.68 [mu]g/m\3\ respectively) show the presence of 
high exposure spikes in the facility. However, the facility reported 
that measures to reduce exposure brought almost all machining exposures 
below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2006. With the use of fully enclosed machines 
and LEV and work practices that minimize worker exposures, OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that the proposed PEL is feasible for the vast 
majority of machinists working with pure beryllium and high-beryllium 
alloys. OSHA recognizes that higher exposures may sometimes occur 
during some tasks where exposures are difficult to control with 
engineering methods, such as machine cleaning and maintenance, and that 
respiratory protection may be needed at these times.
Copper Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
    OSHA's exposure profile for copper rolling, drawing, and extruding 
includes four job groups with beryllium exposure: strip metal 
production, rod and wire production, production support, and 
administrative work. Exposure profiles for these jobs are based on 
personal breathing zone lapel sampling conducted at the Brush Wellman 
Reading, Pennsylvania, rolling and drawing facility from 1977 to 2000.
    Prior to 2000, the Reading facility had limited engineering 
controls in place. Equipment in use included LEV in some operations, 
HEPA vacuums for general housekeeping, and wet methods to control loose 
dust in some rod and wire production operations. The exposure profile 
shows very low exposures for all four job groups. All had median 
exposure values below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, and in strip metal production, 
production support, and administrative work, over 90 percent of samples 
were below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. In rod and wire production, 70 percent of 
samples were below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\.
    To characterize exposures in extrusion, OSHA examined the results 
of an industrial hygiene survey of a copper-beryllium extruding process 
conducted in 2000 at another facility. The survey reported eight PBZ 
samples, which were not included in the exposure profile because of 
their short duration (2 hours). Samples for three of the four jobs 
involved with the extrusion process (press operator, material handler, 
and billet assembler) were below the limit of detection (LOD) (level 
not reported). The two samples for the press operator assistant, taken 
when the assistant was buffing, sanding, and cleaning extrusion tools, 
were very high (1.6 and 1.9 [mu]g/m\3\). Investigators recommended a 
ventilated workstation to reduce exposure during these activities.
    In summary, exposures at or below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ have already been 
achieved for most jobs in rolling, drawing, and extruding operations, 
and OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ is feasible for this application group. For jobs or tasks with 
higher exposures, such as tool refinishing, use of exposure controls 
such as local exhaust ventilation can help reduce workers' exposures. 
The Agency recognizes the limitations of the available data, which were 
drawn from two facilities and did not include full-shift PBZ samples 
for extrusion. OSHA requests additional exposure data from other 
facilities in this application group, especially data from facilities 
where extrusion is performed.

[[Page 47678]]

Fabrication of Beryllium Alloy Products
    This application group includes the fabrication of beryllium alloy 
springs, stampings, and connectors for use in electronics. The exposure 
profile is based on a study conducted at four precision stamping 
companies; a NIOSH report on a spring and stamping company; an ERG site 
visit to a precision stamping, forming, and plating establishment; and 
exposure monitoring results from a stamping facility presented at the 
American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition in 2007. The 
exposure profiles for this application group include three jobs: 
chemical processing operators, deburring operators, and assembly 
operators. Other jobs for which all samples results were below 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ are not shown in the profile.
    For the three jobs in the profile, the majority of exposure samples 
were below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (deburring operators, 79 percent; chemical 
processing operators, 81 percent; assembly operators, 93 percent). 
Based on these results, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed 
PEL is feasible for this application group. The Agency notes that a few 
exposures above the proposed PEL were recorded for the chemical 
processing operator (in plating and bright cleaning) and for deburring 
(during corn cob deburring in an open tumbling mill). OSHA believes the 
use of LEV, improved housekeeping, and work practice modifications 
would reduce the frequency of excursions above the proposed PEL.
Welding
    Most of the samples in OSHA's exposure profile for welders in 
general industry were collected between 1994 and 2001 at two of Brush 
Wellman's alloy strip distribution centers, and in 1999 at Brush 
Wellman's Elmore facility. At these facilities, tungsten inert gas 
(TIG) welding was conducted on beryllium alloy strip. Seven samples in 
the exposure profile came from a case study conducted at a precision 
stamping facility, where airborne beryllium levels were very low (see 
previous summary, Fabrication of Beryllium Alloy Products). At this 
facility, resistance welding was performed on copper-beryllium parts, 
and welding processes were automated and enclosed.
    Most of the sample results in the welding exposure profile were 
below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Of the 44 welding samples in the profile, 75 
percent were below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and 64 percent were below 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\, with most values between 0.01 and 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\. All but one of 
the 16 exposure samples above 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ were collected in Brush 
Wellman's Elmore facility in 1999. According to company 
representatives, these higher exposure levels may have been due to 
beryllium oxide that can form on the surface of the material as a 
result of hot rolling. All seven samples from the precision stamping 
facility were below the limit of detection. Based on these results, 
OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is 
feasible for most welding operations in general industry.
Dental Laboratories
    OSHA's exposure profile for dental technicians includes sampling 
results from a site visit conducted by ERG in 2003; a study of six 
dental laboratories published by Rom et al. in 1984; a data set of 
exposure samples collected between 1987 and 2001, on dental technicians 
working for the U.S. Navy; and a docket submission from CMP Industries 
including two samples from a large commercial dental laboratory using 
nickel-beryllium alloy. Information on exposure controls in these 
facilities suggests that controls in some cases may have been absent or 
improperly used.
    The exposure profile indicates that 52 percent of samples are less 
than or equal to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. However, the treatment of 
nondetectable samples in the feasibility analysis may overestimate many 
of the sample values in the exposure profile. Twelve of the samples in 
the profile are nondetectable for beryllium. In the exposure profile, 
these were assigned the highest possible value, the limit of detection 
(LOD). For eight of the nondetectable samples, the LOD was reported as 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. For the other four nondetectable samples, the LOD was 
between 0.23 and 0.71 [mu]g/m\3\. If the true values for these four 
nondetectable samples are actually less than or equal to the assigned 
value of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, then the true percentage of profile sample 
values less than or equal to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is between 52 and 70 
percent. Of the sample results with detectable beryllium above 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\, some were collected in 1984 at facilities studied by Rom et 
al., who reported that they occurred during grinding with LEV that was 
improperly used or, in one case, not used at all. Others were collected 
at facilities where little contextual information was available to 
determine what control equipment or work practices might have reduced 
exposures.
    Based on this information, OSHA preliminarily concludes that 
beryllium exposures for most dental technicians are already below 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ most of the time. OSHA furthermore believes that exposure 
levels can be reduced to or below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time via 
material substitution, engineering controls, and work practices. 
Beryllium-free alternatives for casting dental appliances are readily 
available from commercial sources, and some alloy suppliers have 
stopped carrying alloys that contain beryllium. For those dental 
laboratories that continue to use beryllium alloys, exposure control 
options include properly designed, installed, and maintained LEV 
systems (equipped with HEPA filters) and enclosures; work practices 
that optimize LEV system effectiveness; and housekeeping methods that 
minimize beryllium contamination in the workplace. In summary, OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that the proposed PEL is feasible for dental 
laboratories.

[[Page 47679]]



                                   Table IX-5--Beryllium Full-Shift PBZ Samples by Application/Job Group ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Application/Job group               N                Range               Mean           Median           %<0.1          %<=0.2          %<=2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be Production Operations (Section
 3)
    Furnace Operations...........             172  0.05 to 254                      3.80            0.68               5              17              82
    Chemical Operations..........              20  0.05 to 9.6                      1.02            0.47               5              15              95
    Powdering Operations.........              72  0.06 to 11.5                     0.82            0.37              11              29              94
    Production Support...........             861  0.02 to 22.7                     0.51            0.08              56              71              94
    Cold Work....................             555  0.04 to 24.9                     0.31            0.08              61              80              98
    Hot Work.....................             297  0.01 to 2.21                     0.12            0.06              69              88              99
    Site Support.................             879  0.05 to 4.22                     0.11            0.05              81              92              99
    Administrative...............             981  0.05 to 4.54                     0.10            0.05              85              94              99
Be Oxide Ceramics (Section 4)
    Material Preparation Operator              77  0.02 to 10.6                     1.01            0.41              13              27              90
    Forming Operator.............             408  0.02 to 53.2                     0.48            0.18              27              56              99
    Machining Operator...........             355  0.01 to 5.0                      0.32            0.15              37              63              98
    Kiln Operator................               3  0.22 to 0.36                     0.28            0.25               0               0             100
    Production Support Worker....             119  0.02 to 7.7                      0.21            0.05              68              88              98
    Metallization Worker.........              36  0.02 to 0.62                     0.15            0.06              55              69             100
    Administrative...............             185  0.02 to 1.2                      0.06            0.05              93              98             100
Aluminum and Copper Foundries
 (Section 5)
    Furnace Operator.............              11  0.2 to 19.76                     4.41            1.14               0              18              64
    Pouring Operator.............               5  0.2 to 2.2                       1.21            1.40               0              40              60
    Shakeout Operator............               1  1.3                              1.30            1.30               0               0             100
    Material Handler.............               1  0.93                             0.93            0.93               0               0             100
    Molder.......................               8  0.24 to 2.29                     0.67            0.45               0               0              88
    Maintenance..................              78  0.05 to 22.71                    0.87            0.21              15              50              96
    Abrasive Blasting Operator...               5  0.05 to 0.15                     0.11            0.12              40             100             100
    Grinding/finishing Operator..              56  0.01 to 4.79                     0.31            0.05              59              73              95
Secondary Smelting (Section 6)
    Furnace operations worker....               6  0.03 to 14.1                     3.85            2.15              17              17              50
    Mechanical processing                       3  0.03 to 0.2                      0.14            0.20              33             100             100
     operator.
Precision Turned Products
 (Section 7)
    High Be Content Alloys.......              80  0.02 to 7.2                      0.72            0.31              14              25              92
    Low Be Content Alloys........              59  0.005 to 24                      0.45            0.01              74              85              96
Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding               650  0.006 to 7.8                     0.11           0.024              86              93              99
 (Section 8)
Alloy Fabrication (Section 9)                  71  0.004 to 0.42                   0.056           0.025              83              94             100
Welding: Beryllium Alloy (Section              44  0.005 to 2.21                    0.19            0.02              64              75              98
 10)
Dental Laboratories (Section 11)               23  0.02 to 4.4                      0.74             0.2              13              52              87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.


[[Page 47680]]

E. Costs of Compliance

    Chapter V of the PEA in support of the proposed beryllium rule 
provides a detailed assessment of the costs to establishments in all 
affected application groups of reducing worker exposures to beryllium 
to an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit 
(PEL) of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and to the proposed short-term exposure limit 
(STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, as well as of complying with the proposed 
standard's ancillary provisions. OSHA describes its methodology and 
sources in more detail in Chapter V. OSHA's preliminary cost assessment 
is based on the Agency's technological feasibility analysis presented 
in Chapter IV of the PEA; analyses of the costs of the proposed 
standard conducted by OSHA's contractor, Eastern Research Group (ERG); 
and the comments submitted to the docket in response to the request for 
information (RFI) and as part of the SBREFA process.
    As shown in Table IX-7 at the end of this section, OSHA estimates 
that the proposed standard would have an annualized cost of $37.6 
million. All cost estimates are expressed in 2010 dollars and were 
annualized using a discount rate of 3 percent, which--along with 7 
percent--is one of the discount rates recommended by OMB.\17\ 
Annualization periods for expenditures on equipment are based on 
equipment life, and one-time costs are annualized over a 10-year 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Appendix V-A of the PEA presents costs by NAICS industry 
and establishment size categories using, as alternatives, a 7 
percent discount rate--shown in Table V-A-1--and a 0 percent 
discount rate--shown in Table V-A-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated costs for the proposed beryllium rule represent the 
additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full compliance. 
They do not include costs associated with current compliance that may 
already have been achieved with regard to existing beryllium 
requirements or costs necessary to achieve compliance with existing 
beryllium requirements, to the extent that some employers may currently 
not be fully complying with applicable regulatory requirements.
    Throughout this section and in the PEA, OSHA presents cost formulas 
in the text, usually in parentheses, to help explain the derivation of 
cost estimates for individual provisions. Because the values used in 
the formulas shown in the text are shown only to the second decimal 
place, while the actual spreadsheet formulas used to create final costs 
are not limited to two decimal places, the calculation using the 
presented formula will sometimes differ slightly from the presented 
total in the text, which is the actual and mathematically correct total 
as shown in the tables.
1. Compliance With the Proposed PEL/STEL
    OSHA's estimate of the costs for affected employers to comply with 
the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and the proposed STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/
m\3\ consists of two parts. First, costs are estimated for the 
engineering controls, additional studies and custom design requirements 
to implement those controls, work practices, and specific training 
required for those work practices (as opposed to general training in 
compliance with the rule) needed for affected employers to meet the 
proposed PEL and STEL, as well as opportunity costs (lost productivity) 
that may result from working with some of the new controls. In most 
cases, the PEA breaks out these costs, but in other instances some or 
all of the costs are shortened simply to ``engineering controls'' in 
the text, for convenience. Second, for employers unable to meet the 
proposed PEL and STEL using engineering controls and work practices 
alone, costs are estimated for respiratory protection sufficient to 
reduce worker exposure to the proposed PEL and STEL or below.
    In the technological feasibility analysis presented in Chapter IV 
of the PEA, OSHA concluded that implementing all engineering controls 
and work practices necessary to reach the proposed PEL will, except for 
a small residual group (accounting for about 6 percent of all exposures 
above the STEL), also reduce exposures below the STEL. However, based 
on the nature of the processes this residual group is likely to be 
engaged in, the Agency expects that employees would already be using 
respirators to comply with the PEL under the proposed standard. 
Therefore, with the proposed STEL set at ten times the proposed PEL, 
the Agency has preliminarily determined that engineering controls, work 
practices, and (when needed) respiratory protection sufficient to meet 
the proposed PEL are also sufficient to meet the proposed STEL. For 
that reason, OSHA has taken no additional costs for affected employers 
to meet the proposed STEL. The Agency invites comment and requests that 
the public provide data on this issue.
a. Engineering Controls
    For this preliminary cost analysis, OSHA estimated the necessary 
engineering controls and work practices for each affected application 
group according to the exposure profile of current exposures by 
occupation presented in Chapter III of the PEA. Under the requirements 
of the proposed standard, employers would be required to implement 
engineering or work practice controls whenever beryllium exposures 
exceed the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or the proposed STEL of 2.0 
[mu]g/m\3\.
    In addition, even if employers are not exposed above the proposed 
PEL or proposed STEL, paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed standard would 
require employers at or above the action level to use at least one 
engineering or work practice control to minimize worker exposure. Based 
on the technological feasibility analysis presented in Chapter IV of 
the PEA, OSHA has determined that, for only two job categories in two 
application groups--chemical process operators in the Stamping, Spring 
and Connection Manufacture application group and machinists in the 
Machining application group--do the majority of facilities at or above 
the proposed action level, but below the proposed PEL, lack the 
baseline engineering or work controls required by paragraph (f)(2). 
Therefore, OSHA has estimated costs, where appropriate, for employers 
in these two application groups to comply with paragraph (f)(2).
    By assigning controls based on application group, the Agency is 
best able to identify those workers with exposures above the proposed 
PEL and to design a control strategy for, and attribute costs 
specifically to, these groups of workers. By using this approach, 
controls are targeting those specific processes, emission points, or 
procedures that create beryllium exposures. Moreover, this approach 
allows OSHA to assign costs for technologies that are demonstrated to 
be the most effective in reducing exposures resulting from a particular 
process.
    In developing cost estimates, OSHA took into account the wide 
variation in the size or scope of the engineering or work practice 
changes necessary to minimize beryllium exposures based on technical 
literature, judgments of knowledgeable consultants, industry observers, 
and other sources. The resulting cost estimates reflect the 
representative conditions for the affected workers in each application 
group and across all work settings. In all but a handful of cases (with 
the exceptions noted in the PEA), all wage costs come from the 2010 
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS, 2010a) and utilize the median wage for the appropriate 
occupation. The wages used include a 30.35 percent markup for fringe 
benefits as a percentage of total

[[Page 47681]]

compensation, which is the average percentage markup for fringe 
benefits for all civilian workers from the 2010 Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation of the BLS (BLS, 2010b). All descriptions of 
production processes are drawn from the relevant sections of Chapter IV 
of the PEA.
    The specific engineering costs for each of the applications groups, 
and the NAICS industries that contain those application groups, are 
discussed in Chapter V of the PEA. Like the industry profile and 
technological feasibility analysis presented in other PEA chapters, 
Chapter V of the PEA presents engineering control costs for the 
following application groups:

Beryllium Production
Beryllium Oxide, Ceramics & Composites Production
Nonferrous Foundries
Stamping, Spring and Connection Manufacture
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying
Copper Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying
Precision Machining
Welding
    Dental Laboratories

    The costs within these application groups are estimated by 
occupation and/or operation. One application group could have multiple 
occupations, operations, or activities where workers are exposed to 
levels of beryllium above the proposed PEL, and each will need its own 
set of controls. The major types of engineering controls needed to 
achieve compliance with the proposed PEL include ventilation equipment, 
pharmaceutical-quality high-containment isolators, decontainment 
chambers, equipment with controlled water sprays, closed-circuit remote 
televisions, enclosed cabs, conveyor enclosures, exhaust hoods, and 
portable local-exhaust-ventilation (LEV) systems. Capital costs and 
annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as any other 
annual costs, are estimated for the set of engineering controls 
estimated to be necessary for limiting beryllium exposures for each 
occupation or operation within each application group.
    Tables V-2 through V-10 in Chapter V of the PEA summarize capital, 
maintenance, and operating costs for each application group 
disaggregated by NAICS code. Table IX-7 at the end of this section 
breaks out the costs of engineering controls/work practices by 
application group and NAICS code.
    Some engineering control costs are estimated on a per-worker basis 
and then multiplied by the estimated number of affected workers--as 
identified in Chapter III: Profile of Affected Industries in the PEA--
to arrive at a total cost for a particular control within a particular 
application group. This worker-based method is necessary because--even 
though OSHA has data on the number of firms in each affected industry, 
the occupations and industrial activities that result in worker 
exposure to beryllium, and the exposure profile of at-risk 
occupations--the Agency does not have a way to match up these data at 
the firm level. Nor does the Agency have establishment-specific data on 
worker exposure to beryllium for all establishments, or even 
establishment-specific data on the level of activity involving worker 
exposure to beryllium. Thus, OSHA could not always directly estimate 
per-affected-establishment costs, but instead first had to estimate 
aggregate compliance costs (using an estimated per-worker cost 
multiplied by the number of affected workers) and then calculate the 
average per-affected-establishment costs by dividing those aggregate 
costs by the number of affected establishments. This method, while 
correct on average, may under- or over-state costs for certain firms. 
For other controls that are implemented on a fixed-cost basis per 
establishment (e.g., creating a training program, writing a control 
program), the costs are estimated on an establishment basis, and these 
costs were multiplied by the number of affected establishments in the 
given application group to obtain total control costs.
    In developing cost estimates, the Agency sometimes had to make 
case-specific judgments about the number of workers affected by each 
engineering control. Because work environments vary within occupations 
and across establishments, there are no definitive data on how many 
workers are likely to have their exposures reduced by a given set of 
controls. In the smallest establishments, especially those that might 
operate only one shift per day, some controls would limit exposures for 
only a single worker in one specific affected occupation. More 
commonly, however, several workers are likely to benefit from each 
enhanced engineering control. Many controls were judged to reduce 
exposure for employees in multi-shift work or where workstations are 
used by more than one worker per shift.
    In general, improving work practices involves operator training, 
actual work practice modifications, and better enforcement or 
supervision to minimize potential exposures. The costs of these process 
improvements consist of the supervisor and worker time involved and 
would include the time spent by supervisors to develop a training 
program.
    Unless otherwise specified, OSHA viewed the extent to which 
exposure controls are already in place to be reflected in the 
distribution of exposures at levels above the proposed PEL among 
affected workers. Thus, for example, if 50 percent of workers in a 
given occupation are found to be exposed to beryllium at levels above 
the proposed PEL, OSHA judged this equivalent to 50 percent of 
facilities lacking adequate exposure controls. The facilities may have, 
for example, the correct equipment installed but without adequate 
ventilation to provide protection to workers exposed to beryllium. In 
this example, the Agency would expect that the remaining 50 percent of 
facilities to either have installed the relevant controls to reduce 
beryllium exposures below the PEL or that they engage in activities 
that do not require that the exposure controls be in place (for 
example, they do not perform any work with beryllium-containing 
materials). To estimate the need for incremental controls on a per-
worker basis, OSHA used the exposure profile information as the best 
available data. OSHA recognizes that a very small percentage of 
facilities might have all the relevant controls in place but are still 
unable, for whatever reason, to achieve the proposed PEL through 
controls alone. ERG's review of the industrial hygiene literature and 
other source materials (ERG, 2007b), however, suggest that the large 
majority of workplaces where workers are exposed to high levels of 
beryllium lack at least some of the relevant controls. Thus, in 
estimating the costs associated with the proposed standard, OSHA has 
generally assumed that high levels of exposure to beryllium occur due 
to the absence of suitable controls. This assumption likely results in 
an overestimate of costs since, in some cases, employers may not need 
to install and maintain new controls in order to meet the proposed PEL 
but merely need to upgrade or better maintain existing controls, or to 
improve work practices.
b. Respiratory Protection Costs
    Based on the findings of the technological feasibility analysis, a 
small subset of employees working with a few processes in a handful of 
application groups will need to use respirators, in addition to 
required engineering controls and improved work practices, to reduce 
employee exposures to meet the proposed PEL. Specifically, furnace 
operators--both in non-ferrous foundries (both sand and non-sand) and 
in secondary smelting, refining, and alloying--as well as welders in a 
few other processes, will

[[Page 47682]]

need to wear half-mask respirators. In beryllium production, workers 
who rebuild or otherwise maintain furnaces and furnace tools will need 
to wear full-face powered air-purifying respirators. Finally, the 
Agency recognizes the possibility that, after all feasible engineering 
and other controls are in place, there may still be a residual group 
with potential exposure above the proposed PEL and/or STEL. To account 
for these residual cases, OSHA estimates that 10 percent of the 
workers, across all application groups and job categories, who are 
above the proposed PEL before the beryllium proposed standard is in 
place (according to the baseline exposure profile presented in Chapter 
III of the PEA), would still be above the PEL after all feasible 
controls are implemented and, hence, would need to use half-mask 
respirators to achieve compliance with the proposed PEL.
    There are five primary costs for respiratory protection. First, 
there is a cost per establishment to set up a written respirator 
program in accordance with the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 
1910.134). The respiratory protection standard requires written 
procedures for the proper selection, use, cleaning, storage, and 
maintenance of respirators. As derived in the PEA, OSHA estimates that, 
when annualized over 10 years, the annualized per-establishment cost 
for a written respirator program is $207.
    For reasons unrelated to the proposed standard, certain 
establishments will already have a respirator program in place. Table 
V-11 in Chapter V of the PEA presents OSHA's estimates, by application 
group, of current levels of compliance with the respirator program 
provision of the proposed rule.
    The four other major costs of respiratory protection are the per-
employee costs for all aspects of respirator use: equipment, training, 
fit-testing, and cleaning. Table V-12 of Chapter V in the PEA breaks 
out OSHA's estimate of the unit costs for the two types of respirators 
needed: A half-mask respirator and a full-face powered air-purifying 
respirator. As derived in the PEA, the annualized per-employee cost for 
a half-mask respirator would be $524 and the annualized per-employee 
cost for a full-face powered air-purifying respirator would be $1,017.
    Table V-13 in Chapter V of the PEA presents the number of 
additional employees, by application group and NAICS code, that would 
need to wear respirators to comply with the proposed standard and the 
cost to industry to comply with the respirator protection provisions in 
the proposed rule. OSHA judges that only workers in Beryllium 
Production work with processes that would require a full-face 
respirator and estimates that there are 23 of those workers. Three 
hundred and eighteen workers in other assorted application groups are 
estimated to need half-mask respirators. A total of 341 employees would 
need to wear some type of respirator, resulting in a total annualized 
cost of $249,684 for affected industries to comply with the respiratory 
protection requirements of the proposed standard. Table IX-7 at the end 
of this section breaks out the costs of respiratory protection by 
application group and NAICS code.
2. Ancillary Provisions
    This section presents OSHA's estimated costs for ancillary 
beryllium control programs required under the proposed rule. Based on 
the program requirements contained in the proposed standard, OSHA 
considered the following cost elements in the following employer 
duties: (a) Assess employees' exposure to airborne beryllium, (b) 
establish regulated areas, (c) develop a written exposure control plan, 
(d) provide protective work clothing, (e) establish hygiene areas and 
practices, (f) implement housekeeping measures, (g) provide medical 
surveillance, (h) provide medical removal for employees who have 
developed CBD or been confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization, 
and (i) provide appropriate training.
    The worker population affected by each program element varies by 
several criteria discussed in detail in each subsection below. In 
general, some elements would apply to all workers exposed to beryllium 
at or above the action level. Other elements would apply to a smaller 
set of workers who are exposed above the PEL. The training requirements 
would apply to all employees who work in a beryllium work area (e.g., 
an area with any level of exposure to airborne beryllium). The 
regulated area program elements triggered by exposures exceeding the 
proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ would apply to those workers for whom 
feasible controls are not adequate. In the earlier discussion of 
respiratory protection, OSHA estimated that 10 percent of all affected 
workers with current exposures above the proposed PEL would fall in 
this category.
    Costs for each program requirement are aggregated by employment and 
by industry. For the most part, unit costs do not vary by industry, and 
any variations are specifically noted. The estimated compliance rate 
for each provision of the proposed standard by application group is 
presented in Table V-15 of the PEA.
a. Exposure Assessment
    Most establishments wishing to perform exposure monitoring would 
require the assistance of an outside consulting industrial hygienist 
(IH) to obtain accurate results. While some firms might already employ 
or train qualified staff, OSHA judged that the testing protocols are 
fairly challenging and that few firms have sufficiently skilled staff 
to eliminate the need for outside consultants.
    The proposed standard requires that, after receiving the results of 
any exposure monitoring where exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL, the 
employer notify each such affected employee in writing of suspected or 
known sources of exposure, and the corrective action(s) being taken to 
reduce exposure to or below the PEL. Those workers exposed at or above 
the action level and at or below the PEL must have their exposure 
levels monitored annually.
    For costing purposes, OSHA estimates that, on average, there are 
four workers per work area. OSHA interpreted the initial exposure 
assessment as requiring first-year testing of at least one worker in 
each distinct job classification and work area who is, or may 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne concentrations of 
beryllium at or above the action level.
    The proposed standard requires that whenever there is a change in 
the production, process, control equipment, personnel, or work 
practices that may result in new or additional exposures, or when the 
employer has any reason to suspect that a change may result in new or 
additional exposures, the employer must conduct additional monitoring. 
The Agency has estimated that this provision would require an annual 
sampling of 10 percent of the affected workers.
    OSHA estimates that an industrial hygienist (IH) would spend 1 day 
each year to sample 2 workers, for a per worker IH fee of $257. This 
exposure monitoring requires that three samples be taken per worker: 
One TWA and two STEL for an annual IH fee per sample of $86. Based on 
the 2000 EMSL Laboratory Testing Catalog (ERG, 2007b), OSHA estimated 
that analysis of each sample would cost $137 in lab fees. When combined 
with the IH fee, OSHA estimated the annual cost to obtain a TWA sample 
to be $223 per sampled worker and the annual cost to obtain the two 
STEL samples to be $445 per sampled worker. The direct exposure 
monitoring unit costs are

[[Page 47683]]

summarized in Table V-16 in Chapter V of the PEA.
    The cost of the sample also incorporates a productivity loss due to 
the additional time for the worker to participate in the sampling (30 
minutes per worker sampled) as well as for the associated recordkeeping 
time incurred by a manager (15 minutes per worker sampled). The STEL 
samples are assumed to be taken along with the TWA sample and, thus, 
labor costs were not added to both unit costs. Including the costs 
related to lost productivity, OSHA estimates the total annual cost of a 
TWA sample to be $251, and 2 STEL samples, $445. The total annual cost 
per worker for all sampling taken is then $696. OSHA estimates the 
total annualized cost of this provision to be $2,208,950 for all 
affected industries. The annualized cost of this provision for each 
affected NAICS industry is shown in Table IX-6.
b. Beryllium Work Areas and Regulated Areas
    The proposed beryllium standard requires the employer to establish 
and maintain a regulated area wherever employees are, or can reasonably 
expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA 
PEL or STEL. Regulated areas require specific provisions that both 
limit employee exposure within its boundaries and curb the migration of 
beryllium outside the area. The Agency judged, based on the preliminary 
findings of the technological feasibility analysis, that companies can 
reduce establishment-wide exposure by ensuring that only authorized 
employees wearing proper protective equipment have access to areas of 
the establishment where such higher concentrations of beryllium exist, 
or can be reasonably expected to exist. Workers in other parts of the 
establishment are also likely to see a reduction in beryllium exposures 
due to these measures since fewer employees would be traveling through 
regulated areas and subsequently carrying beryllium residue to other 
work areas on their clothes and shoes.
    Requirements in the proposed rule for a regulated area include: 
Demarcating the boundaries of the regulated area as separate from the 
rest of the workplace, limiting access to the regulated area, providing 
an appropriate respirator to each person entering the regulated area 
and other protective clothing and equipment as required by paragraph 
(g) and paragraph (h), respectively.
    OSHA estimated that the total annualized cost per regulated area, 
including set-up costs ($76), respirators ($1,768) and protective 
clothing ($4,500), is $6,344.
    When establishments are in full compliance with the standard, 
regulated areas would be required only for those workers for whom 
controls could not feasibly reduce their exposures to or below the 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ TWA PEL and the 2 [mu]g/m\3\ STEL. Based on the findings of 
the technological feasibility analysis, OSHA estimated that 10 percent 
of the affected workers would be exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL 
after implementation of engineering controls and thus would require 
regulated areas (with one regulated area, on average, for every four 
workers exposed above the proposed TWA PEL or STEL).
    The proposed standard requires that all beryllium work areas are 
adequately established and demarcated. ERG estimated that one work area 
would need to be established for every 12 at-risk workers. OSHA 
estimates that the annualized cost would be $33 per work area.
    OSHA estimates the total annualized cost of the regulated areas and 
work areas is $629,031 for all affected industries. The cost for each 
affected application group and NAICS code is shown in Table IX-6.
c. Written Exposure Control Plan
    The proposed standard requires that employers must establish and 
maintain a written exposure control plan for beryllium work areas. The 
written program must contain:
    1. An inventory of operations and job titles reasonably expected to 
have exposure.
    2. An inventory of operations and job titles reasonably expected to 
have exposure at or above the action level.
    3. An inventory of operations and job titles reasonably expected to 
have exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL.
    4. Procedures for minimizing cross-contamination, including but not 
limited to preventing the transfer of beryllium between surfaces, 
equipment, clothing, materials and articles within beryllium work 
areas.
    5. Procedures for keeping surfaces in the beryllium work area free 
as practicable of beryllium.
    6. Procedures for minimizing the migration of beryllium from 
beryllium work areas to other locations within or outside the 
workplace.
    7. An inventory of engineering and work practice controls required 
by paragraph (f)(2) of this standard.
    8. Procedures for removal, laundering, storage, cleaning, 
repairing, and disposal of beryllium-contaminated personal protective 
clothing and equipment, including respirators.
    The unit cost estimates take into account the judgment that (1) 
most establishments have an awareness of beryllium risks and, thus, 
should be able to develop or modify existing safeguards in an 
expeditious fashion, and (2) many operations have limited beryllium 
activities and these establishments need to make only modest changes in 
procedures to create the necessary exposure control plan. ERG's experts 
estimated that managers would spend eight hours per establishment to 
develop and implement such a written exposure control plan, yielding a 
total cost per establishment to develop and implement the written 
control plan of $563.53 and an annualized cost of $66. In addition, 
because larger firms with more affected workers will need to develop 
more complicated written control plans, the development of a plan would 
require an extra thirty minutes of a manager's time per affected 
employee, for a cost of $35 per affected employee and an annualized 
cost of $4 per employee. Managers would also need 12 minutes (0.2 
hours) per affected employee per quarter, or 48 minutes per affected 
employee per year to review and update the plan, for a recurring cost 
of $56 per affected employee per year to maintain and update the plan. 
Five minutes of clerical time would also be needed per employee for 
providing each employee with a copy of the written exposure control 
plan--yielding an annualized cost of $2 per employee. The total annual 
per-employee cost for development, implementation, review, and update 
of a written exposure control plan is then $62. The Agency estimates 
the total annualized cost of this provision to be $1,769,506 for all 
affected establishments. The breakdown of these costs by application 
group and NAICS code is presented in Table IX-6.
d. Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
    The proposed standard requires personal protective clothing and 
equipment for workers:
    1. Whose exposure can reasonably be expected to exceed the TWA PEL 
or STEL.
    2. When work clothing or skin may become visibly contaminated with 
beryllium, including during maintenance and repair activities or during 
non-routine tasks.
    3. Where employees' skin can reasonably be expected to be exposed 
to soluble beryllium compounds.
    OSHA has determined that it would be necessary for employers to 
provide reusable overalls and/or lab coats at a

[[Page 47684]]

cost of $284 and $86, respectively, for operations in the following 
application groups:

Beryllium Production
Beryllium Oxide, Ceramics & Composites
Nonferrous Foundries
Fabrication of Beryllium Alloy Products
Copper Rolling, Drawing & Extruding
Secondary Smelting, Refining and Alloying
Precision Turned Products
Dental Laboratories

    Chemical process operators in the spring and stamping application 
group would require chemical resistant protective clothing at an annual 
cost of $849. Gloves and/or shoe covers would be required when 
performing operations in several different application groups, 
depending on the process being performed, at an annual cost of $50 and 
$78, respectively.
    The proposed standard requires that all reusable protective 
clothing and equipment be cleaned, laundered, repaired, and replaced as 
needed to maintain their effectiveness. This includes such safeguards 
as transporting contaminated clothing in sealed and labeled impermeable 
bags and informing any third party businesses coming in contact with 
such materials of the risks associated with beryllium exposure. OSHA 
estimates that the lowest cost alternative to satisfy this provision is 
for an employer to rent and launder reusable protective clothing--at an 
estimated annual cost per employee of $49. Ten minutes of clerical time 
would also be needed per establishment with laundry needs to notify the 
cleaners in writing of the potentially harmful effects of beryllium 
exposure and how the protective clothing and equipment must be handled 
in accordance with this standard--at a per establishment cost of $3.
    The Agency estimates the total annualized cost of this provision to 
be $1,407,365 for all affected establishments. The breakdown of these 
costs by application group and NAICS code is shown in Table IX-6.
e. Hygiene Areas and Practices
    The proposed standard requires employers to provide readily 
accessible washing facilities to remove beryllium from the hands, face, 
and neck of each employee working in a beryllium work area and also to 
provide a designated change room in workplaces where employees would 
have to remove their personal clothing and don the employer-provided 
protective clothing. The proposed standard also requires that employees 
shower at the end of the work shift or work activity if the employee 
reasonably could have been exposed to beryllium at levels above the PEL 
or STEL, and if those exposures could reasonably be expected to have 
caused contamination of the employee's hair or body parts other than 
hands, face, and neck.
    In addition to other forms of PPE costed previously, for processes 
where hair may become contaminated, head coverings can be purchased at 
an annual cost of $28 per employee. This could satisfy the requirement 
to avoid contaminated hair. If workers are covered by protective 
clothing such that no body parts (including their hair where necessary, 
but not including their hands, face, and neck) could reasonably be 
expected to have been contaminated by beryllium, and they could not 
reasonably be expected to be exposed to beryllium while removing their 
protective clothing, they would not need to shower at the end of a work 
shift or work activity. OSHA notes that some facilities already have 
showers, and the Agency judges that all employers either already have 
showers where needed or will have sufficient measures in place to 
ensure that employees could not reasonably be expected to be exposed to 
beryllium while removing protective clothing. Therefore, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that employers will not need to provide any 
new shower facilities to comply with the standard.
    The Agency estimated the costs for the addition of a change room 
and segregated lockers based on the costs for acquisition of portable 
structures. The change room is presumed to be used in providing a 
transition zone from general working areas into beryllium-using 
regulated areas. OSHA estimated that portable building, adequate for 10 
workers per establishment can be rented annually for $3,251, and that 
lockers could be procured for a capital cost of $407--or $48 
annualized--per establishment. This results in an annualized cost of 
$3,299 per facility to rent a portable change room with lockers. OSHA 
estimates that the 10 percent of affected establishments unable to meet 
the proposed TWA PEL would require change rooms. The Agency estimated 
that a worker using a change room would need 2 minutes per day to 
change clothes. Assuming 250 days per year, this annual time cost for 
changing clothes is $185 per employee.
    The Agency estimates the total annualized cost of the provision on 
hygiene areas and practices to be $389,241 for all affected 
establishments. The breakdown of these costs by application group and 
NAICS code can be seen in Table IX-6.
f. Housekeeping
    The proposed rule specifies requirements for cleaning and disposing 
of beryllium-contaminated wastes. The employer shall maintain all 
surfaces in beryllium work areas as free as practicable of 
accumulations of beryllium and shall ensure that all spills and 
emergency releases of beryllium are cleaned up promptly, in accordance 
with the employer's written exposure control plan and using a HEPA-
filtered vacuum or other methods that minimize the likelihood and level 
of exposure. The employer shall not allow dry sweeping or brushing for 
cleaning surfaces in beryllium work areas unless HEPA-filtered 
vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood and level of 
exposure have been tried and were not effective.
    ERG's experts estimated that each facility would need to purchase a 
single vacuum at a cost of $2,900 for every five affected employees in 
order to successfully integrate housekeeping into their daily routine. 
The per-employee cost would be $580, resulting in an annualized cost of 
$68 per worker. ERG's experts also estimated that all affected workers 
would require an additional five minutes per work day (.083 hours) to 
complete vacuuming tasks and to label and dispose of beryllium-
contaminated waste. While this allotment is modest, OSHA judged that 
the steady application of this incremental additional cleaning, when 
combined with currently conducted cleaning, would be sufficient in 
average establishments to address dust or surface contamination 
hazards. Assuming that these affected workers would be working 250 days 
per year, OSHA estimates that the annual labor cost per employee for 
additional time spent cleaning in order to comply with this provision 
is $462.
    The proposed standard requires each disposal bag with contaminated 
materials to be properly labeled. ERG estimated a cost of 10 cents per 
label with one label needed per day for every five workers. With the 
disposal of one labeled bag each day and 250 working days, the per-
employee annual cost would be $5. The annualized cost of a HEPA-
filtered vacuum, combined with the additional time needed to perform 
housekeeping and the labeling of disposal bags, results in a total 
annualized cost of $535 per employee.
    The Agency estimates the total annualized cost of this provision to 
be $12,574,921 for all affected establishments. The breakdown of these 
costs by application group and NAICS code is shown in Table IX-6.

[[Page 47685]]

g. Medical Surveillance
    The proposed standard requires the employer to make medical 
surveillance available at no cost to the employee, and at a reasonable 
time and place, for the following employees:
    1. Employees who have worked in a regulated area for more than 30 
days in the last 12 months
    2. Employees showing signs or symptoms of chronic beryllium disease 
(CBD)
    3. Employees exposed to beryllium during an emergency; and
    4. Employees exposed to airborne beryllium above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for 
more than 30 days in a 12-month period for 5 years or more.
    As discussed in the regulated areas section of this analysis of 
program costs, the Agency estimates that approximately 10 percent of 
affected employees would have exposure in excess of the PEL after the 
standard goes into effect and would therefore be placed in regulated 
areas. The Agency further estimates that a very small number of 
employees will be affected by emergencies in a given year, likely less 
than 0.1 percent of the affected population, representing a small 
additional cost. The number of workers who would suffer signs and 
symptoms of CBD after the rule takes effect is difficult to estimate, 
but would likely substantially exceed those with actual cases of CBD.
    While the symptoms of CBD vary greatly, the first to appear are 
usually chronic dry cough (generally defined as a nonproductive cough, 
without phlegm or sputum, lasting two months or more) and shortness of 
breath during exertion. Ideally, in developing these costs estimates, 
OSHA would first estimate the percent of affected workers who might be 
presenting with a chronic cough and/or experiencing shortness of 
breath.
    Studies have found the prevalence of a chronic cough ranging from 
10 to 38 percent across various community populations, with smoking 
accounting for up to 18 percent of cough prevalence (Irwin, 1990; 
Barbee, 1991). However, these studies are over 20 years old, and the 
number of smokers has decreased substantially since then. It's also not 
clear whether the various segments of the U.S. population studied are 
similar enough to the population of workers exposed to beryllium such 
that results of these studies could be generalized to the affected 
worker population.
    A more recent study from a plant in Cullman, Alabama that works 
with beryllium alloy found that about five percent of employees said 
they were current smokers, with roughly 52 percent saying they were 
previous smokers and approximately 43 percent stating they had never 
smoked (Newman et al., 2001). This study does not, however, report on 
the prevalence of chronic cough in this workplace.
    OSHA was unable to identify any studies on the general prevalence 
of the other common early symptom of CBD, shortness of breath. Lacking 
any better data to base an estimate on, the Agency used the studies 
cited above (Irwin, 1990; Barbee, 1991) showing the prevalence of 
chronic cough in the general population, adjusted to account for the 
long term decrease in smoking prevalence (and hence, the amount of 
overall cases of chronic cough), and estimated that 15 percent of the 
worker population with beryllium exposure would exhibit a chronic cough 
or other sign or symptom of CBD that would trigger medical 
surveillance. The Agency welcomes comment and further data on this 
question.
    According to the proposed rule, the initial (baseline) medical 
examination would consist of the following:
    1. A medical and work history, with emphasis on past and present 
exposure, smoking history and any history of respiratory system 
dysfunction;
    2. A physical examination with emphasis on the respiratory tract;
    3. A physical examination for skin breaks and wounds;
    4. A pulmonary function test;
    5. A standardized beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT) 
upon the first examination and within every two years from the date of 
the first examination until the employee is confirmed positive for 
beryllium sensitization;
    6. A CT scan, offered every two years for the duration of the 
employee's employment, if the employee was exposed to airborne 
beryllium at levels above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-
month period for at least 5 years. This obligation begins on the start-
up date of this standard, or on the 15th year after the employee's 
first exposure above for more than 30 days in a 12-month period, 
whichever is later; and
    7. Any other test deemed appropriate by the Physician or other 
Licensed Health Care Professional (PLHCP).
    Table V-17 in Chapter V of the PEA lists the direct unit costs for 
initial medical surveillance activities including: Work and medical 
history, physical examination, pulmonary function test, BeLPT, CT scan, 
and costs of additional tests. In OSHA's cost model, all of the 
activities will take place during an employee's initial visit and on an 
annual basis thereafter and involve a single set of travel costs, 
except that: (1) The BeLPT tests will only be performed at two-year 
intervals after the initial test, but will be conducted in conjunction 
with the annual general examination (no additional travel costs); and 
(2) the CT scans will typically involve different specialists and are 
therefore treated as separate visits not encompassed by the general 
exams (therefore requiring separate travel costs). Not all employees 
would require CT scans, and employers would only be required to offer 
them every other year.
    In addition to the fees for the annual medical exam, employers may 
also incur costs for lost work time when their employees are 
unavailable to perform their jobs. This includes time for traveling, a 
health history review, the physical exam, and the pulmonary function 
test. Each examination would require 15 minutes (or 0.25 hours) of a 
human resource manager's time for recording the results of the exam and 
tests and the PLHCP's written opinion for each employee and any 
necessary post-exam consultation with the employee. There is also a 
cost of 15 minutes of supervisor time to provide information to the 
physician, five minutes of supervisor time to process a licensed 
physician's written medical opinion, and five minutes for an employee 
to receive a licensed physician's written medical opinion. The total 
unit annual cost for the medical examinations and tests, excluding the 
BeLPT test, and the time required for both the employee and the 
supervisor is $297.
    The estimated fee for the BeLPT is $259. With the addition of the 
time incurred by the worker to undergo the test, the total cost for a 
BeLPT is $261. The standard requires a biennial BeLPT for each employee 
covered by the medical surveillance provision, so most workers would 
receive between two and five BeLPT tests over a ten year period 
(including the BeLPT performed during the initial examination), 
depending on whether the results of these tests were positive. OSHA 
therefore estimates a net present value (NPV) of $1,417 for all five 
tests. This NPV annualized over a ten year period is $166.
    Together, the annualized net present value of the BeLPT and the 
annualized cost of the remaining medical surveillance produce an annual 
cost of $436 per employee.
    The proposed standard requires that a helical tomography (CT scan) 
be offered to employees exposed to airborne beryllium above 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-month period, for a period of 5 
years or more. The five years

[[Page 47686]]

do not need to be consecutive, and the exposure does not need to occur 
after the effective date of the standard. The CT scan shall be offered 
every 2 years starting on the 15th year after the first year the 
employee was exposed above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 
12-month period, for the duration of their employment. The total yearly 
cost for biennial CT scans consists of medical costs totaling $1,020, 
comprised of a $770 fee for the scan and the cost of a specialist to 
review the results, which OSHA estimates would cost $250. The Agency 
estimates an additional cost of $110 for lost work time, for a total of 
$1,131. The annualized yearly cost for biennial CT scans is $574.
    Based on OSHA's estimates explained earlier in this section, all 
workers in regulated areas, workers exposed in emergencies, and an 
estimated 15 percent of workers not in regulated areas who exhibit 
signs and symptoms of CBD will be eligible for medical surveillance 
other than CT scans. The estimate for the number of workers eligible to 
receive CT scans is 25 percent of workers who are exposed above 0.2 in 
the exposure profile. The estimate of 25 percent is based on the facts 
that roughly this percentage of workers have 15-plus years of job 
tenure in the durable manufacturing sector and the estimate that all 
those with 15-plus years of job tenure and current exposure over 0.2 
would have had at least 5 years of such exposure in the past.
    The costs estimated for this provision are likely to be 
significantly overestimated, since not all affected employees offered 
medical surveillance would necessarily accept the offer. At Department 
of Energy facilities, only about 50 percent of eligible employees 
participate in the voluntary medical surveillance tests, and a report 
on an initial medical surveillance program at four aluminum manufacture 
facilities found participation rates to be around 57 percent (Taiwo et 
al., 2008). Where employers already offer equivalent health 
surveillance screening, no new costs are attributable to the proposed 
standard.
    Within 30 days after an employer learns that an employee has been 
confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization, the employer's 
designated licensed physician shall consult with the employee to 
discuss referral to a CBD diagnostic center that is mutually agreed 
upon by the employer and the employee. If, after this consultation, the 
employee wishes to obtain a clinical evaluation at a CBD diagnostic 
center, the employer must provide the evaluation at no cost to the 
employee. OSHA estimates this consultation will take 15 minutes, with 
an estimated total cost of $33.
    Table V-18 in Chapter V of the PEA lists the direct unit costs for 
a clinical evaluation with a specialist at a CBD diagnostic center. To 
estimate these costs, ERG contacted a healthcare provider who commonly 
treats patients with beryllium-related disease, and asked them to 
provide both the typical tests given and associated costs of an initial 
examination for a patient with a positive BeLPT test, presented in 
Table V-18 in Chapter V of the PEA. Their typical evaluation includes 
bronchoscopy with lung biopsy, a pulmonary stress test, and a chest CAT 
scan. The total cost for the entire suite of tests is $6,305.
    In addition, there are costs for lost productivity and travel. The 
Agency has estimated the clinical evaluation would take three days of 
paid time for the worker to travel to and from one of two locations: 
Penn Lung Center at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio 
or National Jewish Medical Center in Denver, Colorado. OSHA estimates 
lost work time is 24 hours, yielding total cost for the 3 days of $532.
    OSHA estimates that roundtrip air-fare would be available for most 
facilities at $400, and the cost of a hotel room would be approximately 
$100 per night, for a total cost of $200 for the hotel room. OSHA 
estimates a per diem cost of $50 for three days, for a total of $150. 
The total cost per trip for traveling expenses is therefore $750.
    The total cost of a clinical evaluation with a specialist at a CBD 
diagnostic center is equal to the cost of the examination plus the cost 
of lost work-time and the cost for the employee to travel to the CBD 
diagnostic center, or $7,620.
    Based on the data from the exposure profile and the prevalence of 
beryllium sensitization observed at various levels of cumulative 
exposure,\18\ OSHA estimated the number of workers eligible for BeLPT 
testing (4,181) and the percentage of workers who will be confirmed 
positive for sensitization (two positive BeLPT tests, as specified in 
the proposed standard) and referred to a CBD diagnostic center. During 
the first year that the medical surveillance provisions are in effect, 
OSHA estimates that 9.4 percent of the workers who are tested for 
beryllium sensitization will be identified as sensitized. This 
percentage is an average based on: (1) The number of employees in the 
baseline exposure profile that are in a given cumulative exposure 
range; (2) the expected prevalence for a given cumulative exposure 
range (from Table VI-6 in Section VI of the preamble); and (3) an 
assumed even distribution of employees by cumulative years of exposure 
at a given level--20 percent having exposures at a given level for 5 
years, 20 percent for 15 years, 20 percent for 25 years, 20 percent for 
30 years, and 20 percent for 40 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Table VI-6 in Section VI of the preamble, Preliminary 
Risk Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA did not assume that all workers with confirmed sensitization 
would choose to undergo evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, which 
may involve invasive procedures and/or travel. For purposes of this 
cost analysis, OSHA estimates that approximately two-thirds of workers 
who are confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization will choose to 
undergo evaluation for CBD. OSHA requests comment on the CBD evaluation 
participation rate. OSHA estimates that about 264 of all non-dental lab 
workers will go to a diagnostic center for CBD evaluation in the first 
year.
    The calculation method described above applies to all workers 
except dental technicians, who were analyzed with one modification. The 
rates for dental technicians are calculated differently due to the 
estimated 75 percent beryllium-substitution rate at dental labs, where 
the 75 percent of labs that eliminate all beryllium use are those at 
higher exposure levels. None of the remaining labs affected by this 
standard had exposures above 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. For the dental labs, the 
same calculation was done as presented in the previous paragraph, but 
only the remaining 25 percent of employees (2,314) who would still face 
beryllium exposures were included in the baseline cumulative exposure 
profile. With that one change, and all other elements of the 
calculation the same, OSHA estimates that 9 percent of dental lab 
workers tested for beryllium sensitization will be identified as 
sensitized. The predicted prevalence of sensitization among those 
dental lab workers tested in the first year after the standard takes 
effect is slightly lower than the predicted prevalence among all other 
tested workers combined. This slightly lower rate is not surprising 
because only dental lab workers with exposures below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ are 
included (after adjusting for substitution), and OSHA's exposure 
profile indicates that the vast majority of non-dental workers exposed 
to beryllium are also exposed at 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or lower. OSHA 
estimates that 20 dental lab workers (out of 347 tested for 
sensitization) would go to a diagnostic center for CBD evaluation in 
the first year.

[[Page 47687]]

    In each year after the first year, OSHA relied on a 10 percent 
worker turnover rate in a steady state (as discussed in Chapter VII of 
the PEA) to estimate that the annual sensitization incidence rate is 10 
percent of the first year's incidence rate. Based on that rate and the 
number of workers in the medical surveillance program, the CBD 
evaluation rate for workers other than those in dental labs would drop 
to 0.63 percent (.063 x .10). The evaluation rate for dental labs 
technicians is similarly estimated to drop to 0.58 percent (.058 x 
.10).
    Based on these unit costs and the number of employees requiring 
medical surveillance estimated above, OSHA estimates that the medical 
surveillance and referral provisions would result in an annualized 
total cost of $2,882,706. These costs are presented by application 
group and NAICS code in Table IX-7.
h. Medical Removal Provision
    Once a licensed physician diagnoses an employee with CBD or the 
employee is confirmed positive for sensitization to beryllium, that 
employee is eligible for medical removal and has two choices:
    (a) Removal from current job, or
    (b) Remain in a job with exposure above the action level while 
wearing a respirator pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.134.
    To be eligible for removal, the employee must accept comparable 
work if such is available, but if not available the employer would be 
required to place the employee on paid leave for six months or until 
such time as comparable work becomes available, whichever comes first. 
During that six-month period, whether the employee is re-assigned or 
placed on paid leave, the employer must continue to maintain the 
employee's base earnings, seniority and other rights, and benefits that 
existed at the time of the first test.
    For purposes of this analysis, OSHA has conservatively estimated 
the costs as if all employees will choose removal, rather than 
remaining in the current job while wearing a respirator. In practice, 
many workers may prefer to continue working at their current job while 
wearing a respirator, and the employer would only incur the respirator 
costs identified earlier in this chapter. The removal costs are 
significantly higher over the same six-month period, so this analysis 
likely overestimates the total costs for this provision.
    OSHA estimated that the majority of firms would be able to reassign 
the worker to a job at least at the clerical level. The employer will 
often incur a cost for re-assigning the worker because this provision 
requires that, regardless of the comparable work the medically removed 
worker is performing, the employee must be paid the full base earnings 
for the previous position for six months. The cost per hour of 
reassigning a worker to a clerical job is based on the wage difference 
of a production worker of $22.16 and a clerical worker of $19.97, for a 
difference of $2.19. Over the six-month period, the incremental cost of 
reassigning a worker to a clerical position would be $2,190 per 
employee. This estimate is based on the employee remaining in a 
clerical position for the entire 6-month period, but the actual cost 
would be lower if there is turnover or if the employee is placed in any 
alternative position (for any part of the six-month period) that is 
compensated at a wage closer to the employee's previous wage.
    Some firms may not have the ability to place the worker in an 
alternate job. If the employee chooses not to remain in the current 
position, the additional cost to the employer would be at most the cost 
of equipping that employee with a respirator, which would be required 
if the employee would continue to face exposures at or above the action 
level. Based on the earlier discussion of respirator costs, that option 
would be significantly cheaper than the alternative of providing the 
employee with six months of paid leave. Therefore, in order to estimate 
the maximum potential economic cost of the remaining alternatives, the 
Agency has conservatively estimated the cost per worker based on the 
cost of 6 months paid leave.
    Using the wage rate of a production worker of $22.16 for 6 months 
(or 8 hours a day for 125 days), the total per-worker cost for this 
provision when a firm cannot place a worker in an alternate job is 
$22,161.
    OSHA has estimated an average medical removal cost per worker 
assuming 75 percent of firms are able to find the employee an alternate 
job, and the remaining 25 percent of firms would not. The weighted 
average of these costs is $7,183. Based on these unit costs, OSHA 
estimates that the medical removal provision would result in an 
annualized total cost of $148,826. The breakdown of these costs by 
application group and NAICS code is shown in Table IX-6.
i. Training
    As specified in the proposed standard and existing OSHA standard 29 
CFR 1910.1200 on hazard communication, training is required for all 
employees where there is potential exposure to beryllium. In addition, 
newly hired employees would require training before starting work.
    OSHA anticipates that training in accordance with the requirements 
of the proposed rule, which includes hazard communication training, 
would be conducted by in-house safety or supervisory staff with the use 
of training modules or videos. ERG estimated that this training would 
last, on average, eight hours. (Note that this estimate does not 
include the time taken for hazard communication training that is 
already required by 29 CFR 1910.1200.) The Agency judged that 
establishments could purchase sufficient training materials at an 
average cost of $2 per worker, encompassing the cost of handouts, video 
presentations, and training manuals and exercises. For initial and 
periodic training, ERG estimated an average class size of five workers 
with one instructor over an eight hour period. The per-worker cost of 
initial training totals to $239.
    Annual retraining of workers is also required by the standard. OSHA 
estimates the same unit costs as for initial training, so retraining 
would require the same per-worker cost of $239.
    Finally, to calculate training costs, the Agency needs the turnover 
rate of affected workers to know how many workers are receiving initial 
training versus retraining. Based on a 26.3 percent new hire rate in 
manufacturing, OSHA calculated a total net present value (NPV) of ten 
years of initial and annual retraining of $2,101 per employee. 
Annualizing this NPV gives a total annual cost for training of $246.
    Based on these unit costs, OSHA estimates that the training 
requirements in the standard would result in an annualized total cost 
of $5,797,535. The breakdown of these costs by application group and 
NAICS code is presented in Table IX-6.

[[Page 47688]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.009


[[Page 47689]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.010


[[Page 47690]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.011


[[Page 47691]]


Total Annualized Cost
    As shown in Table IX-7, the total annualized cost of the proposed 
rule is estimated to be about $37.6 million. As shown, at $27.8 
million, the program costs represent about 74 percent of the total 
annualized costs of the proposed rule. The annualized cost of complying 
with the PEL accounts for the remaining 26 percent, almost all of which 
is for engineering controls and work practices. Respiratory protection, 
at about $237,600, represents only 3 percent of the annualized cost of 
complying with the PEL and less than 1 percent of the annualized cost 
of the proposed rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.012


[[Page 47692]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.013

F. Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination

    Chapter VI of the PEA, summarized here, investigates the economic 
impacts of the proposed beryllium rule on affected employers. This 
impact investigation has two overriding objectives: (1) To establish 
whether the proposed rule is economically feasible for all affected 
application groups/industries, and (2) to determine if the Agency can 
certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In the discussion below, OSHA first presents its approach for 
achieving these objectives and next applies this approach to industries 
with affected employers. The Agency invites comment on any aspect of 
the methods, data, or preliminary findings presented here or in Chapter 
VI of the PEA.
1. Analytic Approach
a. Economic Feasibility
    Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act directs the Secretary of Labor to 
set standards based on the available evidence where no employee, over 
his/her working life time, will suffer from material impairment of 
health or functional capacity, even if such employee has regular 
exposure to the hazard, ``to the exent feasible'' (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(5)). OSHA interpreted the phrase ``to the extent feasible'' to 
encompass economic feasibility and was supported in this view by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has long held that 
OSHA standards would satisfy the economic feasibility criterion even if 
they imposed significant costs on regulated industries and forced some 
marginal firms out of business, so long as they did not cause massive 
economic dislocations within a particular industry or imperil the 
existence of that industry. Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 
975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. 
Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Indus. Union Dep't v. 
Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
b. The Price Elasticity of Demand and Its Relationship to Economic 
Feasibility
    In practice, the economic burden of an OSHA standard on an 
industry--and whether the standard is economically feasible for that 
industry--depends on

[[Page 47693]]

the magnitude of compliance costs incurred by establishments in that 
industry and the extent to which they are able to pass those costs on 
to their customers. That, in turn, depends, to a significant degree, on 
the price elasticity of demand for the products sold by establishments 
in that industry.
    The price elasticity of demand refers to the relationship between 
the price charged for a product and the demand for that product: The 
more elastic the relationship, the less an establishment's compliance 
costs can be passed through to customers in the form of a price 
increase and the more the establishment has to absorb compliance costs 
in the form of reduced profits. When demand is inelastic, 
establishments can recover most of the costs of compliance by raising 
the prices they charge; under this scenario, profit rates are largely 
unchanged and the industry remains largely unaffected. Any impacts are 
primarily on those customers using the relevant product. On the other 
hand, when demand is elastic, establishments cannot recover all 
compliance costs simply by passing the cost increase through in the 
form of a price increase; instead, they must absorb some of the 
increase from their profits. Commonly, this will mean reductions both 
in the quantity of goods and services produced and in total profits, 
though the profit rate may remain unchanged. In general, ``[w]hen an 
industry is subjected to a higher cost, it does not simply swallow it; 
it raises its price and reduces its output, and in this way shifts a 
part of the cost to its consumers and a part to its suppliers,'' in the 
words of the court in Am. Dental Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor (984 F.2d 823, 
829 (7th Cir. 1993)).
    The court's summary is in accord with microeconomic theory. In the 
long run, firms can remain in business only if their profits are 
adequate to provide a return on investment that ensures that investment 
in the industry will continue. Over time, because of rising real 
incomes and productivity increases, firms in most industries are able 
to ensure an adequate profit. As technology and costs change, however, 
the long-run demand for some products naturally increases and the long-
run demand for other products naturally decreases. In the face of 
additional compliance costs (or other external costs), firms that 
otherwise have a profitable line of business may have to increase 
prices to stay viable. Increases in prices typically result in reduced 
quantity demanded, but rarely eliminate all demand for the product. 
Whether this decrease in the total production of goods and services 
results in smaller output for each establishment within the industry or 
the closure of some plants within the industry, or a combination of the 
two, is dependent on the cost and profit structure of individual firms 
within the industry.
    If demand is perfectly inelastic (i.e., the price elasticity of 
demand is zero), then the impact of compliance costs that are one 
percent of revenues for each firm in the industry would be a one 
percent increase in the price of the product, with no decline in 
quantity demanded. Such a situation represents an extreme case, but 
might be observed in situations in which there were few, if any, 
substitutes for the product in question, or if the products of the 
affected sector account for only a very small portion of the revenue or 
income of its customers.
    If the demand is perfectly elastic (i.e., the price elasticity of 
demand is infinitely large), then no increase in price is possible and 
before-tax profits would be reduced by an amount equal to the costs of 
compliance (net of any cost savings--such as reduced workers' 
compensation insurance premiums--resulting from the proposed standard) 
if the industry attempted to maintain production at the same level as 
previously. Under this scenario, if the costs of compliance are such a 
large percentage of profits that some or all plants in the industry 
could no longer operate in the industry with hope of an adequate return 
on investment, then some or all of the firms in the industry would 
close. This scenario is highly unlikely to occur, however, because it 
can only arise when there are other products--unaffected by the 
proposed rule--that are, in the eyes of their customers, perfect 
substitutes for the products the affected establishments make.
    A commonly-discussed intermediate case would be a price elasticity 
of demand of one (in absolute terms). In this situation, if the costs 
of compliance amount to one percent of revenues, then production would 
decline by one percent and prices would rise by one percent. As a 
result, industry revenues would remain the same, with somewhat lower 
production, but with similar profit rates per unit of output (in most 
situations where the marginal costs of production net of regulatory 
costs would fall as well). Customers would, however, receive less of 
the product for their (same) expenditures, and firms would have lower 
total profits; this, as the court described in Am. Dental Ass'n v. 
Sec'y of Labor, is the more typical case.
c. Variable Costs Versus Fixed Costs
    A decline in output as a result of an increase in price may occur 
in a variety of ways: individual establishments could each reduce their 
levels of production; some marginal plants could close; or, in the case 
of an expanding industry, new entry may be delayed until demand equals 
supply. In some situations, there could be a combination of these three 
effects. Which possibility is most likely depends on the form that the 
costs of the regulation take. If the costs are variable costs (i.e., 
costs that vary with the level of production at a facility), then 
economic theory suggests that any reductions in overall output will be 
the result of reductions in output at each affected facility, with few, 
if any, plant closures. If, on the other hand, the costs of a 
regulation primarily take the form of fixed costs (i.e., costs that do 
not vary with the level of production at a facility), then reductions 
in overall output are more likely to take the form of plant closures or 
delays in new entry.
    Most of the costs of this regulation, as estimated in Chapter V of 
the PEA, are variable costs in the sense that they will tend to vary by 
production levels and/or employment levels. Almost all of the major 
costs of program elements, such as medical surveillance and training, 
will vary in proportion to the number of employees (which is a rough 
proxy for the amount of production). Exposure monitoring costs will 
vary with the number of employees, but do have some economies of scale 
to the extent that a larger firm need only conduct representative 
sampling rather than sample every employee. Finally, the costs of 
operating and maintaining engineering controls tend to vary by usage--
which typically closely tracks the level of production and are not 
fixed costs in the strictest sense.
    This leaves two kinds of costs that are, in some sense, fixed 
costs--capital costs of engineering controls and certain initial costs. 
The capital costs of engineering controls due to the standard--many of 
which are scaled to production and/or employment levels--constitute a 
relatively small share of the total costs, representing 10 percent of 
total annualized costs (or approximately $870 per year per affected 
establishment).
    Some ancillary provisions require initial costs that are fixed in 
the sense that they do not vary by production activity or the number of 
employees. Some examples are the costs to develop a training plan for 
general training not currently required and to develop a written 
exposure control plan.

[[Page 47694]]

    As a result of these considerations, OSHA expects it to be quite 
likely that any reductions in total industry output would be due to 
reductions in output at each affected facility rather than as a result 
of plant closures. However, closures of some marginal plants or poorly 
performing facilities are always possible.
d. Economic Feasibility Screening Analysis
    To determine whether a rule is economically feasible, OSHA begins 
with two screening tests to consider minimum threshold effects of the 
rule under two extreme cases: (1) All costs are passed through to 
customers in the form of higher prices (consistent with a price 
elasticity of demand of zero), and (2) all costs are absorbed by the 
firm in the form of reduced profits (consistent with an infinite price 
elasticity of demand).
    In the former case, the immediate impact of the rule would be 
observed in increased industry revenues. While there is no hard and 
fast rule, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, OSHA generally 
considers a standard to be economically feasible for an industry when 
the annualized costs of compliance are less than a threshold level of 
one percent of annual revenues. Retrospective studies of previous OSHA 
regulations have shown that potential impacts of such a small magnitude 
are unlikely to eliminate an industry or significantly alter its 
competitive structure,\19\ particularly since most industries have at 
least some ability to raise prices to reflect increased costs, and 
normal price variations for products typically exceed three percent a 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See OSHA's Web page, http://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback.html#Completed, for a link to all completed OSHA lookback 
reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the latter case, the immediate impact of the rule would be 
observed in reduced industry profits. OSHA uses the ratio of annualized 
costs to annual profits as a second check on economic feasibility. 
Again, while there is no hard and fast rule, in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, OSHA generally considers a standard to be economically 
feasible for an industry when the annualized costs of compliance are 
less than a threshold level of ten percent of annual profits. In the 
context of economic feasibility, the Agency believes this threshold 
level to be fairly modest, given that normal year-to-year variations in 
profit rates in an industry can exceed 40 percent or more. OSHA also 
considered whether this threshold would be adequate to assure that 
upfront costs would not create major credit problems for affected 
employers. To do this, OSHA examined a worst case scenario in which 
annualized costs were ten percent of profits and all of the annualized 
costs were the result of upfront costs. In this scenario, assuming a 
three percent discount rate and a ten year life of equipment, total 
costs would be 85 percent of profits \20\ in the year in which these 
upfront costs were incurred. Because upfront costs would be less than 
one year's profits in the year they were incurred, this means that an 
employer could pay for all of these costs from that year's profits and 
would not necessarily have to incur any new borrowing. As a result, it 
is unlikely that these costs would create a credit crunch or other 
major credit problems. It would be true, however, that paying 
regulatory costs from profits might reduce investment from profits in 
that year. OSHA's choice of a threshold level of ten percent of annual 
profits is low enough that even if, in a hypothetical worst case, all 
compliance costs were upfront costs, then upfront costs--assuming a 
three percent discount rate and a ten-year time period--would be no 
more than 85 percent of first-year profits and thus would be affordable 
from profits without resort to credit markets. If the threshold level 
were first-year costs of ten percent of annual profits, firms could 
even more easily expect to cover first-year costs at the threshold 
level out of current profits without having to access capital markets 
and otherwise being threatened with short-term insolvency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ At a discount rate of 3 percent over a life of investment 
of 10 years, the present value of that stream of annualized costs 
would be 8.53 times a single year's annualized costs. Hence, if 
yearly annualized costs are 10 percent of profits, upfront costs 
would be 85 percent of the profits in that first year. As a simple 
example, assume annualized costs are $1 for each of the 10 years. If 
annualized costs are 10 percent of profits, this translates to a 
yearly profit of $10. The present value of that stream of $1 for 
each year is $8.53. (The formula for this calculation is 
($1*(1.03[caret]10)-1)/((.03)x(1.03)[caret]10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, because it is usually the case that firms would be able 
to pass on to their customers some or all of the costs of the proposed 
rule in the form of higher prices, OSHA will tend to give much more 
weight to the ratio of industry costs to industry revenues than to the 
ratio of industry costs to industry profits. However, if costs exceed 
either the threshold percentage of revenue or the threshold percentage 
of profits for an industry, or if there is other evidence of a threat 
to the viability of an industry because of the proposed standard, OSHA 
will examine the effect of the rule on that industry more closely. Such 
an examination would include market factors specific to the industry, 
such as normal variations in prices and profits, and any special 
circumstances, such as close domestic substitutes of equal cost, which 
might make the industry particularly vulnerable to a regulatory cost 
increase.
    The preceding discussion focused on the economic viability of the 
affected industries in their entirety. However, even if OSHA found that 
a proposed standard did not threaten the survival of affected 
industries, there is still the question of whether the industries' 
competitive structure would be significantly altered. For example, if 
the annualized costs of an OSHA standard were equal to 10 percent of an 
industry's annual profits, and the price elasticity of demand for the 
products in that industry were equal to one, then OSHA would not expect 
the industry to go out of business. However, if the increase in costs 
were such that most or all small firms in that industry would have to 
close, it might reasonably be concluded that the competitive structure 
of the industry had been altered. For this reason, OSHA also calculates 
compliance costs by size of firm and conducts its economic feasibility 
screening analysis for small and very small entities.
e. Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 
1164 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601), requires Federal agencies to consider 
the economic impact that a proposed rulemaking will have on small 
entities. The RFA states that whenever a Federal agency is required to 
publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule, 
the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 
Pursuant to section 605(b), in lieu of an IRFA, the head of an agency 
may certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. A certification must 
be supported by a factual basis. If the head of an agency makes a 
certification, the agency shall publish such certification in the 
Federal Register at the time of publication of general notice of 
proposed rulemaking or at the time of publication of the final rule. 5 
U.S.C. 605(b).
    To determine if the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA can 
certify that the proposed beryllium rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Agency 
has developed screening tests to consider minimum threshold effects of 
the proposed rule on

[[Page 47695]]

small entities. These screening tests do not constitute hard and fast 
rules and are similar in concept to those OSHA developed above to 
identify minimum threshold effects for purposes of demonstrating 
economic feasibility.
    There are, however, two differences. First, for each affected 
industry, the screening tests are applied, not to all establishments, 
but to small entities (defined as ``small business concerns'' by SBA) 
and also to very small entities (as defined by OSHA as businesses with 
fewer than 20 employees). Second, although OSHA's regulatory 
flexibility screening test for revenues also uses a minimum threshold 
level of annualized costs equal to one percent of annual revenues, OSHA 
has established a minimum threshold level of annualized costs equal to 
five percent of annual profits for the average small entity or very 
small entity. The Agency has chosen a lower minimum threshold level for 
the profitability screening analysis and has applied its screening 
tests to both small entities and very small entities in order to ensure 
that certification will be made, and an IRFA will not be prepared, only 
if OSHA can be highly confident that a proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
or very small entities in any affected industry.
    Furthermore, certification will not be made, and an IRFA will be 
prepared, if OSHA believes the proposed rule might otherwise have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
even if the minimum threshold levels are not exceeded for revenues or 
profitability for small entities or very small entities in all affected 
industries.
2. Impacts on Affected Industries
    In this section, OSHA applies its screening criteria and other 
analytic methods, as needed, to determine (1) whether the proposed rule 
is economically feasible for all affected industries within the scope 
of this proposed rule, and (2) whether the Agency can certify that the 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
a. Economic Feasibility Screening Analysis: All Establishments
    To determine whether the proposed rule's projected costs of 
compliance would threaten the economic viability of affected 
industries, OSHA first compared, for each affected industry, annualized 
compliance costs to annual revenues and profits per (average) affected 
establishment. The results for all affected establishments in all 
affected industries are presented in Table IX-8. Shown in the table for 
each affected industry are the total number of establishments, the 
total number of affected establishments, annualized costs per affected 
establishment, annual revenues per establishment, the profit rate, 
annual profits per establishment, annualized compliance costs as a 
percentage of annual revenues, and annualized compliance costs as a 
percentage of annual profits.
    The annualized costs per affected establishment for each affected 
industry were calculated by distributing the industry-level 
(incremental) annualized compliance costs among all affected 
establishments in the industry, where annualized compliance costs 
reflect a 3 percent discount rate. The annualized cost of the proposed 
rule for the average affected establishment is estimated at $9,197 in 
2010 dollars. It is clear from Table IX-8 that the estimates of the 
annualized costs per affected establishment vary widely from industry 
to industry. These estimates range from $1,257,214 for NAICS 331419 
(Beryllium Production) and $120,372 for NAICS 327113a (Porcelain 
Electrical Supply Manufacturing (primary)) to $1,636 for NAICS 621210 
(Offices of Dentists) and $1,632 for NAICS 339116 (Dental 
Laboratories).

[[Page 47696]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.014


[[Page 47697]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.015

    As previously discussed, OSHA has established a minimum threshold 
level of annualized costs equal to one percent of annual revenues--and, 
secondarily, annualized costs equal to 10 percent of annual profits--
below which the

[[Page 47698]]

Agency has concluded that costs are unlikely to threaten the economic 
viability of an affected industry. The results of OSHA's threshold 
tests for all affected establishments are displayed in Table IX-8. For 
all affected establishments, the estimated annualized cost of the 
proposed rule is, on average, equal to 0.11 percent of annual revenue 
and 1.52 percent of annual profit.
    As Table IX-8 shows, there are no industries in which the 
annualized costs of the proposed rule exceed one percent of annual 
revenues. However there are three six-digit NAICS industries where 
annualized costs exceed ten percent of annual profits.
    NAICS 331525 (Copper foundries except die-casting) has the highest 
cost impact as a percentage of profits. NAICS 331525 is made up of two 
types of copper foundries: sand casting foundries and non-sand casting 
foundries, incurring an annualized cost as a percent of profit of 16.25 
percent and 14.92 percent, respectively. The other two six-digit NAICS 
industries where annualized costs exceed ten percent of annual profits 
are NAICS 331534: Aluminum foundries (except die-casting), 13.65 
percent; and NAICS 811310: Commercial and industrial machinery and 
equipment repair, 10.19 percent.
    OSHA believes that the beryllium-containing inputs used by these 
industries have a relatively inelastic demand for three reasons. First, 
beryllium has rare and unique characteristics, including low mass, high 
melting temperature, dimensional stability over a wide temperature 
range, strength, stiffness, light weight, and high elasticity 
(``springiness'') that can significantly improve the performance of 
various alloys. These characteristics cannot easily be replicated by 
other materials. In economic terms, this means that the elasticity of 
substitution between beryllium and non-beryllium inputs will be low. 
Second, products which contain beryllium or beryllium-alloy components 
typically have high-performance applications (whose performance depends 
on the use of higher-cost beryllium). The lack of available competing 
products with these performance characteristics suggests that the price 
elasticity of demand for products containing beryllium or beryllium-
alloy components will be low. Third, components made of beryllium or 
beryllium-containing alloys typically account for only a small portion 
of the overall cost of the finished goods that these parts are used to 
make. For example, the cost of brakes made of a beryllium-alloy used in 
the production of a jet airplane represents a trivial percentage of the 
overall cost to produce that airplane. As economic theory indicates, 
the elasticity of derived demand for a factor of production (such as 
beryllium) varies directly with the elasticity of substitution between 
the input in question and other inputs; the price elasticity of demand 
for the final product that the input is used to produce; and, in 
general, the share of the cost of the final product that the input 
accounts for. Applying these three conditions to beryllium points to 
the relative inelastic derived demand for this factor of production and 
the likelihood that cost increases resulting from the proposed rule 
would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
    A secondary point is that the establishments in an industry that 
use beryllium may be more profitable than those that don't. This 
follows from the prior arguments about beryllium's rare and desirable 
characteristics and its valuable applications. For example, of the 208 
establishments that make up NAICS 331525, OSHA estimated that 45 
establishments (or 21 percent) work with beryllium. Of the 394 
establishments that make up NAICS 331524, OSHA estimated that only 7 
establishments (less than 2 percent) work with beryllium. Of the 21,960 
establishments that make up NAICS 811310, OSHA estimated that 143 (0.7 
percent) work with beryllium. However, when OSHA calculated the cost-
to-profit ratio, it used the average profit per firm for the entire 
NAICs industry, not the average profit per firm for firms working with 
beryllium.
(1) Normal Year-to-Year Variations in Prices and Profit Rates
    The United States has a dynamic and constantly changing economy in 
which an annual percentage increase in industry revenues or prices of 
one percent or more are common. Examples of year-to-year changes in an 
industry that could cause such an increase in revenues or prices 
include increases in fuel, material, real estate, or other costs; tax 
increases; and shifts in demand.
    To demonstrate the normal year-to-year variation in prices for all 
the manufacturers in general industry affected by the proposed rule, 
OSHA developed in the PEA year-to-year producer price indices and year-
to-year percentage changes in producer prices, by industry, for the 
years 1999-2010. For all of the industries estimated to be affected by 
this proposed standard over the 12-year period, the average change in 
producer prices was 4.4 percent a year--which is over 4 times as high 
as OSHA's 1 percent cost-to-revenue threshold. For the industries found 
to have the largest estimated potential annual cost impact as a 
percentage of revenue shown in Chapter VI of the PEA are--NAICS 331524: 
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting), (0.71 percent); NAICS 331525(a 
and b): Copper Foundries (except Die-Casting) (average of 0.81 
percent); NAICS 332721a: Precision Turned Product Manufacturing of high 
content beryllium (0.49 percent); \21\ and NAICS 811310: Commercial and 
Industrial Machinery and Equipment (Except Automotive and Electronic) 
Repair and Maintenance (0.55 percent)--the average annual changes in 
producer prices in these industries over the 12-year period analyzed 
were 3.1 percent, 8.2 percent, 3.6 percent and 2.3 percent, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ By contrast, NAICS 332721b: Precision Turned Product 
Manufacturing of low content beryllium alloys has a cost to revenue 
ratio below 0.4 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these data, it is clear that the potential price impacts 
of the proposed rule in affected industries are all well within normal 
year-to-year variations in prices in those industries. The maximum cost 
impact of the proposed rule as a percentage of revenue in any affected 
industry is 0.84 percent, while, as just noted, the average annual 
change in producer prices for affected industries was 4.4 percent for 
the period 1999-2010. In fact, Chapter VI of the PEA shows two of the 
industries within the secondary smelting, refining, and alloying group, 
for example, the prices rose over 60 percent in one year without 
imperiling the existence of those industries. Thus, OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that the potential price impacts of the proposal would not 
threaten the economic viability of any industries affected by this 
proposed standard.
    Profit rates are also subject to the dynamics of the U.S. economy. 
A recession, a downturn in a particular industry, foreign competition, 
or the increased competitiveness of producers of close domestic 
substitutes are all easily capable of causing a decline in profit rates 
in an industry of well in excess of ten percent in one year or for 
several years in succession.
    To demonstrate the normal year-to-year variation in profit rates 
for all the manufacturers affected by the proposed rule, OSHA presented 
data in the PEA on year-to-year profit rates and year-to-year 
percentage changes in profit rates, by industry, for the years 2002-
2009. For the industries that OSHA has estimated will be affected by 
this

[[Page 47699]]

proposed standard over the 8-year period, the average change in profit 
rates is calculated to be 39 percent per year. For the industries with 
the largest estimated potential annual cost impacts as a percentage of 
profit--NAICS 331524: Aluminum foundries (except die-casting), (14 
percent); NAICS 331525(a and b): Copper foundries (except die-casting) 
(16 percent); NAICS 332721a: Precision Turned Product Manufacturing of 
high content beryllium (8 percent); \22\ and NAICS 811310 Commercial 
and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (Except Automotive and 
Electronic) Repair and Maintenance (10 percent)--the average annual 
changes in profit rates in these industries over the eight-year period 
were 35 percent, 35 percent, 11 percent, and 5 percent, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ By contrast, NAICS 332721b: Precision Turned Product 
Manufacturing of low content beryllium alloys has a cost to profit 
ratio of 6 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A longer-term loss of profits in excess of 10 percent a year could 
be more problematic for some affected industries and might conceivably, 
under sufficiently adverse circumstances, threaten an industry's 
economic viability. However, as previously discussed, OSHA's analysis 
indicates that affected industries would generally not absorb the costs 
of the proposed rule in reduced profits but, instead, would be able to 
pass on most or all of those costs in the form of higher prices (due to 
the relative price inelasticity of demand for beryllium and beryllium-
containing inputs). It is possible that such price increases will 
result in some reduction in output, and the reduction in output might 
be met through the closure of a small percentage of the plants in the 
industry. The only realistic circumstance where an entire industry 
would be significantly affected by small potential price increases 
would be where there is a very close or perfect substitute product 
available not subject to OSHA regulation. In most cases where beryllium 
is used, there is no substitute product that could be used in place of 
beryllium and achieve the same level of performance. The main potential 
concern would be substitution by foreign competition, but the following 
discussion reveals why such competition is not likely.
(2) International Trade Effects
    World production of beryllium is a thin market, with only a handful 
of countries known to process beryllium ores and concentrates into 
beryllium products, and characterized by a high degree of variation and 
uncertainty. The United States accounts for approximately 65 percent of 
world beryllium deposits and 90 percent of world production, but there 
is also a significant stockpiling of beryllium materials in Kazakhstan, 
Russia, China, and possibly other countries (USGS, 2013a). For the 
individual years 2008-2012, the United States' net import reliance as a 
percentage of apparent consumption (that is, imports minus exports net 
of industry and government stock adjustments) ranged from 10 percent to 
61 percent (USGS, 2013b). To assure an adequate stockpile of beryllium 
materials to support national defense interests, the U.S. Department of 
Defense, in 2005, under the Defense Production Act, Title III, invested 
in a public-private partnership with the leading U.S. beryllium 
producer to build a new $90.4 million primary beryllium facility in 
Elmore, Ohio. Construction of that facility was completed in 2011 
(USGS, 2013b).
    One factor of importance to firms working with beryllium and 
beryllium alloys is to have a reliable supply of beryllium materials. 
U.S. manufacturers can have a relatively high confidence in the 
availability of beryllium materials relative to manufacturers in many 
foreign countries, particularly those that do not have economic or 
national security partnerships with the United States.
    Firms using beryllium in production must consider not just the cost 
of the chemical itself but also the various regulatory costs associated 
with the use, transport, and disposal of the material. For example, for 
marine transport, metallic beryllium powder and beryllium compounds are 
classified by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) as 
poisonous substances, presenting medical danger. Beryllium is also 
classified as flammable. The United Nations classification of beryllium 
and beryllium compounds for the transport of dangerous goods is 
``poisonous substance'' and, for packing, a ``substance presenting 
medium danger'' (WHO, 1990). Because of beryllium's toxicity, the 
material is subject to various workplace restrictions as well as 
international, national, and State requirements and guidelines 
regarding beryllium content in environmental media (USGS, 2013a).
    As the previous discussion indicates, the production and use of 
beryllium and beryllium alloys in the United States and foreign markets 
appears to depend on the availability of production facilities; 
beryllium stockpiles; national defense and political considerations; 
regulations limiting the shipping of beryllium and beryllium products; 
international, national, and State regulations and guidelines regarding 
beryllium content in environmental media; and, of course, the special 
performance properties of beryllium and beryllium alloys in various 
applications. Relatively small changes in the price of beryllium would 
seem to have a minor effect on the location of beryllium production and 
use. In particular, as a result of this proposed rule, OSHA would 
expect that, if all compliance costs were passed through in the form of 
higher prices, a price increase of 0.11 percent, on average, for firms 
manufacturing or using beryllium in the United States--and not 
exceeding 1 percent in any affected industry--would have a negligible 
effect on foreign competition and would therefore not threaten the 
economic viability of any affected domestic industries.
(b) Economic Feasibility Screening Analysis: Small and Very Small 
Businesses
    The preceding discussion focused on the economic viability of the 
affected industries in their entirety. Even though OSHA found that the 
proposed standard did not threaten the survival of these industries, 
there is still the possibility that the competitive structure of these 
industries could be significantly altered such as by small entities 
exiting from the industry as a result of the proposed standard.
    To address this possibility, OSHA examined the annualized costs of 
the proposed standard per affected small entity, and per affected very 
small entity, for each affected industry. Again, OSHA used a minimum 
threshold level of annualized compliance costs equal to one percent of 
annual revenues--and, secondarily, annualized compliance costs equal to 
ten percent of annual profits--below which the Agency has concluded 
that the costs are unlikely to threaten the survival of small entities 
or very small entities or, consequently, to alter the competitive 
structure of the affected industries.
    Based on the results presented in Table IX-9, the annualized cost 
of compliance with the proposed rule for the average affected small 
entity is estimated to be $8,108 in 2010 dollars. Based on the results 
presented in Table IX-10, the annualized cost of compliance with the 
proposed rule for the average affected very small entity is estimated 
to be $1,955 in 2010 dollars. These tables also show that there are no 
industries in which the annualized costs of the proposed rule for small 
entities or very small entities exceed one percent of annual revenues. 
NAICS 331525b: Sand Copper Foundries (except die-casting) has the 
highest estimated cost

[[Page 47700]]

impact as a percentage of revenues for small entities, 0.95 percent, 
and NAICS 336322b: Other motor vehicle electrical and electronic 
equipment has the highest estimated cost impact as a percentage of 
revenues for very small entities, 0.70 percent.
    Small entities in four industries--NAICS 331525: Sand and non-sand 
foundries (except die-casting); NAICS 331524(a and b): Aluminum 
foundries (except die-casting); NAICS 811310: Commercial and Industrial 
Machinery and Equipment; and NAICS 331522: Nonferrous (except aluminum) 
die-casting foundries--have annualized costs in excess of 10 percent of 
annual profits (17.45 percent, 16.12 percent, 11.68 percent, and 10.64 
percent, respectively). Very small entities in 7 industries are 
estimated to have annualized costs in excess of 10 percent of annual 
profit; NAICS 336322b: Other motor vehicle electrical and electronic 
equipment (38.49 percent); \23\ NAICS 336322a: Other motor vehicle 
electrical and electronic equipment, (18.18 percent); NAICS 327113: 
Porcelain electrical Supply Manufacturing (13.82 percent); NAICS 
811310: Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (Except 
Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance (12.76 percent); 
NAICS 332721a: Precision turned product manufacturing (10.50 percent); 
NAICS 336214: Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (10.75 percent); 
and NAICS 336399: All other motor vehicle parts manufacturing (10.38 
percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NAICS 336322 contains entities that fall into three 
separate application groups. NAICS 336322b is in the Beryllium Oxide 
Ceramics and Composites application group. NAICS 336322a (which 
follows in the text) is in the Fabrication of Beryllium Alloy 
Products application group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, cost impacts for affected small entities or very small 
entities will tend to be somewhat higher, on average, than the cost 
impacts for the average business in those affected industries. That is 
to be expected. After all, smaller businesses typically suffer from 
diseconomies of scale in many aspects of their business, leading to 
less revenue per dollar of cost and higher unit costs. Small businesses 
are able to overcome these obstacles by providing specialized products 
and services, offering local service and better service, or otherwise 
creating a market niche for themselves. The higher cost impacts for 
smaller businesses estimated for this rule--other than very small 
entities in NAICS 336322b: Other motor vehicle electrical and 
electronic equipment--generally fall within the range observed in other 
OSHA regulations and, as verified by OSHA's lookback reviews, have not 
been of such a magnitude to lead to the economic failure of regulated 
small businesses.
    The ratio of annualized costs to annual profit is a sizable 38.49 
percent in NAICS 336322b: Other motor vehicle electrical and electronic 
equipment. However, OSHA believes that the actual ratio is 
significantly lower. There are 386 very small entities in NAICS 336322, 
of which only 6, or 1.5 percent, are affected entities using beryllium. 
When OSHA calculated the cost-to-profit ratio, it used the average 
profit per firm for the entire NAICs industry, not the average profit 
rate for firms working with beryllium. The profit rate for all 
establishments in NAICS 336322b was estimated at 1.83 percent. If, for 
example, the average profit rate for a very small entity in NAICS 
336322b were equal to 5.95 percent, the average profit rate for its 
application group, Beryllium Oxide Ceramics and Composites, then the 
ratio of the very small entity's annualized cost of the proposed rule 
to its annual profit would actually be 11.77 percent. OSHA tentatively 
concludes the 6 establishments in the NAICS specializing in beryllium 
production will have a higher than average profit rate and will be able 
to pass much of the cost onto the consumer for three main reasons: (1) 
The absence of substitutes containing the rare performance 
characteristics of beryllium; (2) the relative price insensitivity of 
(other) motor vehicles containing the special performance 
characteristics of beryllium and beryllium alloys; and (3) the fact 
that electrical and electronic components made of beryllium or 
beryllium-containing alloys typically account for only a small portion 
of the overall cost of the finished (other) motor vehicles. The 
annualized compliance cost to annual revenue ratio for NAICS 336332b is 
0.70 percent, 0.30 percent below the 1 percent threshold. Based on 
OSHA's experience, price increases of this magnitude have not 
historically been associated with the economic failure of small 
businesses.

[[Page 47701]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.016


[[Page 47702]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.017


[[Page 47703]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.018


[[Page 47704]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.019


[[Page 47705]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.020


[[Page 47706]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.021


[[Page 47707]]


(c) Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
    To determine if the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA can 
certify that the proposed beryllium standard will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the Agency has developed screening tests to consider minimum threshold 
effects of the proposed standard on small entities. The minimum 
threshold effects for this purpose are annualized costs equal to one 
percent of annual revenues, and annualized costs equal to five percent 
of annual profits, applied to each affected industry. OSHA has applied 
these screening tests both to small entities and to very small 
entities. For purposes of certification, the threshold level cannot be 
exceeded for affected small entities or very small entities in any 
affected industry.
    Tables IX-9 and Table IX-10, presented above, show that the 
annualized costs of the proposed standard do not exceed one percent of 
annual revenues for affected small entities or affected very small 
entities in any affected industry. These tables also show that the 
annualized costs of the proposed standard exceed five percent of annual 
profits for affected small entities in 12 industries and for affected 
very small entities in 30 industries. OSHA is therefore unable to 
certify that the proposed standard will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities and must prepare an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The IRFA is presented 
in Chapter IX of the PEA and is reproduced in Section IX.I of this 
preamble.

G. Benefits and Net Benefits

    In this section, OSHA presents a summary of the estimated benefits 
and net benefits of the proposed beryllium rule. This section proceeds 
in five steps. The first step estimates the numbers of diseases and 
deaths prevented by comparing the current (baseline) situation to a 
world in which the proposed PEL is adopted in a final standard to a 
world in which employees are exposed at the level of the proposed PEL 
throughout their working lives. The second step also assumes that the 
proposed PEL is adopted, but uses the results from the first step to 
estimate what would happen under a more realistic scenario in which 
employees have been exposed for varying periods of time to the baseline 
situation and will thereafter be exposed to the new PEL.
    The third step covers the monetization of benefits. Then, in the 
fourth step, OSHA estimates the net benefits and incremental benefits 
of the proposed rule by comparing the monetized benefits to the costs 
presented in Chapter V of the PEA. The models underlying each step 
inevitably need to make a variety of assumptions based on limited data. 
In the fifth step, OSHA provides a sensitivity analysis to explore the 
robustness of the estimates of net benefits with respect to many of the 
assumptions made in developing and applying the underlying models. A 
full explanation of the derivation of the estimates presented here is 
provided in Chapter VII of the PEA for the proposed rule. OSHA invites 
comments on any aspect of the data and methods used to estimate the 
benefits and net benefits of this proposed rule. Because dental labs 
constitute a significant source of both costs and benefits to the rule 
(over 40 percent), OSHA is particularly interested in comments 
regarding the appropriateness of the model, assumptions, and data to 
estimating the benefits to workers in that industry.
    OSHA has added to the docket the spreadsheets used to calculate the 
estimates of benefits outlined below (OSHA, 2015a). Those interested in 
exploring the details and methodology of OSHA's benefits analysis, such 
as how the life table referred to below was developed and applied, 
should consult those spreadsheets.
Step 1--Estimation of the Steady-State Number of Beryllium-Related 
Diseases Avoided
Methods of Estimation
    The first step in OSHA's development of the benefits analysis 
compares the situation in which employees continue to be at baseline 
exposure levels for their entire working lives to the situation in 
which all employees have been exposed at a given PEL for their entire 
working lives. This is a comparison of two steady-state situations. To 
do this, OSHA must estimate both the risk associated with the baseline 
exposure levels and the risk following the promulgation of a new 
beryllium standard. OSHA's approach assumes for inputs such as the 
turnover rate and the exposure response function that they are similar 
across all workers exposed to beryllium, regardless of industry.
    An exposure-response model, discussed below, is used to estimate a 
worker's risk of beryllium-related disease based on the worker's 
cumulative beryllium exposure. The Agency used a lifetime risk model to 
estimate the baseline risk and the associated number of cases for the 
various disease endpoints. A lifetime risk model explicitly follows a 
worker each year, from work commencement onwards, accumulating the 
worker's beryllium exposure in the workplace and estimating outcomes 
each year for the competing risks that can occur. To go from exposure 
to number of cases, the Agency needs to estimate an exposure-response 
relationship, and this is discussed below. The possible outcomes are no 
change, or the various health endpoints OSHA has considered (beryllium 
sensitization, CBD, lung cancer, and the mortality associated with 
these endpoints). As part of the estimation discussion, OSHA will 
mention specific parameters used in some of the estimation methods, but 
will further discuss how these parameters were derived later in this 
section.
    The baseline lifetime risk model is the most complicated part of 
the analysis. The Agency only needs to make relatively simple 
adjustments to this model to reflect changes in activities and 
conditions due to the standard, which, working through the model, then 
lead to changes in relevant health outcomes. There are three channels 
by which the standard generates benefits. First are estimated benefits 
due to the lowering of the PEL. Second are estimated benefits with 
further exposure reductions from the substitution of non-beryllium for 
beryllium-containing materials, ending workers' beryllium exposures 
entirely. This potential source of benefits is particularly significant 
with respect to OSHA's assumptions for how dental labs are likely to 
reduce exposures (see below). Finally, the model estimates benefits due 
to the ancillary programs that are required by the proposed standard. 
The last channel affects CBD and sensitization, endpoints which may be 
mitigated or prevented with the help of ancillary provisions such as 
dermal protection and medical surveillance for early detection, and for 
which the Agency has some information on the effects on risk of 
ancillary provisions. The benefits of ancillary provisions are not 
estimated for lung cancer because the benefits from reducing lung 
cancer are considered to be the result of reducing airborne exposure 
only and thus the ancillary provisions will have no separable effect on 
airborne exposures. The discussion here will concentrate on CBD as 
being the most important and complex endpoint, and most illustrative of 
other endpoints: The structure for other endpoints is the same; only 
the exposure response functions are different. Here OSHA will

[[Page 47708]]

discuss first the exposure-response model, then the structure of the 
year-to-year changes for a worker, then the estimated exposure 
distribution in the affected population and the risk model with the 
lowering of the PEL, and, last, the other adjustments for the ancillary 
benefits and the substitution benefits.
    The exposure response model is designed to translate beryllium 
exposure to risk of adverse health endpoints. In the case of beryllium 
sensitization and CBD, the Agency uses the cumulative exposure data 
from a beryllium manufacturing facility. Specifically, OSHA uses the 
quartile data from the Cullman plant that is presented in Table VI-7 of 
the Preliminary Risk Assessment in the preamble. The raw data from this 
study show cases of CBD with cumulative exposures that would represent 
an average exposure level of less than 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ if exposed for 
10 years; show cases of CBD with exposures lasting less than one year; 
and show cases of CBD with actual average exposure of less than 0.1 
[micro]g/m\3\.
    Prevalence is defined as the percentage of persons with a condition 
in a population at a given point in time. The quartile data in Table 
VI-7 of the Preliminary Risk Assessment are prevalence percentages (the 
number of cases of illness documented over several years in the 319 
person cohort from the Cullman plant) at different cumulative exposure 
levels. The Cullman data do not cover persons who left the work force 
or what happened to persons who remained in the workforce after the 
study was completed. For the lifetime risk model, the prevalence 
percentages will be translated into incidence percentages--the 
estimated number of new cases predicted to occur each year. For this 
purpose OSHA assumed that the incidence for any given cumulative 
exposure level is constant from year to year and continues after 
exposure ceases.
    To calculate incidence from prevalence, OSHA assumed a steady state 
in which both the size of the beryllium-exposed affected population, 
exposure concentrations during employment and prevalence are constant 
over time. If these conditions are met, and turnover among workers with 
a condition is equal to turnover for workers without a condition, then 
the incidence rate will be equal to the turnover rate multiplied by the 
prevalence rate. If the turnover rate among persons with a condition is 
higher than the turnover rate for workers without the condition, then 
this assumption will underestimate incidence. This might happen if, in 
addition to other reasons for leaving work, persons with a condition 
leave a place of employment more frequently because their disabilities 
cause them to have difficulty continuing to do the work. If the 
turnover rate among persons with a condition is lower than the turnover 
rate for workers without the condition, then this assumption will 
overestimate incidence. This could happen if an employer provides 
special benefits to workers with the condition, and the employer would 
cease to provide these benefits if the employee left work.
    To illustrate, if 10 percent of the work force (including 10 
percent of those with the condition) leave each year and if the overall 
prevalence is at 20 percent, then a 2 percent (10 percent times 20 
percent) incidence rate will be needed in order to keep a steady 20 
percent group prevalence rate each year. OSHA's model assumes a 
constant 10 percent turnover rate (see later in this section for the 
rationale for this particular turnover rate). While turnover rates are 
not available for the specific set of employees in question, for 
manufacturing as a whole, the turnover rates are greater than 20 
percent, and greater than 30 percent for the economy as a whole (BLS, 
2013). For this analysis, OSHA assumed an effective turnover rate of 10 
percent. Different turnover rates will result in different incidence 
rates. The lower the turnover rate the lower the estimated incidence 
rate. This is a conservative assumption for the industries where 
turnover rates may be higher. However, some occupations/industries, 
such as dental lab technicians, may have lower turnover rates than 
manufacturing workers. Additionally, the typical dental technician even 
if leaving one workplace, has significant likelihood of continuing to 
work as a dental technician and going to another workplace that uses 
beryllium. OSHA welcomes comments on its turnover estimates and on 
sectors, such as dental laboratories, where turnover may be lower than 
ten percent.
    Using Table VI-7 of the Preliminary Risk Assessment, when a 
worker's cumulative exposure is below 0.147 ([mu]g/m\3\-years), the 
prevalence of CBD is 2.5 percent and so the derived annual risk would 
be 0.25 percent (0.10 x 2.5 percent). It will stay at this level until 
the worker has reached a cumulative exposure of 1.468, where it will 
rise to 0.80 percent.
    The model assumes a maximum 45-year (250 days per year) working 
life (ages 20 through 65 or age of death or onset of CBD, whichever is 
earlier) and follows workers after retirement through age 80. The 45-
year working life is based on OSHA's legal requirements and is longer 
than the working lives of most exposed workers. A shorter working life 
will be examined later in this section. While employed, the worker 
accumulates beryllium exposure at a rate depending on where the worker 
is in the empirical exposure profile presented in Chapter IV of the PEA 
(i.e., OSHA calculates a general risk model which depends on the 
exposure level and then plug in our empirical exposure distribution to 
estimate the final number of cases of various health outcomes). 
Following a worker's retirement, there is no increased exposure, just a 
constant annual risk resulting from the worker's final cumulative 
exposure.
    OSHA's model follows the population of workers each year, keeping 
track of cumulative exposure and various health outcomes. Explicitly, 
each year the model calculates: The increased cumulative exposure level 
for each worker versus last year, the incidence at the new exposure 
level, the survival rate for this age bracket, and the percentage of 
workers who have not previously developed CBD in earlier years.
    For any individual year, the equation for predicting new cases of 
CBD for workers at age t is:

    New CBD cases rate(t) = modeled incidence rate(t) * survival 
rate(t) * (1- currently have CBD rate(t)), where the variables used 
are:
    New CBD cases rate(t) is the output variable to be calculated;
    cumulative exposure(t) = cumulative exposure(t-1) + current 
exposure;
    modeled incidence rate(t) is a function of cumulative exposure; 
and
    survival rate(t) is the background survival rate from mortality 
due to other causes in the national population.

    Then for the next year the model updates the survival rate (due to 
an increase in the worker's age), incidence rate (due to any increased 
cumulative exposure), and the rate of those currently having CBD, which 
increases due to the new CBD case rate of the year before. This process 
then repeats for all 60 years.
    It is important to note that this model is based on the assumption 
that prevalence is explained by an underlying constant incidence, and 
as a result, prevalence will be different depending on the average 
number of years of exposure in the population examined and (though a 
sensitivity analysis is provided later) on the assumption of a maximum 
of 45 years of exposure. OSHA also examined (OSHA 2015c) a model in 
which prevalence is constant at the levels shown in Table VI-7 of the 
preliminary

[[Page 47709]]

risk assessment, with a population age (and thus exposure) distribution 
estimated based on an assumed constant turnover rate. OSHA solicits 
comment on this and other alternative approaches to using the available 
prevalence data to develop an exposure-response function for this 
benefits analysis.
    In the next step, OSHA uses its model to take into account the 
adoption of the lower proposed PEL. OSHA uses the exposure profile for 
workers as estimated in Chapter IV of the PEA for each of the various 
application groups. These exposure profiles estimate the number of 
workers at various exposure levels, specifically the ranges less than 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, 0.1 to 0.2, 0.2 to 0.5, 0.5 to 1.0, 1.0 to 2.0, and 
greater than 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Translating these ranges into exposure 
levels for the risk model, the model assumes an average exposure equal 
to the midpoint of the range, except for the lower end, where it was 
assumed to be equal to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, and the upper end, where it was 
assumed to be equal to 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The model increases the workers' cumulative exposure each year by 
these midpoints and then plugs these new values into the new case 
equation. This alters the incidence rate as cumulative exposure crosses 
a threshold of the quartile data. So then using the exposure profiles 
by application group from Chapter IV of the PEA, the baseline exposure 
flows through the life time risk model to give us a baseline number of 
cases. Next OSHA calculated the number of cases estimated to occur 
after the implementation of the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Here 
OSHA simply takes the number of workers with current average exposure 
above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and set their exposure level at 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\; 
all exposures for workers exposed below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ stay the same. 
After adjusting the worker exposure profile in this way, OSHA goes 
through all the same calculations and obtains a post-standard number of 
CBD cases. Subtracting estimated post-standard CBD cases from estimated 
pre-standard CBD cases gives us the number of CBD cases that would be 
averted due to the proposed change in the PEL.
    Based on these methods, OSHA's estimate of benefits associated with 
the proposed rule does not include benefits associated with current 
compliance that have already been achieved with regard to the new 
requirements, or benefits obtained from future compliance with existing 
beryllium requirements. However, available exposure data indicate that 
few employees are currently exposed above the existing standard's PEL 
of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. To achieve consistency with the cost estimation 
method in chapter V, all employees in the exposure profile that are 
above 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ are assumed to be at the 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ level.
    There is also a component that applies only to dental labs. OSHA 
has preliminarily assumed, based on the estimates of higher costs for 
engineering controls than using substitutes presented in the cost 
chapter, that rather than incur the costs of compliance with the 
proposed standard, many dental labs are likely to stop using beryllium-
containing materials after the promulgation of the proposed 
standard.\24\ OSHA estimated earlier in this PEA that, for the 
baseline, only 25 percent of dental lab workers still work with 
beryllium. OSHA estimates that, if OSHA adopts the proposed rule, 75 
percent of the 25 percent still using beryllium will stop working with 
beryllium; their beryllium exposure level will therefore drop to zero. 
OSHA estimates that the 75 percent of workers will not be a random 
sample of the dental lab exposure profile but instead will concentrate 
among workers who are currently at the highest exposure levels because 
it would cost more to reduce those higher exposures into compliance 
with the proposed PEL. Under this judgment OSHA is estimating that the 
rule would eliminate all cases of CBD in the 75 percent of dental lab 
workers with the highest exposure levels. As discussed in the 
sensitivity analysis below, dental labs constitute a significant source 
of both costs and benefits to the rule (over 40 percent), and the 
extent to which dental laboratories substitute other materials for 
beryllium has significant effects on the benefits and costs of the 
rule. To derive its baseline estimate of cases of CBD in dental 
laboratories, OSHA (1) estimated baseline cases of CBD using the 
existing rate of beryllium use in dental labs without a projection of 
further substitution; (2) estimated cases of CBD with the proposed 
regulation using an estimate that 75 percent of the dental labs with 
higher exposure would switch to other materials and thus eliminate 
exposure to beryllium; and (3) estimated that the turnover rate in the 
industry is 10 percent. OSHA welcomes comments on all aspects of the 
analysis of substitution away from beryllium in the dental laboratories 
sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In Chapter V (Costs) of the PEA, OSHA explored the cost of 
putting in LEV instead of substitution. The Agency costed an 
enclosure for 2 technicians: The Powder Safe Type A Enclosure, 32 
inch wide with HEPA filter, AirClean Systems (2011), which including 
operating and maintenance, was annualized at $411 per worker. This 
is significantly higher than the annual cost for substitution of 
$166 per worker, shown later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimation results for both dental labs and non-dental workplaces 
appear in the table below.

                                       CBD Case Estimates, 45-Year Totals, Baseline and With PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Current beryllium exposure  ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------    Total
                                                                         < 0.1      0.1-0.2     0.2-0.5     0.5-1.0     1.0-2.0      > 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................  Dental labs...............         827         636         432         608         155         466       3,124
                                          Non-dental................       5,912         631         738         287         112         214       7,893
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Total..................       6,739       1,267       1,171         895         267         679      11,017
PEL = 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\....................  Dental labs...............         679           0           0           0           0           0         679
                                          Non-dental................       5,912         631         693         255          98         186       7,774
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Total..................       6,591         631         693         255          98         186       8,454
Prevented by PEL reduction..............  Dental labs...............         148         636         432         608         155         466       2,444
                                          Non-dental................           0           0          45          32          14          27         119
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Total..................         148         636         478         640         169         493       2,563
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47710]]

    In contrast to this PEL component of the benefits, both the 
ancillary program benefits calculation and the substitution benefits 
calculation are relatively simple. Both are percentages of the 
lifetime-risk-model CBD cases that still occur in the post-standard 
world. OSHA notes that in the context of existing CBD prevention 
programs, some ancillary-provision programs similar to those included 
in OSHA's proposal have eliminated a significant percentage of the 
remaining CBD cases (discussed later in this chapter). If the ancillary 
provisions reduce remaining CBD cases by 90 percent for example, and if 
the estimated baseline contains 120 cases of CBD, and post-standard 
compliance with a lower PEL reduces the total to 100 cases of CBD, then 
90 of those remaining 100 cases of CBD would be averted due to the 
ancillary programs.
    OSHA assumed, based on the clinical experience discussed further 
below, that approximately 65 percent of CBD cases ultimately result in 
death. Later in this chapter, OSHA provides a sensitivity analysis of 
the effects of different values for assuming this percentage at 50 
percent and 80 percent on the number of CBD deaths prevented. OSHA 
welcomes comment on this assumption. OSHA's exposure-response model for 
lung cancer is based on lung cancer mortality data. Thus, all of the 
estimated cases of lung cancer in the benefits analysis are cases of 
premature death from beryllium-related lung cancer.
    Finally, in recognition of the uncertainty in this aspect of these 
models, OSHA presents a ``high'' estimate, a ``low'' estimate, and uses 
the midpoint of these two as our ``primary'' estimate. The low estimate 
is simply those CBD fatalities prevented due to everything except the 
ancillary provisions, i.e., both the reduction in the PEL and the 
substitution by dental labs. The high estimate includes both of these 
factors plus all the ancillary benefits calculated at an effectiveness 
rate of 90 percent in preventing cases of CBD not averted by the 
reduction of the PEL. The midpoint is the combination of reductions 
attributed to adopting the proposed PEL, substitution by dental labs, 
and the ancillary provisions calculated at an effectiveness rate of 
only 45 percent.
a. Chronic Beryllium Disease
    CBD is a respiratory disease in which the body's immune system 
reacts to the presence of beryllium in the lung, causing a progression 
of pathological changes including chronic inflammation and tissue 
scarring. Immunological sensitization to beryllium (BeS) is a precursor 
that occurs before early-stage CBD. Only sensitized individuals can go 
on to develop CBD. In early, asymptomatic stages of CBD, small 
granulomatous lesions and mild inflammation occur in the lungs. As CBD 
progresses, the capacity and function of the lungs decrease, which 
eventually affects other organs and bodily functions as well. Over time 
the spread of lung fibrosis (scarring) and loss of pulmonary function 
cause symptoms such as: A persistent dry cough, shortness of breath, 
fatigue, night sweats, chest and join pain, clubbing of fingers due to 
impaired oxygen exchange, and loss of appetite. In these later stages 
CBD can also impair the liver, spleen, and kidneys, and cause health 
effects such as granulomas of the skin and lymph nodes, and cor 
pulmonale (enlargement of the heart). The speed and extent of disease 
progression may be influenced by the level and duration of exposure, 
treatment with corticosteroids, and genetics, but these effects are not 
fully understood.
    Corticosteroid therapy, in workers whose beryllium exposure has 
ceased, has been shown to control inflammation, ease symptoms, and in 
some cases prevent the development of fibrosis. However, corticosteroid 
use can have adverse effects, including increased risk of infections; 
accelerated bone loss or osteoporosis; psychiatric effects such as 
depression, sleep disturbances, and psychosis; adrenal suppression; 
ocular effects; glucose intolerance; excessive weight gain; increased 
risk of cardiovascular disease; and poor wound healing. The effects of 
CBD, and of common treatments for CBD, are discussed in detail in this 
preamble at Section V, Health Effects, and Section VIII, Significance 
of Risk.
    OSHA's review of the literature on CBD suggests three broad types 
of CBD progression (see this preamble at Section V, Health Effects). In 
the first, individuals progress relatively directly toward death 
related to CBD. They suffer rapidly advancing disability and their 
death is significantly premature. Medical intervention is not applied, 
or if it is, does little to slow the progression of disease. In the 
second type, individuals live with CBD for an extended period of time. 
The progression of CBD in these individuals is naturally slow, or may 
be medically stabilized. They may suffer significant disability, in 
terms of loss of lung function--and quality of life--and require 
medical oversight their remaining years. They would be expected to lose 
some years of normal lifespan. As discussed previously, advanced CBD 
can involve organs and systems beyond the respiratory system; thus, CBD 
can contribute to premature death from other causes. Finally, 
individuals with the third type of CBD progression do not die 
prematurely from causes related to CBD. The disease is stabilized and 
may never progress to a debilitating state. These individuals 
nevertheless may experience some disability or loss of lung function, 
as well as side effects from medical treatment, and may be affected by 
the disease in many areas of their lives: Work, recreation, family, 
etc.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As indicated in the Health Effects section of this 
preamble: ``It should be noted, however, that treatment with 
corticosteroids has side-effects of their own that need to be 
measured against the possibility of progression of disease (Gibson 
et al., 1996; Zaki et al., 1987). Alternative treatments such as 
azathiopurine and infliximab, while successful at treating symptoms 
of CBD, have been demonstrated to have side-effects as well 
(Pallavicino et al., 2013; Freeman, 2012)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the analysis that follows, OSHA assumes, based on the clinical 
experience discussed below, that 35 percent of workers who develop CBD 
experience the third type of progression and do not die prematurely 
from CBD. The remaining 65 percent were estimated to die prematurely, 
whether from rapid disease progression (type 1) or slow (type 2). 
Although the proportion of CBD patients who die prematurely as a result 
of the disease is not well understood or documented at this time, OSHA 
believes this assumption is consistent with the information submitted 
in response to the RFI. Newman et al. (2003) presented a scenario for 
what they considered to be the ``typical'' CBD patient:

    We have included an example of a life care plan for a typical 
clinical case of CBD. In this example, the hypothetical case is 
diagnosed at age 40 and assumed to live an additional 33.7 years 
(approximately 5% reduced life expectancy in this model). In this 
hypothetical example, this individual would be considered to have 
moderate severity of chronic beryllium disease at the time of 
initial diagnosis. They require treatment with prednisone and 
treatment for early cor pulmonale secondary to CBD. They have 
experienced some, but not all, of the side effects of treatment and 
only the most common CBD-related health effects.

    In short, most workers diagnosed with CBD are expected to have 
shortened life expectancy, even if they do not progress rapidly and 
directly to death. It should be emphasized that this represents the 
Agency's best estimate of the mortality related to CBD based upon the 
current available evidence. As described in Section V, Health Effects, 
there is a substantial degree of uncertainty as to the prognosis for 
those contracting CBD, particularly as the relatively less severe

[[Page 47711]]

cases are likely not to be studied closely for the remainder of their 
lives.
    As mentioned previously, OSHA used the Cullman data set for 
empirical estimates of beryllium sensitization and CBD prevalence in 
its exposure response model, which translates beryllium exposure to 
risk of adverse health endpoints for the purpose of determining the 
benefits that could be achieved by preventing those adverse health 
endpoints.
    OSHA chose the cumulative exposure quartile data as the basis for 
this benefits analysis. The choice of cumulative quartiles was based in 
part on the need to use the cumulative exposure forecast developed in 
the model, and in part on the fact that in statistically fitted models 
for CBD, the cumulative exposure tended to fit the CBD data better than 
other exposure variables. OSHA also chose the quartile model because 
the outside expert who examined the logistic and proportional hazards 
models believed statistical modeling of the data set to be unreliable 
due to its small size. In addition, the proportional hazards model with 
its dummy variables by year of detection is difficult to interpret for 
purposes of this section. Of course regression analyses are often 
useful in empirical analysis. They can be a useful compact 
representation of a set of data, allow investigations of various 
variable interactions and possible causal relationships, have added 
flexibility due to covariate transformations, and under certain 
conditions can be shown to be statistically ``optimal.'' However, they 
are only useful when used in the proper setting. The possibility of 
misspecification of functional form, endogeneity, or incorrect 
distributional assumptions are just three reasons to be cautious about 
using regression analyses.
    On the other hand, the use of results produced by a quartile 
analysis as inputs in a benefits assessment implies that the analytic 
results are being interpreted as evidence of an exposure-response 
causal relationship. Regression analysis is a more sophisticated 
approach to estimating causal relationships (or even correlations) than 
quartile or other quantile analysis, and any data limitations that may 
apply to a particular regression-based exposure-response estimation 
also apply to exposure-response estimation conducted with a quartile 
analysis using the same data set. In this case, OSHA adopted the 
quartile analysis because the logistic regression analysis yielded 
extremely high prevalence rates for higher level of exposure over long 
time periods that some might not find credible. Use of the quartile 
analysis serves to show that there are significant benefits even 
without using an extremely high estimate of prevalence for long periods 
of exposure at high levels. As a check on the quartile model, the 
Agency performed the same benefits calculation using the logit model 
estimated by the Agency's outside expert, and these benefit results are 
presented in a separate OSHA background document (OSHA, 2015b). The 
difference in benefits between the two models is slight, and there is 
no qualitative change in final outcomes. The Agency solicits comment on 
these issues.
(1) Number of CBD Cases Prevented by the Proposed PEL
    To examine the effect of simply changing the PEL, including the 
effect of the standard on some dental labs to discontinue their use of 
beryllium, OSHA compared the number of CBD-related deaths (mortality) 
and cases of non-fatal CBD (morbidity) that would occur if workers were 
exposed for a 45-year working life to PELs of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ to the number of cases that would occur at levels of exposure at 
or below the current PEL. The number of avoided cases over a 
hypothetical working life of exposure for the current population at a 
lower PEL is then equal to the difference between the number of cases 
at levels of exposure at or below the current PEL for that population 
minus the number of cases at the lower PEL. This approach represents a 
steady-state comparison based on what would hypothetically happen to 
workers who received a specific average level of occupational exposure 
to beryllium during an entire working life. (Chapter VII in the PEA 
modifies this approach by introducing a model that takes into account 
the timing of benefits before steady state is reached.)
    As indicated in Table IX-11, the Agency estimates that there would 
be 16,240 cases of beryllium sensitization, from which there would be 
11,017, or about 70 percent, progressing to CBD. The Agency arrived at 
these estimates by using the CBD and BeS prevalence values from the 
Agency's preliminary risk analysis, the exposure profile at current 
exposure levels (under an assumption of full, or fixed, compliance with 
the existing beryllium PEL), and the model outlined in the previous 
methods of estimation section after a working lifetime of exposure. 
Applying the prior midpoint estimate, as explained above, that 65 
percent of CBD cases cause or contribute to premature death, the Agency 
predicts a total of 7,161 cases of mortality and 3,856 cases of 
morbidity from exposure at current levels; this translates, annually, 
to 165 cases of mortality and 86 cases of morbidity. At the proposed 
PEL, OSHA's base model estimates that, due to the airborne factor only, 
a total of 2,563 CBD cases would be avoided from exposure at current 
levels, including 1,666 cases of mortality and 897 cases of morbidity--
or an average of 37 cases of mortality and 20 cases of morbidity 
annually. OSHA has not estimated the quantitative benefits of 
sensitization cases avoided.
    OSHA requests comment on this analysis, including feedback on the 
data relied on and the approach and assumptions used. As discussed 
earlier, based on information submitted in response to the RFI, the 
Agency estimates that most of the workers with CBD will progress to an 
early death, even if it comes after retirement, and has quantified 
those cases prevented. However, given the evolving nature of science 
and medicine, the Agency invites public comment on the current state of 
CBD-related mortality.
    The proposed standard also includes provisions for medical 
surveillance and removal. The Agency believes that to the extent the 
proposal provides medical surveillance sooner and to more workers than 
would have been the case in the absence of the proposed standard, 
workers will be more likely to receive appropriate treatment and, where 
necessary, removal from beryllium exposure. These interventions may 
lessen the severity of beryllium-related illnesses, and possibly 
prevent premature death. The Agency requests public comment on this 
issue.
(2) CBD Cases Prevented by the Ancillary Provisions of the Proposed 
Standard
    The nature of the chronic beryllium disease process should be 
emphasized. As discussed in this preamble at Section V, Heath Effects, 
the chronic beryllium disease process involves two steps. First, 
workers become sensitized to beryllium. In most epidemiological studies 
of CBD conducted to date, a large percentage of sensitized workers have 
progressed to CBD. A certain percentage of the population has an 
elevated risk of this occurring, even at very low exposure levels, and 
sensitization can occur from dermal as well as inhalation exposure to 
beryllium. For this reason, the threat of beryllium sensitization and 
CBD persist to a substantial degree, even at very low levels of 
airborne beryllium exposure. It is therefore desirable not only to 
significantly reduce airborne beryllium exposure, but to avoid nearly 
any source

[[Page 47712]]

of beryllium exposure, so as to prevent beryllium sensitization.
    The analysis presented above accounted only for CBD-prevention 
benefits associated with the proposed reduction of the PEL, from 2 ug/
m\3\ to 0.2 ug/m\3\. However, the proposed standard also includes a 
variety of ancillary provisions--including requirements for respiratory 
protection, personal protective equipment (PPE), housekeeping 
procedures, hygiene areas, medical surveillance, medical removal, and 
training--that the Agency believes would further reduce workers' risk 
of disease from beryllium exposure. These provisions were described in 
Chapter I of the PEA and discussed extensively in Section XVIII of this 
preamble, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard.
    The leading manufacturer of beryllium in the U.S., Materion 
Corporation (Materion), has implemented programs including these types 
of provisions in several of its plants and has worked with NIOSH to 
publish peer-reviewed studies of their effectiveness in reducing 
workers' risk of sensitization and CBD. The Agency used the results of 
these studies to estimate the health benefits associated with a 
comprehensive standard for beryllium.
    The best available evidence on comprehensive beryllium programs 
comes from studies of programs introduced at Materion plants in 
Reading, PA; Tucson, AZ; and Elmore, OH. These studies are discussed in 
detail in this preamble at Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment, and 
Section VIII, Significance of Risk. All three facilities were in 
compliance with the current PEL prior to instituting comprehensive 
programs, and had taken steps to reduce airborne levels of beryllium 
below the PEL, but their medical surveillance programs continued to 
identify cases of sensitization and CBD among their workers. Beginning 
around 2000, these facilities introduced comprehensive beryllium 
programs that used a combination of engineering controls, dermal and 
respiratory PPE, and stringent housekeeping measures to reduce workers' 
dermal exposures and airborne exposures. These comprehensive beryllium 
programs have substantially lowered the risk of sensitization among 
workers. At the times that studies of the programs were published, 
insufficient follow-up time had elapsed to report directly on the 
results for CBD. However, since only sensitized workers can develop 
CBD, reduction of sensitization risk necessarily reduces CBD risk as 
well.
    In the Reading, PA copper beryllium plant, full-shift airborne 
exposures in all jobs were reduced to a median of 0.1 ug/m\3\ or below, 
and dermal protection was required for production-area workers, 
beginning in 2000-2001 (Thomas et al., 2009). In 2002, the process with 
the highest exposures (with a median of 0.1 ug/m\3\) was enclosed, and 
workers involved in that process were required to use respiratory 
protection. Among 45 workers hired after the enclosure was built and 
respiratory protection instituted, one was found to be sensitized (2.2 
percent). This is more than an 80 percent reduction in sensitization 
from a previous group of 43 workers hired after 1992, 11.5 percent of 
whom had been sensitized by the time of testing in 2000.
    In the Tucson beryllium ceramics plant, respiratory and skin 
protection was instituted for all workers in production areas in 2000 
(Cummings et al., 2007). BeLPT testing in 2000-2004 showed that only 1 
(1 percent) of 97 workers hired during that time period was sensitized 
to beryllium. This is a 90 percent reduction from the prevalence of 
sensitization in a 1998 BeLPT screening, which found that 6 (9 percent) 
of 69 workers hired after 1992 were sensitized.
    In the Elmore, OH beryllium production and processing facility, all 
new workers were required to wear loose-fitting powered air-purifying 
respirators (PAPRs) in manufacturing buildings, beginning in 1999 
(Bailey et al., 2010). Skin protection became part of the protection 
program for new workers in 2000, and glove use was required in 
production areas and for handling work boots, beginning in 2001. Bailey 
et al. (2010) found that 23 (8.9 percent) of 258 workers hired between 
1993 and 1999, before institution of respiratory and dermal protection, 
were sensitized to beryllium. The prevalence of sensitization among the 
290 workers who were hired after the respiratory protection and PPE 
measures were put in place was about 2 percent, close to an 80 percent 
reduction in beryllium sensitization.
    In a response to OSHA's 2002 Request for Information (RFI), Lee 
Newman et al. from National Jewish Medical and Research Center (NJMRC) 
summarized results of beryllium program effectiveness from several 
sources. Said Dr. Newman (in response to Question #33):

    Q. 33. What are the potential impacts of reducing occupational 
exposures to beryllium in terms of costs of controls, costs for 
training, benefits from reduction in the number or severity of 
illnesses, effects on revenue and profit, changes in worker 
productivity, or any other impact measures than you can identify?
    A: From experience in [the Tucson, AZ facility discussed above], 
one can infer that approximately 90 percent of beryllium 
sensitization can be eliminated. Furthermore, the preliminary data 
would suggest that potentially 100 percent of CBD can be eliminated 
with appropriate workplace control measures.
    In a study by Kelleher 2001, Martyny 2000, Newman, JOEM 2001) in 
a plant that previously had rates of sensitization as high as 9.7 
percent, the data suggests that when lifetime weighted average 
exposures were below 0.02 [mu]g per cu meter that the rate of 
sensitization fell to zero and the rate of CBD fell to zero as well.
    In an unpublished study, we have been conducting serial 
surveillance including testing new hires in a precision machining 
shop that handles beryllium and beryllium alloys in the Southeast 
United States. At the time of the first screening with the blood 
BeLPT of people tested within the first year of hire, we had a rate 
of 6.7 percent (4/60) sensitization and with 50 percent of these 
individuals showing CBD at the time of initial clinical evaluation. 
At that time, the median exposures in the machining areas of the 
plant was 0.47 [mu]g per cu meter. Subsequently, efforts were made 
to reduce exposures, further educate the workforce, and increase 
monitoring of exposure in the plant. Ongoing testing of newly hired 
workers within the first year of hire demonstrated an incremental 
decline in the rate of sensitization and in the rate of CBD. For 
example, at the time of most recent testing when the median airborne 
exposures in the machining shop were 0.13 [mu]g per cu meter, the 
percentage of newly hired workers found to have beryllium 
sensitization or CBD was now 0 percent (0/55). Notably, we also saw 
an incremental decline in the percentage of longer term workers 
being detected with sensitization and disease across this time 
period of exposure reduction and improved hygiene practices.
    Thus, in calculating the potential economic benefit, it's 
reasonable to work with the assumption that with appropriate efforts 
to control exposures in the work place, rates of sensitization can 
be reduced by over 90 percent. (NJMRC, RFI Ex. 6-20)
    OSHA has reviewed these papers and is in agreement with Dr. 
Newman's testimony. OSHA judges Dr. Newman's estimate to be an upper 
bound of the effectiveness of ancillary programs and examined the 
results of using Dr. Newman's estimate that beryllium ancillary 
programs can reduce BeS by 90 percent, and potentially eliminate CBD 
where sensitization is reduced, because CBD can only occur where there 
is sensitization. OSHA applied this 90 percent reduction factor to all 
cases of CBD remaining after application of the reductions due to 
lowering the PEL alone. OSHA applied this reduction broadly because the 
proposed standard would require housekeeping and PPE related to skin 
exposure (18,000 of

[[Page 47713]]

28,000 employees will need PPE because of possible skin exposure) to 
apply to all or most employees likely to come in contact with beryllium 
and not just those with exposure above the action level. Table IX-11 
shows that there are 11,017 baseline cases of CBD and that the proposed 
PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ would prevent 2,563 cases through airborne 
prevention alone. The remaining number of cases of CBD is then 8,454 
(11,017 minus 2,563). If OSHA applies the full ninety percent reduction 
factor to account for prevention of skin exposure (``non-airborne'' 
protections), then 7,609 (90 percent of 8,454 cases) additional cases 
of CBD would be prevented.
    The Agency recognizes that there are significant differences 
between the comprehensive programs discussed above and the proposed 
standard. While the proposed standard includes many of the same 
elements, it is generally less stringent. For example, the proposed 
standard's requirements for respiratory protection and PPE are 
narrower, and many provisions of the standard apply only to workers 
exposed above the proposed TWA PEL or STEL. However, many provisions, 
such as housekeeping and beryllium work areas, apply to all employers 
covered by the proposed standard. To account for these differences, 
OSHA has provided a range of benefits estimates (shown in Table IX-11), 
first, assuming that there are no ancillary provisions to the standard, 
and, second, assuming that the comprehensive standard achieves the full 
90-percent reduction in risk documented in existing programs. The 
Agency is taking the midpoint of these two numbers as its main estimate 
of the benefits of avoided CBD due to the ancillary provisions of the 
proposed standard. The results in Table IX-11 suggest that 
approximately 60 percent of the beryllium sensitization cases and the 
CBD cases avoided would be attributable to the ancillary provisions of 
the standard. OSHA solicits comment on all aspects of this approach to 
analyzing ancillary provisions and solicits additional data that might 
serve to make more accurate estimates of the effects of ancillary 
provisions. OSHA is interested in the extent of the effects of 
ancillary provisions and whether these apply to all exposed employees 
or only those exposed above or below a given exposure level.
(3) Morbidity Only Cases
    As previously indicated, the Agency does not believe that all CBD 
cases will ultimately result in premature death. While currently strong 
empirical data on this are lacking, the Agency estimates that 
approximately 35 percent of cases would not ultimately be fatal, but 
would result in some pain and suffering related to having CBD, and 
possible side effects from steroid treatment, as well as the dread of 
not knowing whether the disease will ultimately lead to premature 
death. These would be described as ``mild'' cases of CBD relative to 
the others. These are the residual cases of CBD after cases with 
premature mortality have been counted. As indicated in Table IX-11, the 
Agency estimates the standard will prevent 2,228 such cases (midpoint) 
over 45 years, or an estimated 50 cases annually.
b. Lung Cancer
    In addition to the Agency's determinations with respect to the risk 
of chronic beryllium disease, the Agency has preliminarily determined 
that chronic beryllium exposure at the current PEL can lead to a 
significantly elevated risk of (fatal) lung cancer. OSHA used the 
estimation methodology outlined at the beginning of this section. 
However, unlike with chronic beryllium disease, the underlying data 
were based on incidence of lung cancer and thus there was no need to 
address the possible limitations of prevalence data. The Agency also 
used lifetime excess risk estimates of lung cancer mortality, presented 
in Table VI-20 in Section VI of this preamble, Preliminary Risk 
Assessment, to estimate the benefits of avoided lung cancer mortality. 
The lung cancer risk estimates are derived from one of the best-fitting 
models in a recent, high-quality NIOSH lung cancer study, and are based 
on average exposure levels. The estimates of excess lifetime risk of 
lung cancer were taken from the line in Table VI-20 in the risk 
assessment labeled PWL (piecewise log-linear) not including 
professional and asbestos workers. This model avoids possible 
confounding from asbestos exposure and reduces the potential for 
confounding due to smoking, as smoking rates and beryllium exposures 
can be correlated via professional worker status. Of the three 
estimates in the NIOSH study that excluded professional workers and 
those with asbestos exposure, this model was chosen because it was at 
the midpoint of risk results.
    Table IX-11 shows the number of avoided fatal lung cancers for PELs 
of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\. At the proposed 
PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, an estimated 180 lung cancers would be prevented 
over the lifetime of the current worker population. This is the 
equivalent of 4.0 cases avoided annually, given a 45-year working life 
of exposure.
    Combining the two major fatal health endpoints--for lung cancer and 
CBD-related mortality--OSHA estimates that the proposed PEL would 
prevent between 1,846 and 6,791 premature fatalities over the lifetime 
of the current worker population, with a midpoint estimate of 4,318 
fatalities prevented. This is the equivalent of between 41 and 151 
premature fatalities avoided annually, with a midpoint estimate of 96 
premature fatalities avoided annually, given a 45-year working life of 
exposure.
    Note that the Agency based its estimates of reductions in the 
number of beryllium-related diseases over a working life of constant 
exposure for workers who are employed in a beryllium-exposed occupation 
for their entire working lives, from ages 20 to 65. In other words, 
workers are assumed not to enter or exit jobs with beryllium exposure 
mid-career or to switch to other exposure groups during their working 
lives. While the Agency is legally obligated to examine the effect of 
exposures from a working lifetime of exposure and set its standard 
accordingly,\26\ in an alternative analysis purely for informational 
purposes, using the same underlying risk model for CBD, the Agency 
examined, in Chapter VII of the PEA, the effect of assuming that 
workers are exposed for a maximum of only 25 working years, as opposed 
to the 45 years assumed in the main analysis. While all workers are 
assumed to have less cumulative exposure under the 25-years-of-exposure 
assumption, the effective exposed population over time is 
proportionately increased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Section (6)(b)(5) of the OSH Act states: ``The Secretary, 
in promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful 
physical agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which 
most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the 
best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material 
impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee 
has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for 
the period of his working life.'' Given that it is necessary for 
OSHA to reach a determination of significant risk over a working 
life, it is a logical extension to estimate what this translates 
into in terms of estimated benefits for the affected population over 
the same period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A comparison of exposures over a maximum of 25 working years versus 
over a potentially 45-year working life shows variations in the number 
of estimated prevented cases by health outcome. For chronic beryllium 
disease, there is a substantial increase in the number of estimated 
baseline and prevented cases if one assumes that the typical maximum 
exposure period is 25 years, as opposed to 45. This reflects the

[[Page 47714]]

relatively flat CBD risk function within the relevant exposure range, 
given varying levels of airborne beryllium exposure--shortening the 
average tenure and increasing the exposed population over time 
translates into larger total numbers of people sensitized to beryllium. 
This, in turn, results in larger populations of individuals contracting 
CBD. Since the lung cancer model itself is based on average, as opposed 
to cumulative, exposure, it is not adaptable to estimate exposures over 
a shorter period of time. As a practical matter, however, over 90 
percent of illness and mortality attributable to beryllium exposure in 
this analysis comes from CBD.
    Overall, the 45-year-maximum-working-life assumption yields smaller 
estimates of the number of cases of avoided fatalities and illnesses 
than does the maximum-25-years-of-exposure assumption. For example, the 
midpoint estimates of the number of avoided fatalities and illnesses 
related to CBD under the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ increases from 
92 and 50, respectively, under the maximum-45-year-working-life 
assumption to 145 and 78, respectively, under the maximum-25-year-
working-life assumption--or approximately a 57 to 58 percent 
increase.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Technically, this analysis assumes that workers receive 25 
years' worth of beryllium exposure, but that they receive it over 45 
working years, as is assumed by the risk models in the risk 
assessment. It also accounts for the turnover implied by 25, as 
opposed to 45, years of work. However, it is possible that an 
alternate analysis, which accounts for the larger number of post-
exposure worker-years implied by workers departing their jobs before 
the end of their working lifetime, might find even larger health 
effects for workers receiving 25 years' worth of beryllium exposure.

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

[[Page 47715]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.022


[[Page 47716]]


Step 2--Estimating the Stream of Benefits Over Time
    Risk assessments in the occupational environment are generally 
designed to estimate the risk of an occupationally related illness over 
the course of an individual worker's lifetime. As demonstrated 
previously in this section, the current occupational exposure profile 
for a particular substance for the current cohort of workers can be 
matched up against the expected profile after the proposed standard 
takes effect, creating a ``steady state'' estimate of benefits. 
However, in order to annualize the benefits for the period of time 
after the beryllium rule takes effect, it is necessary to create a 
timeline of benefits for an entire active workforce over that period.
    While there are various approaches that could be taken for modeling 
the workforce, there seem to be two polar extremes. At one extreme, one 
could assume that none of the benefits occur until after the worker 
retires, or at least 45 years in the future. In the case of lung 
cancer, that period would effectively be at least 55 years, since the 
45 years of exposure must be added to a 10-year latency period during 
which it is assumed that lung cancer does not develop.\28\ At the other 
extreme, one could assume that the benefits occur immediately, or at 
least immediately after a designated lag. However, based on the various 
risk models discussed in this preamble at Section VI, Risk Assessment, 
which reflect real-world experience with development of disease over an 
extended period of time, it appears that the actual pattern occurs at 
some point between these two extremes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This assumption is consistent with the 10-year lag 
incorporated in the lung cancer risk models used in OSHA's 
preliminary risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At first glance, the simplest intermediate approach would be to 
follow the pattern of the risk assessments, which are based in part on 
life tables, and observe that typically the risk of the illness grows 
gradually over the course of a working life and into retirement. Thus, 
the older the person exposed to beryllium, the higher the odds that 
that person will have developed the disease.
    However, while this is a good working model for an individual 
exposed over a working life, it is not very descriptive of the effect 
of lowering exposures for an entire working population. In the latter 
case, in order to estimate the benefits of the standard over time, one 
has to consider that workers currently being exposed to beryllium are 
going to vary considerably in age. Since the calculated health risks 
from beryllium exposure depend on a worker's cumulative exposure over a 
working lifetime, the overall benefits of the proposed standard will 
phase in over several decades, as the cumulative exposure gradually 
falls for all age groups, until those now entering the workforce reach 
retirement and the annual stream of beryllium-related illnesses reaches 
a new, significantly lowered ``steady state.'' \29\ That said, the 
near-term impact of the proposed rule estimated for those workers with 
similar current levels of cumulative exposure will be greater for 
workers who are now middle-aged or older. This conclusion follows in 
part from the structure of the relative risk model used for lung cancer 
in this analysis and the fact that the background mortality rates for 
lung cancer increase with age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Technically, the RA lung cancer model is based on average 
exposure, Nonetheless, as noted in the RA, the underlying studies 
found lung cancer to be significantly related to cumulative 
exposure. Particularly since the large majority of the benefits are 
related to CBD, the Agency considers this fairly descriptive of the 
overall phase-in of benefits from the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to characterize the magnitude of benefits before the 
steady state is reached, OSHA created a linear phase-in model to 
reflect the potential timing of benefits. Specifically, OSHA estimated 
that, for all non-cancer cases, while the number of cases of beryllium-
related disease would gradually decline as a result of the proposed 
rule, they would not reach the steady-state level until 45 years had 
passed. The reduction in cases estimated to occur in any given year in 
the future was estimated to be equal to the steady-state reduction (the 
number of cases in the baseline minus the number of cases in the new 
steady state) times the ratio of the number of years since the standard 
was implemented and a working life of 45 years. Expressed 
mathematically:

Nt = (C-S) x (t/45),

Where Nt is the number of non-malignant beryllium-related 
diseases avoided in year t; C is the current annual number of non-
malignant beryllium-related diseases; S is the steady-state annual 
number of non-malignant beryllium-related diseases; and t represents 
the number of years after the proposed standard takes effect, with t 
<= 45.

    In the case of lung cancer, the function representing the decline 
in the number of beryllium-related cases as a result of the proposed 
rule is similar, but there would be a 10-year lag before any reduction 
in cancer cases would be achieved. Expressed mathematically, for lung 
cancer:

Lt = (Cm-Sm) x ((t-10)/45)),

Where 10 <= t <= 55 and Lt is the number of lung cancer 
cases avoided in year t as a result of the proposed rule; 
Cm is the current annual number of beryllium-related lung 
cancers; and Sm is the steady-state annual number of 
beryllium-related lung cancers.

    This model was extended to 60 years for all the health effects 
previously discussed in order to incorporate the 10-year lag, in the 
case of lung cancer, and a maximum-45-year working life, as well as to 
capture some occupationally-related disease that manifests itself after 
retirement.\30\ As a practical matter, however, there is no overriding 
reason for stopping the benefits analysis at 60 years. An internal 
analysis by OSHA indicated that, both in terms of cases prevented, and 
even with regard to monetized benefits, particularly when lower 
discount rates are used, the estimated benefits of the standard are 
larger on an annualized basis if the analysis extends further into the 
future. The Agency welcomes comment on the merit of extending the 
benefits analysis beyond the 60-years analyzed in the PEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The left-hand columns in the tables in Appendix VII-A of 
the PEA provide estimates using this model of the stream of 
prevented fatalities and illnesses due to the proposed beryllium 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to compare costs to benefits, OSHA assumes that economic 
conditions remain constant and that annualized costs--and the 
underlying costs--will repeat for the entire 60-year time horizon used 
for the benefits analysis (as discussed in Chapter V of the PEA). OSHA 
welcomes comments on the assumption for both the benefit and cost 
analysis that economic conditions remain constant for sixty years. OSHA 
is particularly interested in what assumptions and time horizon should 
be used instead and why.
Separating the Timing of Mortality
    In previous sections, OSHA modeled the timing and incidence of 
morbidity. OSHA's benefit estimates are based on an underlying CBD-
related mortality rate of 65 percent. However, this mortality is not 
simultaneous with the onset of morbidity. Although mortality from CBD 
has not been well studied, OSHA believes, based on discussions with 
experienced clinicians, that the average lag for a larger population 
has a range of 10 to 30 years between morbidity and mortality. The 
Agency's review of Workers Compensation data related to beryllium 
exposure from the Office of Worker Compensation Programs (OWCP) 
Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation is 
consistent with this range. Hence, for the purposes of this

[[Page 47717]]

proposal, OSHA estimates that mortality occurs on average 20 years 
after the onset of CBD morbidity. Thus, for example, the prevented 
deaths that would have occurred in year 21 after the promulgation of 
the rule are associated with the CBD morbidity cases prevented in year 
one. OSHA requests comment on this estimate and range.
    The Agency invites comment on each of these elements of the 
analysis, particularly on the estimates of the expected life expectancy 
of a patient with CBD.
Step 3--Monetizing the Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    To estimate the monetary value of the reductions in the number of 
beryllium-related fatalities, OSHA relied, as OMB recommends, on 
estimates developed from the willingness of affected individuals to pay 
to avoid a marginal increase in the risk of fatality. While a 
willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach clearly has theoretical merit, it 
should be noted that an individual's willingness to pay to reduce the 
risk of fatality would tend to underestimate the total willingness to 
pay, which would include the willingness of others--particularly the 
immediate family--to pay to reduce that individual's risk of fatality.
    For estimates using the willingness-to-pay concept, OSHA relied on 
existing studies of the imputed value of fatalities avoided based on 
the theory of compensating wage differentials in the labor market. 
These studies rely on certain critical assumptions for their accuracy, 
particularly that workers understand the risks to which they are 
exposed and that workers have legitimate choices between high- and low-
risk jobs. These assumptions are far from obviously met in actual labor 
markets.\31\ A number of academic studies, as summarized in Viscusi & 
Aldy (2003), have shown a correlation between higher job risk and 
higher wages, suggesting that employees demand monetary compensation in 
return for a greater risk of injury or fatality. The estimated trade-
off between lower wages and marginal reductions in fatal occupational 
risk--that is, workers' willingness to pay for marginal reductions in 
such risk--yields an imputed value of an avoided fatality: The 
willingness-to-pay amount for a reduction in risk divided by the 
reduction in risk.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ On the former assumption, see the discussion in Chapter II 
of the PEA on imperfect information. On the latter, see, for 
example, the discussion of wage compensation for risk for union 
versus nonunion workers in Dorman and Hagstrom (1998).
    \32\ For example, if workers are willing to pay $90 each for a 
1/100,000 reduction in the probability of dying on the job, then the 
imputed value of an avoided fatality would be $90 divided by 1/
100,000, or $9,000,000. Another way to consider this result would be 
to assume that 100,000 workers made this trade-off. On average, one 
life would be saved at a cost of $9,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has used this approach in many recent proposed and final 
rules. Although this approach has been criticized for yielding results 
that are less than statistically robust (see, for example, Hintermann, 
Alberini and Markandya, 2010), a more recent WTP analysis, by Kniesner 
et al. (2012), of the trade-off between fatal job risks and wages, 
using panel data, seems to address many of the earlier econometric 
criticisms by controlling for measurement error, endogeneity, and 
heterogeneity. In conclusion, the Agency views the WTP approach as the 
best available and will rely on it to monetize benefits.\33\ OSHA 
welcomes comments on the use of willingness-to-pay measures and 
estimates based on compensating wage differentials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Note that, consistent with the economics literature, these 
estimates would be for reducing the risk of an acute (immediate) 
fatality. They do not include an individual's willingness to pay to 
avoid a higher risk of illness prior to fatality, which is 
separately estimated in the following section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Viscusi & Aldy (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of studies in the 
economics literature that use a willingness-to-pay methodology to 
estimate the imputed value of life-saving programs and found that each 
fatality avoided was valued at approximately $7 million in 2000 
dollars. Using the GDP Deflator (U.S. BEA, 2010), this $7 million base 
number in 2000 dollars yields an estimate of $8.7 million in 2010 
dollars for each fatality avoided.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ An alternative approach to valuing an avoided fatality is 
to monetize, for each year that a life is extended, an estimate from 
the economics literature of the value of that statistical life-year 
(VSLY). See, for instance, Aldy and Viscusi (2007) for discussion of 
VSLY theory and FDA (2003), pp. 41488-9, for an application of VSLY 
in rulemaking. OSHA has not investigated this approach, but welcomes 
comment on the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the benefits that are based on the implicit value of 
fatalities avoided, workers also place an implicit value on 
occupational injuries or illnesses avoided, which reflect their 
willingness to pay to avoid monetary costs (for medical expenses and 
lost wages) and quality-of-life losses as a result of occupational 
illness. Chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer can adversely affect 
individuals for years, or even decades, in non-fatal cases, or before 
ultimately proving fatal. Because measures of the benefits of avoiding 
these illnesses are rare and difficult to find, OSHA has included a 
range based on a variety of estimation methods.
    For both CBD and lung cancer, there is typically some permanent 
loss of lung function and disability, on-going medical treatments, side 
effects of medicines, and major impacts on one's ability to work, 
marry, enjoy family life, and quality of life.
    While diagnosis with CBD is evidence of material impairment of 
health, placing a precise monetary value on this condition is 
difficult, in part because the severity of symptoms may vary 
significantly among individuals. For that reason, for this preliminary 
analysis, the Agency employed a broad range of valuation, which should 
encompass the range of severity these individuals may encounter.
    Using the willingness-to-pay approach, discussed in the context of 
the imputed value of fatalities avoided, OSHA has estimated a range in 
valuations (updated and reported in 2010 dollars) that runs from 
approximately $62,000 per case--which reflects estimates developed by 
Viscusi and Aldy (2003), based on a series of studies primarily 
describing simple accidents--to upwards of $5 million per case--which 
reflects work developed by Magat, Viscusi, and Huber (1996) for non-
fatal cancer. The latter number is based on an approach that places a 
willingness-to-pay value to avoid serious illness that is calibrated 
relative to the value of an avoided fatality. OSHA previously used this 
approach in the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) supporting its 
respirable crystalline silica proposal (2013) and in the Final Economic 
Analysis (FEA) supporting its hexavalent chromium final rule (2006), 
and EPA (2003) used this approach in its Stage 2 Disinfection and 
Disinfection Byproducts Rule concerning regulation of primary drinking 
water. Based on Magat, Viscusi, and Huber (1996), EPA used studies on 
the willingness to pay to avoid nonfatal lymphoma and chronic 
bronchitis as a basis for valuing a case of nonfatal cancer at 58.3 
percent of the value of a fatal cancer. OSHA's estimate of $5 million 
for an avoided case of non-fatal cancer is based on this 58.3 percent 
figure.
    The Agency believes this range of estimates, between $62,000 and $5 
million, is descriptive of the value of preventing morbidity associated 
with moderate to severe CBD that ultimately results in premature death. 
\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ There are several benchmarks for valuation of health 
impairment due to beryllium exposure, using a variety of techniques, 
which provide a number of mid-range estimates between OSHA's high 
and low estimates. For a fuller discussion of these benchmarks, see 
Chapter VII of the PEA.

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

[[Page 47718]]

    While the Agency has estimated that 65 percent of CBD cases will 
result in premature mortality, the Agency has also estimated that 
approximately 35 percent of CBD cases will not result in premature 
mortality. However, the Agency acknowledges that it is possible there 
have been new developments in medicine and industrial hygiene related 
to the benefits of early detection, medical intervention, and greater 
control of exposure achieved within the past decade. For that reason, 
as elsewhere, the Agency requests comment on these issues.
    Also not clear are the negative effects of the illness in terms of 
lost productivity, medical costs, and potential side-effects of a 
lifetime of immunosuppressive medication. Nonetheless, the Agency is 
assigning a valuation of $62,000 per case, to reflect the WTP value of 
a prevented injury not estimated to precede premature mortality. The 
Agency believes this is conservative, in part because, with any given 
case of CBD, the outcome is not known in advance, certainly not at the 
point of discovery; indeed much of the psychic value of preventing the 
cases may come from removing the threat of premature mortality. In 
addition, as previously noted, some of these cases could involve 
relatively severe forms of CBD where the worker died of other causes; 
however, in those cases, the duration of the disease would be 
shortened. While beryllium sensitization is a critical precursor of 
CBD, this preliminary analysis does not attempt to assign a separate 
value to sensitization itself.
    Particularly given the uncertainties in valuation on these 
questions, the Agency is interested in public input on the issue of 
valuing the cost to society of morbidity associated with CBD, both in 
cases preceding mortality, and those that may not result in premature 
mortality. The Agency is also interested in comments on whether it is 
appropriate to assign a separate valuation to prevented sensitization 
cases in their own right, and if so, how such cases should be valued.
a. Summary of Monetized Benefits
    Table IX-12 presents the estimated annualized (over 60 years, using 
a 0 percent discount rate) benefits from each of these components of 
the valuation, and the range of estimates, based on uncertainty of the 
prevention factor (i.e., the estimated range of prevented cases, 
depending on how large an impact the rule has on cases beyond an 
airborne-only effect), and the range of uncertainty regarding valuation 
of morbidity. (Mid-point estimates of the undiscounted benefits for 
each of the first 60 years are provided in the middle columns of Table 
VII-A-1 in Appendix VII-A at the end of Chapter VII in the PEA. The 
estimates by year reach a peak of $3.5 billion in the 60th year. Note 
that, by using a 60-year time-period, OSHA is not including any 
monetized fatality benefits associated with reduced worker CBD cases 
originating after year 40 because the 20-year lag takes these CBD 
fatalities beyond the 60-year time horizon. To this extent, OSHA will 
have underestimated benefits.)
    As shown in Table IX-12, the full range of monetized benefits, 
undiscounted, for the proposed PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ runs from $291 
million annually, in the case of the lowest estimate of prevented cases 
of CBD, and the lowest valuation for morbidity, up to $2.1 billion 
annually, for the highest of both. Note that the value of total 
benefits is more sensitive to the prevention factor used (ranging from 
$430 million to $1.6 billion, given estimates at the midpoint of the 
morbidity valuation) than to the valuation of morbidity (ranging from 
$666 million to $1.3 billion, given estimates at the midpoint of 
prevention factor).
    Also, the analysis illustrates that most of the morbidity benefits 
are related to CBD and lung cancer cases that are ultimately fatal. At 
the valuation and case frequency midpoint, $663 million in benefits are 
related to mortality, $226 million are related to morbidity preceding 
mortality, and $4.3 million are related to morbidity not preceding 
mortality.

[[Page 47719]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.023

b. Adjustment of WTP Estimates to Reflect Rising Real Income Over Time
    OSHA's estimates of the monetized benefits of the proposed rule are 
based on the imputed value of each avoided fatality and each avoided 
beryllium-related disease. As previously discussed, these, in turn, are 
derived from a worker's willingness to pay to avoid a fatality (with an 
imputed value per fatality avoided of $8.7 million in 2010 dollars) and 
to avoid a beryllium-related disease (with an imputed value per disease 
avoided of between $62,000

[[Page 47720]]

and $5 million in 2010 dollars). To this point, these imputed values 
have been assumed to remain constant over time. However, two related 
factors suggest that these values will tend to increase over time.
    First, economic theory indicates that the value of reducing life-
threatening and health-threatening risks--and correspondingly the 
willingness of individuals to pay to reduce these risks--will increase 
as real per capita income increases. With increased income, an 
individual's health and life becomes more valuable relative to other 
goods because, unlike other goods, they are without close substitutes 
and in relatively fixed or limited supply. Expressed differently, as 
income increases, consumption will increase but the marginal utility of 
consumption will decrease. In contrast, added years of life (in good 
health) is not subject to the same type of diminishing returns--
implying that an effective way to increase lifetime utility is by 
extending one's life and maintaining one's good health (Hall and Jones, 
2007).
    Second, real per capita income has broadly been increasing 
throughout U.S. history, including recent periods. For example, for the 
period 1950 through 2000, real per capita income grew at an average 
rate of 2.31 percent a year (Hall and Jones, 2007),\36\ although real 
per capita income for the recent 25-year period 1983 through 2008 grew 
at an average rate of only 1.3 percent a year (U.S. Census Bureau, 
2010). More important is the fact that real U.S. per capita income is 
projected to grow significantly in future years. For example, the 
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projections, prepared by the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) in the Department of Energy (DOE), 
show an average annual growth rate of per capita income in the United 
States of 2.7 percent for the period 2011-2035.\37\ The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency prepared its economic analysis of the 
Clean Air Act using the AEO projections. OSHA believes that it is 
reasonable to use the same AEO projections employed by DOE and EPA, and 
correspondingly projects that per capita income in the United States 
will increase by 2.7 percent a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The results are similar if the historical period includes a 
major economic downturn (such as the United States has recently 
experienced). From 1929 through 2003, a period in U.S. history that 
includes the Great Depression, real per capita income still grew at 
an average rate of 2.22 percent a year (Gomme and Rupert, 2004).
    \37\ The EIA used DOE's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) 
to produce the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projections (EIA, 2011). 
Future per capita GDP was calculated by dividing the projected real 
gross domestic product each year by the projected U.S. population 
for that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of the predicted increase in real per capita income in 
the United States over time and the expected resulting increase in the 
value of avoided fatalities and diseases, OSHA has adjusted its 
estimates of the benefits of the proposed rule to reflect the 
anticipated increase in their value over time. This type of adjustment 
has been recognized by OMB (2003), supported by EPA's Science Advisory 
Board (EPA, 2000), and applied by EPA \38\. OSHA proposes to accomplish 
this adjustment by modifying benefits in year i from [Bi] to 
[Bi * (1 + k)\i\], where ``k'' is the estimated annual 
increase in the magnitude of the benefits of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, for example, EPA (2003, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What remains is to estimate a value for ``k'' with which to 
increase benefits annually in response to annual increases in real per 
capita income, where ``k'' is equal to ``(1+g) * ([eta])'', ``g'' is 
the expected annual percentage increase in real per capita income, and 
``[eta]'' is the income elasticity of the value of a statistical life. 
Probably the most direct evidence of the value of ``k'' comes from the 
work of Costa and Kahn (2003, 2004). They estimate repeated labor 
market compensating wage differentials from cross-sectional hedonic 
regressions using census and fatality data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics for 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980. In addition, with the 
imputed income elasticity of the value of life on per capita GNP of 1.7 
derived from the 1940-1980 data, they then predict the value of an 
avoided fatality in 1900, 1920, and 2000. Given the change in the value 
of an avoided fatality over time, it is possible to estimate a value of 
``k'' of 3.4 percent a year from 1900-2000; of 4.3 percent a year from 
1940-1980; and of 2.5 percent a year from 1980-2000.
    Other, more indirect evidence comes from estimates in the economics 
literature of ``[eta]'', the income elasticity of the value of a 
statistical life. Viscusi and Aldy (2003) performed a meta-analysis on 
0.2 wage-risk studies and concluded that the confidence interval upper 
bound on the income elasticity did not exceed 1.0 and that the point 
estimates across a variety of model specifications ranged between 0.5 
and 0.6. Applied to a long-term increase in per capita income of about 
2.7 percent a year, this would suggest a value of ``k'' of about 1.5 
percent a year.
    More recently, Kniesner, Viscusi, and Ziliak (2010), using panel 
data quintile regressions, developed an estimate of the overall income 
elasticity of the value of a statistical life of 1.44. Applied to a 
long-term increase in per capita income of about 2.7 percent a year, 
this would suggest a value of ``k'' of about 3.9 percent a year.
    Based on the preceding discussion of these three approaches for 
estimating the annual increase in the value of the benefits of the 
proposed rule and the fact that the projected increase in real per 
capita income in the United States has flattened in recent years and 
could flatten in the long run, OSHA suggests a conservative value for 
``k'' of approximately two percent a year. The Agency invites comment 
on this estimate and on estimates of the income elasticity of the value 
of a statistical life.
    The Agency believes that the rising value, over time, of health 
benefits is a real phenomenon that should be taken into account in 
estimating the annualized benefits of the proposed rule. Table IX-13, 
in the following section on discounting benefits, shows estimates of 
the monetized benefits of the proposed rule (under alternative discount 
rates) with this estimated increase in monetized benefits over time. 
The Agency invites comment on this adjustment to monetized benefits.
c. The Discounting of Monetized Benefits
    As previously noted, the estimated stream of benefits arising from 
the proposed beryllium rule is not constant from year to year, both 
because of the 45-year delay after the rule takes effect until all 
active workers obtain reduced beryllium exposure over their entire 
working lives and because of, in the case of lung cancer, a 10-year 
latency period between reduced exposure and a reduction in the 
probability of disease. An appropriate discount rate \39\ is needed to 
reflect the timing of benefits over the 60-year period after the rule 
takes effect and to allow conversion to an equivalent steady stream of 
annualized benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Here and elsewhere throughout this section, unless 
otherwise noted, the term ``discount rate'' always refers to the 
real discount rate--that is, the discount rate net of any 
inflationary effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Alternative Discount Rates for Annualizing Benefits
    Following OMB (2003) guidelines, OSHA has estimated the annualized 
benefits of the proposed rule using separate discount rates of 3 
percent and 7 percent. Consistent with the Agency's own practices in 
recent rulemakings, OSHA has also estimated, for benchmarking purposes, 
undiscounted benefits--that is, benefits using a zero percent discount 
rate.

[[Page 47721]]

    The question remains, what is the ``appropriate'' or ``preferred'' 
discount rate to use to monetize health benefits? The choice of 
discount rate is a controversial topic, one that has been the source of 
scholarly economic debate for several decades. However, in simplest 
terms, the basic choices involve a social opportunity cost of capital 
approach or social rate of time preference approach.
    The social opportunity cost of capital approach reflects the fact 
that private funds spent to comply with government regulations have an 
opportunity cost in terms of foregone private investments that could 
otherwise have been made. The relevant discount rate in this case is 
the pre-tax rate of return on the foregone investments (Lind, 1982, pp. 
24-32).
    The rate of time preference approach is intended to measure the 
tradeoff between current consumption and future consumption, or in the 
context of the proposed rule, between current benefits and future 
benefits. The individual rate of time preference is influenced by 
uncertainty about the availability of the benefits at a future date and 
whether the individual will be alive to enjoy the delayed benefits. By 
comparison, the social rate of time preference takes a broader view 
over a longer time horizon--ignoring individual mortality and the 
riskiness of individual investments (which can be accounted for 
separately).
    The usual method for estimating the social rate of time preference 
is to calculate the post-tax real rate of return on long-term, risk-
free assets, such as U.S. Treasury securities (OMB, 2003, p. 33). A 
variety of studies have estimated these rates of return over time and 
reported them to be in the range of approximately 1-4 percent.
    In accordance with OMB Circular A-4 (2003), OSHA presents benefits 
and net benefits estimates using discount rates of 3 percent 
(representing the social rate of time preference) and 7 percent (a rate 
estimated using the social cost of capital approach). The Agency is 
interested in any evidence, theoretical or applied, that would inform 
the application of discount rates to the costs and benefits of a 
regulation.
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits under Alternative Discount Rates
    Table IX-13 presents OSHA's estimates of the sum of the annualized 
benefits of the proposed rule, using alternative discount rates of 0, 
3, and 7 percent, with the suggested adjustment for increasing 
monetized benefits in response to annual increases in per capita income 
over time.
    Given that the stream of benefits extends out 60 years, the value 
of future benefits is sensitive to the choice of discount rate. The 
undiscounted benefits in Table IX-13 range from $291 million to $2.1 
billion annually. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the annualized 
benefits range from $60 million to $591 million. As can be seen, going 
from undiscounted benefits to a 7 percent discount rate has the effect 
of cutting the annualized benefits of the proposed rule by about 74 
percent.
    Taken as a whole, the Agency's best preliminary estimate of the 
total annualized benefits of the proposed rule--using a 3 percent 
discount rate with an adjustment for the increasing value of health 
benefits over time--is between $158 million and $1.2 billion, with a 
mid-point value of $576 million.

[[Page 47722]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.024

Step 4: Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    OSHA has estimated, in Table IX-14, the monetized and annualized 
net benefits of the proposed rule (with a PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\), based 
on the benefits and costs previously presented. Table IX-14 also 
provides estimates of annualized net benefits for alternative PELs of 
0.1 and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Both the proposed rule and the alternatives PEL 
options have the same ancillary provisions and an action level equal to 
half of the PEL in both cases.
    Table IX-14 is being provided for informational purposes only. As 
previously noted, the OSH Act requires the Agency to set standards 
based on eliminating significant risk to the extent feasible. An 
alternative criterion of maximizing net (monetized) benefits may result 
in very different regulatory outcomes. Thus, this analysis of net 
benefits has not been used by OSHA as the basis for its decision 
concerning the choice of a PEL or of other ancillary requirements for 
the proposed beryllium rule.
    Table IX-14 shows net benefits using alternative discount rates of 
0, 3, and 7 percent for benefits and costs, having previously included 
an adjustment to monetized benefits to reflect increases in real per 
capita income over time. OSHA has relied on a uniform discount rate 
applied to both costs and benefits. The Agency is interested in any 
evidence, theoretical or applied, that would support or refute the 
application of differential discount rates to the costs and benefits of 
a regulation.
    As previously noted in this section, the choice of discount rate 
for annualizing benefits has a significant effect on annualized 
benefits. The same is true for net benefits. For example, the net 
benefits using a 7 percent discount rate for benefits are considerably 
smaller than the net benefits using a 3 percent discount rate, 
declining by over half under all scenarios. (Conversely, as noted in 
Chapter V of the PEA, the choice of discount rate for annualizing costs 
has a relatively minor effect on annualized costs.)
    Based on the results presented in Table IX-14, OSHA finds:
     While the net benefits of the proposed rule vary 
considerably--depending on the choice of discount rate used to 
annualize benefits and on whether the benefits being used are in the 
high, midpoint, or low range--benefits exceed costs for the proposed 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL in all cases that OSHA considered.

[[Page 47723]]

     The Agency's best estimate of the net annualized benefits 
of the proposed rule--using a uniform discount rate for both benefits 
and costs of 3 percent--is between $120 million and $1.2 billion, with 
a midpoint value of $538 million.
     The alternative of a 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL has lower net 
benefits under all assumptions, whereas the effect on net benefits of 
the 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL is mixed, relative to the proposed 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ PEL. However, for these alternative PELs, benefits were also found 
to exceed costs in all cases that OSHA considered.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.025

Incremental Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    Incremental costs and benefits are those that are associated with 
increasing the stringency of the standard. A comparison of incremental 
benefits and costs provides an indication of the relative efficiency of 
the proposed PEL and the alternative PELs. Again, OSHA has conducted 
these calculations for informational purposes only and has not used 
these results as the basis for selecting the PEL for the proposed rule.
    OSHA provides, in Table IX-15, estimates of the net benefits of the 
alternative 0.1 and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ PELs. The incremental costs, 
benefits, and net benefits of meeting a 0.5[mu]g/m\3\ PEL and then 
going to a 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL (as well as meeting a 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL 
and then going to a 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL--which the Agency has not yet 
determined is feasible), for alternative discount rates of 3 and 7 
percent, are presented in Table IX-15. Table IX-15 breaks out costs by 
provision and benefits by type of disease and by morbidity/mortality. 
As Table IX-15 shows, at a discount rate of 3 percent, a PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\, relative to a PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, imposes additional 
costs of $4.4 million per year; additional benefits of $172.7 million 
per year; and additional net benefits of $168.2 million per year. The 
proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ also has higher net benefits, relative 
to a PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, using a 7 percent discount rate.
    Table IX-15 demonstrates that, regardless of discount rate, there 
are net benefits to be achieved by lowering exposures from the current 
PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ to 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and then, in turn, lowering 
them further to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. However, the majority of the benefits 
and costs attributable to the proposed rule are from the initial effort 
to lower exposures to 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Consistent with the previous 
analysis, net benefits decline across all increments as the discount 
rate for annualizing benefits increases. As also shown in Table IX-15, 
there is a slight positive net incremental benefit from going from a 
PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for a discount rate of 3 
percent, and a slight negative net increment for a discount rate of 7 
percent. (Note that these results are for OSHA's midpoint estimate of 
benefits, although as indicated in Table IX-14, this is not universal 
across all estimation parameters.)
    In addition to examining alternative PELs, OSHA also examined 
alternatives to other provisions of the standard. These regulatory 
alternatives are discussed Section IX.H of this preamble.

[[Page 47724]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.026

Step 5: Sensitivity Analysis
    In this section, OSHA presents the results of two different types 
of sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how robust the estimates of net 
benefits are to changes in various cost and benefit parameters. In the 
first type of sensitivity analysis, OSHA made a series of isolated 
changes to individual cost and benefit input parameters in order to 
determine their effects on the Agency's estimates of annualized costs, 
annualized benefits, and annualized net benefits. In the second type of

[[Page 47725]]

sensitivity analysis--a so-called ``break-even'' analysis--OSHA also 
investigated isolated changes to individual cost and benefit input 
parameters, but with the objective of determining how much they would 
have to change for annualized costs to equal annualized benefits. For 
both types of sensitivity analyses, OSHA used the annualized costs and 
benefits obtained from a three-percent discount rate as the reference 
point.
    Again, the Agency has conducted these calculations for 
informational purposes only and has not used these results as the basis 
for selecting the PEL for the proposed rule.
a. Analysis of Isolated Changes to Inputs
    The methodology and calculations underlying the estimation of the 
costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking are generally linear 
and additive in nature. Thus, the sensitivity of the results and 
conclusions of the analysis will generally be proportional to isolated 
variations in a particular input parameter. For example, if the 
estimated time that employees need to travel to (and from) medical 
screenings were doubled, the corresponding labor costs would double as 
well.
    OSHA evaluated a series of such changes in input parameters to test 
whether and to what extent the general conclusions of the economic 
analysis held up. OSHA first considered changes to input parameters 
that affected only costs and then changes to input parameters that 
affected only benefits. Each of the sensitivity tests on cost 
parameters had only a very minor effect on total costs or net costs. 
Much larger effects were observed when the benefits parameters were 
modified; however, in all cases, net benefits remained significantly 
positive. On the whole, OSHA found that the conclusions of the analysis 
are reasonably robust, as changes in any of the cost or benefit input 
parameters still show significant net benefits for the proposed rule. 
The results of the individual sensitivity tests are summarized in Table 
IX-16 and are described in more detail below.
    In the first of these sensitivity tests, where OSHA doubled the 
estimated portion of employees in need of protective clothing and 
equipment (PPE), essentially doubling the estimated baseline non-
compliance rate (e.g., from 10 to 20 percent), and estimates of other 
input parameters remained unchanged, Table IX-16 shows that the 
estimated total costs of compliance would increase by $1.4 million 
annually, or by about 3.7 percent, while net benefits would also 
decline by $1.4 million annually, from $538.2 million to $536.8 million 
annually.
    In a second sensitivity test, OSHA increased the estimated unit 
cost of ventilation from $13.18 per cfm for most sectors to $25 per cfm 
for most sectors. As shown in Table IX-16, if OSHA's estimates of other 
input parameters remained unchanged, the total estimated costs of 
compliance would increase by $2.0 million annually, or by about 5.3 
percent, while net benefits would also decline by $2.0 million 
annually, from $538.2 million to $536.2 million annually.

[[Page 47726]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.027

    In a third sensitivity test, OSHA increased the estimated share of 
workers showing signs and symptoms of CBD from 15 to 25 percent, 
thereby adding these workers to the group eligible for medical 
surveillance and assuming that they would not be otherwise eligible for 
another reason (working in a regulated area, exposed during an 
emergency, etc.). As shown in Table IX-16, if OSHA's estimates of other 
input parameters remained unchanged, the total estimated costs of 
compliance would increase by $1.5 million annually, or by about 4.1 
percent, while net benefits would also decline by $1.5 million 
annually, from $538.2 million to $536.7 million annually.
    In a fourth sensitivity test, OSHA increased its estimated 
incremental time per workers for housekeeping by 50

[[Page 47727]]

percent. As shown in Table IX-16, if OSHA's estimates of other input 
parameters remained unchanged, the total estimated costs of compliance 
would increase by $5.4 million annually, or by about 14.4 percent, 
while net benefits would also decline by $5.4 million annually, from 
$538.2 million to $532.8 million annually.
    In a fifth sensitivity test, OSHA increased the estimated number of 
establishments needing engineering controls. For this sensitivity test, 
if less than 50 percent of the establishments in an industry needed 
engineering controls, OSHA doubled the percentage of establishments 
needing engineering controls. If more than 50 percent of establishments 
in an industry needed engineering controls, then OSHA increased the 
percentage of establishment needing engineering control to 100 percent. 
The purpose of this sensitivity analysis was to check the importance of 
using a methodology that treated 50 percent of workers in a given 
occupation exposed above the PEL as equivalent to 50 percent of 
facilities lacking adequate exposure controls. As shown in Table IX-16, 
if OSHA's estimates of other input parameters remained unchanged, the 
total estimated costs of compliance would increase by $4.5 million, or 
by about 11.9 percent, while net benefits would also decline by $4.5 
million, from $538.2 million to $533.7 million annually.
    The Agency also performed sensitivity tests on several input 
parameters used to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule. In the 
first two tests, in an extension of results previously presented in 
Table IX-12, the Agency examined the effect on annualized net benefits 
of employing the high-end estimate of the benefits, as well as the low-
end estimate, specifically examining the effect on undiscounted 
benefits of varying the valuation of individual morbidity cases. Table 
IX-16 presents the effect on annualized net benefits of using the 
extreme values of these ranges: the high morbidity valuation case and 
the low morbidity valuation case. For the low estimate of valuation, 
the benefits decline by 37.7 percent, to $359 million annually, 
yielding net benefits of $321 million annually. As shown, using the 
high estimate of morbidity valuation, the benefits rise by 77.0 percent 
to $1.0 billion annually, yielding net benefits of $982 million 
annually.
    In a third sensitivity test of benefits, the Agency examined the 
effect of removing the component for the estimated rising value of 
health and safety over time. This would reduce the benefits by 54.6 
percent, or $314 million annually, lowering the net benefits to $224 
million annually.
    In Chapter VII of the PEA the Agency examined the effect of raising 
the discount rate for costs and benefits to 7 percent. Raising the 
discount rate to 7 percent would increase costs by $1.5 million 
annually and lower benefits by $320.5 million annually, yielding 
annualized net benefits of $216.2 million.
    Also in Chapter VII of the PEA the Agency performed a sensitivity 
analysis of dental lab substitution. In the PEA, OSHA estimates that 75 
percent of the dental laboratory industry will react to a new standard 
on beryllium by substituting away from using beryllium to the use of 
other materials. Substitution is not costless, and Chapter V of the PEA 
estimates the increased cost due to the higher costs of using non-
beryllium alloys. These costs are smaller than the avoided costs of the 
ancillary provisions and engineering controls. Thus, as indicated in 
Table VII-8 of the PEA, the benefits of the proposal would be lower and 
the costs higher if there were less substitution out of beryllium in 
dental labs. The lowest net benefits would occur if labs were unable to 
substitute out beryllium-containing materials at all, and had to use 
ventilation to control exposures. In this case, the proposal would 
yield only $420 million in net benefits. The highest net benefits, 
larger than assumed for OSHA's primary estimate, would be if all dental 
labs substituted out of beryllium-containing materials as a result of 
the proposal; as a result, the proposal would yield $573 million in net 
benefits. Another possibility is a scenario is which technology and the 
market move along rapidly away from using beryllium-containing 
materials, independently of an OSHA rule, and the proposal itself would 
therefore produce neither costs nor benefits in this sector. If dental 
labs are removed from the PEA, the net benefits for the proposal--for 
the remaining industry sectors--decline to $284 million. This analysis 
demonstrates, however, that regardless of any assumption regarding 
substitution in dental labs, the proposal would generate substantially 
more monetized benefits than costs.
    Finally, the Agency examined in Chapter VII of the PEA the effects 
of changes in two important inputs to the benefits analysis: the factor 
that transforms CBD prevalence rates into incidence rates, needed for 
the equilibrium lifetime risk model, and the percentage of CBD cases 
that eventually lead to a fatality.
    From the Cullman dataset, the Agency has estimated the prevalence 
of CBD cases at any point in time as a function of cumulative beryllium 
exposure. In order to utilize the lifetime risk model, which tracks 
workers over their working life in a job, OSHA has turned these 
prevalence rates into an incidence rate, which is the rate of 
contracting CBD at a point in time. OSHA's baseline estimate of the 
turnover rate in the model is 10 percent. In Table VII-10 in the PEA, 
OSHA also presented alternative turnover rates of 5 percent and 20 
percent. A higher turnover rate translates into a higher incidence 
rate, and the table shows that, from a baseline midpoint estimate with 
10 percent turnover the number of CBD cases prevented is 6,367, while 
raising the turnover rate to 20 percent causes this midpoint estimate 
to rise to 11,751. Conversely, a rate of 5 percent lowers the number of 
CBD cases prevented to 3,321. Translated into monetary benefits, the 
table shows that the baseline midpoint estimate of $575.8 million now 
ranges from $314.4 million to $1,038 million.
    Also in TableVII-10 of the PEA, the Agency looked at the effects of 
varying the percentage of CBD cases that eventuate in fatality. The 
Agency's baseline estimate of this outcome is 65 percent, with half of 
this occurring relatively soon, and the other half after an extended 
debilitating condition. The Agency judged that a reasonable range to 
investigate was a low of 50 percent and a high of 80 percent, while 
maintaining the shares of short-term and long-term endpoint fatality. 
At a baseline of 65 percent, the midpoint estimate of total CBD cases 
prevented is 4,139. At the low end of 50 percent mortality this 
estimate lowers to 3,183 while at the high end of 80 percent mortality 
this estimate rises to 5,094. Translated into monetary benefits, the 
table shows that the baseline midpoint estimate of $575.8 million now 
ranges from $500.1 million to $651.5 million.
b. ``Break-Even'' Analysis
    OSHA also performed sensitivity tests on several other parameters 
used to estimate the net costs and benefits of the proposed rule. 
However, for these, the Agency performed a ``break-even'' analysis, 
asking how much the various cost and benefits inputs would have to vary 
in order for the costs to equal, or break even with, the benefits. The 
results are shown in Table IX-17.
    In one break-even test on cost estimates, OSHA examined how much 
total costs would have to increase in order for costs to equal 
benefits. As shown in Table IX-17, this point would

[[Page 47728]]

be reached if costs increased by $538.2 million, or by 1,431 percent.
    In a second test, looking specifically at the estimated engineering 
control costs, the Agency found that these costs would need to increase 
by $566.7 million, or 6,240 percent, for costs to equal benefits.
    In a third sensitivity test, on benefits, OSHA examined how much 
its estimated monetary valuation of an avoided illness or an avoided 
fatality would need to be reduced in order for the costs to equal the 
benefits. Since the total valuation of prevented mortality and 
morbidity are each estimated to exceed the estimated costs of $38 
million, an independent break-even point for each is impossible. In 
other words, for example, if no value is attached to an avoided illness 
associated with the rule, but the estimated value of an avoided 
fatality is held constant, the rule still has substantial net benefits. 
Only through a reduction in the estimated net value of both components 
is a break-even point possible.
    The Agency, therefore, examined how large an across-the-board 
reduction in the monetized value of all avoided illnesses and 
fatalities would be necessary for the benefits to equal the costs. As 
shown in Table IX-17, a 94 percent reduction in the monetized value of 
all avoided illnesses and fatalities would be necessary for costs to 
equal benefits, reducing the estimated value to $733,303 per fatality 
prevented, and an equivalent percentage reduction to about $4,048 per 
illness prevented.
    In a fourth break-even sensitivity test, OSHA estimated how many 
fewer beryllium-related fatalities and illnesses would be required for 
benefits to equal costs. Paralleling the previous discussion, 
eliminating either the prevented mortality or morbidity cases alone 
would be insufficient to lower benefits to the break-even point. The 
Agency therefore examined them as a group. As shown in Table IX-17, a 
reduction of 96 percent, for both simultaneously, is required to reach 
the break-even point--90 fewer fatalities prevented annually, and 46 
fewer beryllium-related illnesses-only cases prevented annually.
    Taking into account both types of sensitivity analysis the Agency 
performed on its point estimates of the annualized costs and annualized 
benefits of the proposed rule, the results demonstrate that net 
benefits would be positive in all plausible cases tested. In 
particular, this finding would hold even with relatively large 
variations in individual input parameters. Alternately, one would have 
to imagine extremely large changes in costs or benefits for the rule to 
fail to produce net benefits. OSHA concludes that its finding of 
significant net benefits resulting from the proposed rule is a robust 
one.
    OSHA welcomes input from the public regarding all aspects of this 
sensitivity analysis, including any data or information regarding the 
accuracy of the preliminary estimates of compliance costs and benefits 
and how the estimates of costs and benefits may be affected by varying 
assumptions and methodological approaches. OSHA also invites comment on 
the risk analysis and risk estimates from which the benefits estimates 
were derived.

[[Page 47729]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.028

H. Regulatory Alternatives

    This section discusses various regulatory alternatives to the 
proposed OSHA beryllium standard. Executive Order 12866 instructs 
agencies to ``select those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a 
statute requires another regulatory approach.'' The OSH Act, as 
interpreted by the courts, requires health regulations to reduce 
significant risk to

[[Page 47730]]

the extent feasible. Nevertheless OSHA has examined possible regulatory 
alternatives that may not meet its statutory requirements.
    Each regulatory alternative presented here is described and 
analyzed relative to the proposed rule. Where appropriate, the Agency 
notes whether the regulatory alternative, to be a legitimate candidate 
for OSHA consideration, requires evidence contrary to the Agency's 
preliminary findings of significant risk and feasibility. To facilitate 
comment, OSHA has organized some two dozen specific regulatory 
alternatives into five categories: (1) Scope; (2) exposure limits; (3) 
methods of compliance; (4) ancillary provisions; and (5) timing.
1. Scope Alternatives
    The first set of regulatory alternatives would alter scope of the 
proposed standard--that is, the groups of employees and employers 
covered by the proposed standard. The scope of the current beryllium 
proposal applies only to general industry work, and does not apply to 
employers when engaged in construction or maritime activities. In 
addition, the proposed rule provides an exemption for those working 
with materials that contain beryllium only as a trace contaminant (less 
than 0.1percent composition by weight).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Employers engaged in general industry activities exempted 
from the proposed rule must still ensure that their employees are 
protected from beryllium exposure above the current PEL, as listed 
in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the explanation of paragraph (a) in Section XVIII 
of this preamble, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, 
OSHA is considering alternatives to the proposed scope that would 
increase the range of employers and employees covered by the standard. 
OSHA's review of several industries indicates that employees in some 
construction and maritime industries, as well as some employees who 
deal with materials containing less than 0.1 percent beryllium, may be 
at significant risk of CBD and lung cancer as a result of their 
occupational exposures. Regulatory Alternatives #1a, #1b, #2a, and #2b 
would increase the scope of the proposed standard to provide additional 
protection to these workers.
    Regulatory Alternative #1a would expand the scope of the proposed 
standard to also include all operations in general industry where 
beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant; that is, where the 
materials used contain less than 0.1 percent beryllium by weight. 
Regulatory Alternative #1b is similar to Regulatory Alternative #1a, 
but exempts operations where beryllium exists only as a trace 
contaminant and the employer can show that employees' exposures will 
not meet or exceed the action level or exceed the STEL. Where the 
employer has objective data demonstrating that a material containing 
beryllium or a specific process, operation, or activity involving 
beryllium cannot release beryllium in concentrations at or above the 
proposed action level or above the proposed STEL under any expected 
conditions of use, that employer would be exempt from the proposed 
standard except for recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the 
objective data. Alternative #1a and Alternative #1b, like the proposed 
rule, would not cover employers or employees in construction or 
shipyards.
    OSHA has identified two industries with workers engaged in general 
industry work that would be excluded under the proposed rule but would 
fall within the scope of the standard under Regulatory Alternatives #1a 
and #1b: Primary aluminum production and coal-fired power generation. 
Beryllium exists as a trace contaminant in aluminum ore and may result 
in exposures above the proposed permissible exposure limits (PELs) 
during aluminum refining and production. Coal fly ash in coal-powered 
power plants is also known to contain trace amounts of beryllium, which 
may become airborne during furnace and baghouse operations and might 
also result in worker exposures. See Appendices VIII-A and VIII-B at 
the end of Chapter VIII in the PEA for a discussion of beryllium 
exposures and available controls in these two industries.
    As discussed in Appendix IV-B of the PEA, beryllium exposures from 
fly ash high enough to exceed the proposed PEL would usually be coupled 
with arsenic exposures exceeding the arsenic PEL. Employers would in 
that case be required to implement all feasible engineering controls, 
work practices, and necessary PPE (including respirators) to comply 
with the OSHA Inorganic Arsenic standard (29 CFR 1910.1018)--which 
would be sufficient to comply with those aspects of the proposed 
beryllium standard as well. The degree of overlap between the 
applicability of the two standards and, hence, the increment of costs 
attributable to this alternative are difficult to gauge. To account for 
this uncertainty, the Agency at this time is presenting a range of 
costs for Regulatory Alternative #1a: From no costs being taken for 
ancillary provisions under Regulatory Alternative #1a to all such costs 
being included. At the low end, the only additional costs under 
Regulatory Alternative #1a are due to the engineering control costs 
incurred by the aluminum smelters (see Appendix VIII-A).
    Similarly, the proposed beryllium standard would not result in 
additional benefits from a reduction in the beryllium PEL or from 
ancillary provisions similar to those already in place for the arsenic 
standard, but OSHA does anticipate some benefits will flow from 
ancillary provisions unique to the proposed beryllium standard. To 
account for significant uncertainty in the benefits that would result 
from the proposed beryllium standard for workers in primary aluminum 
production and coal-fired power generation, OSHA estimated a range of 
benefits for Regulatory Alternative #1a. The Agency estimated that the 
proposed ancillary provisions would avert between 0 and 45 percent \41\ 
of those baseline CBD cases not averted by the proposed PEL. Though the 
Agency is presenting a range for both costs and benefits for this 
alternative, the Agency judges the degree of overlap with the arsenic 
standard is likely to be substantial, so that the actual costs and 
benefits are more likely to be found at the low end of this range. The 
Agency invites comment on all these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ As discussed in Chapter VII of the PEA, OSHA used 45 
percent to develop its best estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IX-18 presents, for informational purposes, the estimated 
costs, benefits, and net benefits of Regulatory Alternative #1a using 
alternative discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. In addition, 
this table presents the incremental costs, incremental benefits, and 
incremental net benefits of this alternative relative to the proposed 
rule. Table IX-18 also breaks out costs by provision, and benefits by 
type of disease and by morbidity/mortality.
    As shown in Table IX-18, Regulatory Alternative #1a would increase 
the annualized cost of the rule from $37.6 million to between $39.6 and 
$56.0 million using a 3 percent discount rate and from $39.1 million to 
between $41.3 and $58.1 million using a 7 percent discount rate. OSHA 
estimates that regulatory Alternative #1a would prevent as few as an 
additional 0.3 (i.e., almost one fatality every 3 years) or as many as 
an additional 31.8 beryllium-related fatalities annually, relative to 
the proposed rule. OSHA also estimates that Regulatory Alternative #1a 
would prevent as few as an additional 0.002 or as many as an additional 
9 beryllium-related non-fatal illnesses annually, relative to the 
proposed rule. As a result, annualized benefits in monetized

[[Page 47731]]

terms would increase from $575.8 million to between $578.0 and $765.2 
million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $255.3 million to 
between $256.3 and $339.3 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Net 
benefits would increase from $538.2 million to between $538.4 and 
$709.2 million using a 3 percent discount rate and from $216.2 million 
to somewhere between $215.1 to $281.2 million using a 7 percent 
discount rate. As noted in Appendix VIII-B of Chapter VIII in the PEA, 
the Agency emphasizes that these estimates of benefits are subject to a 
significant degree of uncertainty, and the benefits associated with 
Regulatory Alternative #1a arguably could be a small fraction of OSHA's 
best estimate presented here.
    OSHA estimates that the costs and the benefits of Regulatory 
Alternative #1b will be somewhat lower than the costs of Regulatory 
Alternative #1a, because most--but not all--of the provisions of the 
proposed standard are triggered by exposures at the action level, 8-
hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL, or STEL. For example, where 
exposures exist but are below the action level and at or below the 
STEL, Alternative #1a would require employers to establish work areas; 
develop, maintain, and implement a written exposure control plan; 
provide medical surveillance to employees who show signs or symptoms of 
CBD; and provide PPE in some instances. Regulatory Alternative #1b 
would not require employers to take these measures in operations where 
they can produce objective data demonstrating that exposures are below 
the action level and at or below the STEL. OSHA only analyzed costs, 
not benefits, for this alternative, consistent with the Agency's 
treatment of Regulatory Alternatives in the past. Total costs for 
Regulatory Alternative #1b versus #1a, assuming full ancillary costs, 
drop from to $56.0 million to $49.9 million using a 3 percent discount 
rate, and from $58.1 million to $51.8 million using a 7 percent 
discount rate.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 47732]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.029

    Regulatory Alternative #2a would expand the scope of the proposed 
standard to include employers in construction and maritime. For 
example, this alternative would cover abrasive blasters, pot tenders, 
and

[[Page 47733]]

cleanup staff working in construction and shipyards who have the 
potential for airborne beryllium exposure during blasting operations 
and during cleanup of spent media. Regulatory Alternative #2b would 
update 29 CFR 1910.1000 Tables Z-1 and Z-2, 1915.1000 Table Z, and 
1926.55 Appendix A so that the proposed TWA PEL and STEL would apply to 
all employers and employees in general industry, shipyards, and 
construction, including occupations where beryllium exists only as a 
trace contaminant. For example, this alternative would cover abrasive 
blasters, pot tenders, and cleanup staff working in construction and 
shipyards who have the potential for significant airborne exposure 
during blasting operations and during cleanup of spent media. The 
changes to the Z tables would also apply to workers exposed to 
beryllium during aluminum refining and production, and workers engaged 
in maintenance operations at coal-powered utility facilities. All 
provisions of the standard other than the PELs, such as exposure 
monitoring, medical removal, and PPE, would be in effect only for 
employers and employees that fall within the scope of the proposed 
rule.\42\ Alternative #2b would not be as protective as Alternative #1a 
or Alternative #1b for employees in aluminum refining and production or 
coal-powered utility facilities because the other provisions of the 
proposed standard would not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ However, many of the occupations excluded from the scope of 
the proposed beryllium standard receive some ancillary provision 
protections from other rules, such as Personal Protective Equipment 
(29 CFR 1910 subpart I, 1915 subpart I, 1926.28, also 1926 subpart 
E), Ventilation (including abrasive blasting) (Sec. Sec.  1926.57 
and 1915.34), Hazard Communication (Sec.  1910.1200), and specific 
provisions for welding (parts 1910 subpart Q, 1915 subpart D, and 
1926 subpart J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the explanation of proposed paragraph (a) in this 
preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed 
Standard, abrasive blasting is the primary application group in 
construction and maritime industries where workers may be exposed to 
beryllium. OSHA has judged that abrasive blasters and their helpers in 
construction and maritime industries have the potential for significant 
airborne exposure during blasting operations and during cleanup of 
spent media. Airborne concentrations of beryllium have been measured 
above the current TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ when blast media containing 
beryllium are used as intended (see Appendix IV-C in the PEA for 
details).
    To address high concentrations of various hazardous chemicals in 
abrasive blasting material, employers must already be using engineering 
and work practice controls to limit workers' exposures and must be 
supplementing these controls with respiratory protection when 
necessary. For example, abrasive blasters in the construction industry 
fall under the protection of the Ventilation standard (29 CFR 1926.57). 
The Ventilation standard includes an abrasive blasting subsection (29 
CFR 1926.57(f)), which requires that abrasive blasting respirators be 
worn by all abrasive blasting operators when working inside blast-
cleaning rooms (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(ii)(A)), or when using silica sand 
in manual blasting operations where the nozzle and blast are not 
physically separated from the operator in an exhaust-ventilated 
enclosure (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(ii)(B)), or when needed to protect 
workers from exposures to hazardous substances in excess of the limits 
set in Sec.  1926.55 (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(ii)(C); ACGIH, 1971). For 
maritime, standard 29 CFR 1915.34(c) covers similar requirements for 
respiratory protection needed in blasting operations. Due to these 
requirements, OSHA believes that abrasive blasters already have 
controls in place and wear respiratory protection during blasting 
operations. Thus, in estimating costs for Regulatory Alternatives #2a 
and #2b, OSHA judged that the reduction of the TWA PEL would not impose 
costs for additional engineering controls or respiratory protection in 
abrasive blasting (see Appendix VIII-C of Chapter VIII in the PEA for 
details). OSHA requests comment on this issue--in particular, whether 
abrasive blasters using blast material that may contain beryllium as a 
trace contaminant are already using all feasible engineering and work 
practice controls, respiratory protection, and PPE that would be 
required by Regulatory Alternatives #2a and #2b.
    In the estimation of benefits for Regulatory Alternative #2a, OSHA 
has estimated a range to account for significant uncertainty in the 
benefits to this population from some of the ancillary provisions of 
the proposed beryllium standard. It is unclear how many of the workers 
associated with abrasive blasting work would benefit from dermal 
protection, as comprehensive dermal protection may already be used by 
most blasting operators. It is also unclear whether the housekeeping 
requirements of the proposed standard would be feasible to implement in 
the context of abrasive blasting work, and to what extent they would 
benefit blasting helpers, who are themselves exposed while performing 
cleanup activities. OSHA estimated that the proposed ancillary 
provisions would avert between 0 and 45 percent of those baseline CBD 
cases not averted by the proposed PEL.
    These considerations also lead the Agency to present a range for 
the costs of this alternative: From no costs being estimated for 
ancillary provisions under Regulatory Alternative #2a to including all 
such costs. Based on the considerations discussed above, the Agency 
judges that costs and benefits at the low end of this range are more 
likely to be correct. The Agency invites comment on these issues.
    In addition, OSHA believes that a small number of welders in the 
maritime industry may be exposed to beryllium via arc and gas welding 
(and none through resistance welding). The number of maritime welders 
was estimated using the same methodology as was used to estimate the 
number of general industry welders. Brush Wellman's customer survey 
estimated 2,000 total welders on beryllium-containing products (Kolanz, 
2001). Based on ERG's assumption of 4 welders per establishment, ERG 
estimated that a total of 500 establishments would be affected. These 
affected establishments were then distributed among the 26 NAICS 
industries with the highest number of IMIS samples for welders that 
were positive for beryllium. To do this, ERG first consulted the BLS 
OES survey to determine what share of establishments in each of the 26 
NAICS employed welders and estimated the total number of establishments 
that perform welding regardless of beryllium exposure (BLS, 2010a). 
Then ERG distributed the 500 affected beryllium welding facilities 
among the 26 NAICS based on the relative share of the total number of 
establishments performing welding. Finally, to estimate the number of 
welders, ERG used the assumption of four welders per establishment. 
Based on the information from ERG, OSHA estimated that 30 welders would 
be covered in the maritime industry under this regulatory alternative. 
For these welders, OSHA used the same controls and exposure profile 
that were used to estimate costs for arc and gas welders in Chapter V 
of the PEA. ERG judged there to be no construction welders exposed to 
beryllium due to a lack of any evidence that the construction sector 
uses beryllium-containing products or electrodes in resistance welding. 
OSHA solicits comment and any relevant data on beryllium exposures for 
welders in construction and maritime employment.
    Estimated costs and benefits for Regulatory Alternative #2a are 
shown in Table IX-18a. Regulatory Alternative

[[Page 47734]]

#2a would increase costs from $37.6 million to between $37.7 and $55.3 
million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $39.1 million to 
between $39.2 and $57.3 million using a 7 percent discount rate. 
Annualized benefits would increase from $575.8 million to between 
$575.9 and $675.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate, and from 
$255.3 million to between $255.4 and $299.4 million using a 7 percent 
discount rate. Net benefits would change from $538.2 million to between 
$538.2 and $620.0 million using a 3 percent discount rate, and from 
$216.2 million to between $216.1 and $242.1 million using a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    Table IX-18b presents, for informational purposes, the estimated 
costs, benefits, and net benefits, of Regulatory Alternative #2b using 
alternative discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. In addition, 
this table presents the incremental costs, incremental benefits, and 
incremental net benefits of this alternative relative to the proposed 
rule. Table IX-18b also breaks out costs by provision and benefits by 
type of disease and by morbidity/mortality.
    As shown in Table IX-18b, this regulatory alternative would 
increase the annualized cost of the rule from $37.6 million to $39.6 
million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $39.1 million to 
$41.1 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Regulatory Alternative 
#2b would prevent less than one additional beryllium-related fatalities 
and less than one beryllium-related illness annually relative to the 
proposed rule. As a result, annualized benefits would increase from 
$575.8 million to $578.1 million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and 
from $255.3 million to $256.3 million using a 7 percent discount rate. 
Net benefits would increase from $538.2 million to $538.5 million using 
a 3 percent discount rate and slightly decrease from $216.2 million to 
$215.2 million using a 7 percent discount rate.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 47735]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.030


[[Page 47736]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.031

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
2. Exposure Limit (TWA PEL, STEL, and ACTION LEVEL) Alternatives
    OSHA is proposing a new TWA PEL for beryllium of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and 
a STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for all application groups covered by the 
rule. OSHA's proposal is based on the requirements of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and court interpretations of

[[Page 47737]]

the Act. For health standards issued under section 6(b)(5) of the OSH 
Act, OSHA is required to promulgate a standard that reduces significant 
risk to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible 
to do so. See Section II of this preamble, Pertinent Legal Authority, 
for a full discussion of OSHA legal requirements.
    Paragraph (c) of the proposed standard establishes two PELs for 
beryllium in all forms, compounds, and mixtures: An 8-hour TWA PEL of 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (proposed paragraph (c)(1)), and a 15-minute short-term 
exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (proposed paragraph (c)(2)). 
OSHA has defined the action level for the proposed standard as an 
airborne concentration of beryllium of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ calculated as an 
eight-hour TWA (proposed paragraph (b)). In this proposal, as in other 
standards, the action level has been set at one-half of the TWA PEL.
    As discussed in this preamble explanation of paragraph (c) in 
Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, OSHA 
is considering three regulatory alternatives that would modify the PELs 
for the proposed standard.
    Regulatory Alternative #3 would modify the proposed STEL to be five 
times the TWA PEL, as is typical for OSHA standards that have STELs. A 
STEL five times the TWA PEL has more practical effect because a STEL 
ten times the TWA PEL will rarely be exceeded without also driving 
exposures above the TWA PEL. For example, assuming a background 
exposure level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, a STEL ten times the TWA PEL could 
only be exceeded once in a work shift for 15 minutes without driving 
exposures above the TWA PEL, whereas a STEL five times the TWA PEL 
could be exceeded three times before driving exposures above the TWA 
PEL. OSHA's standards for methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), 
acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045), benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), ethylene 
oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047), and 1,3-Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051) all set 
STELs at five times the TWA PEL. Thus, if OSHA promulgates the proposed 
TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, the accompanying STEL under this regulatory 
alternative would be set at 1 [mu]g/m\3\.
    As discussed in this preamble at Section V, Health Effects, 
immunological sensitization can be triggered by short-term exposures. 
OSHA believes a STEL for beryllium will help reduce the risk of 
sensitization and CBD in beryllium-exposed employees. For instance, 
without a STEL, workers' exposures could be as high as 6.4 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(32 x 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\) for 15 minutes under the proposed TWA PEL, if 
exposures during the remainder of the 8-hour work shift are non-
detectable. A STEL serves to minimize high task-based exposures by 
requiring feasible controls in these situations, and has the added 
effect of further reducing the TWA exposure.
    OSHA requests comment on the range of short-term exposures in 
covered industries, the types of operations where these are occurring, 
and on the proposed and alternative STELs, including any data or 
information that may help OSHA choose between them.
    OSHA identified two job categories where workers would be expected 
to have short-term exposures in the range between the proposed STEL and 
the STEL under Regulatory Alternative #3 (that is, between 2.0 and 1.0 
[mu]g/m\3\): Furnace operators in nonferrous foundries and material 
preparation operators in the beryllium oxide ceramics application 
group. To estimate the costs for this alternative, OSHA judged, 
conservatively, that all workers in these job categories would need to 
wear respirators to meet a STEL of 1.0. OSHA also estimated costs for 
additional regulated areas and medical surveillance for workers in 
these two job categories. The costs for this alternative are presented 
in Table IX-19. Total costs rise from $37.6 million to $37.7 million 
using a 3 percent discount rate and from $39.1 million to $39.3 million 
using a 7 percent discount rate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.032

    Under Regulatory Alternative #4, the TWA PEL would be 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\ with an action level of 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\. The Agency's preliminary 
risk assessment indicates that the risks remaining at the proposed TWA 
PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\--while lower than risks at the current TWA PEL--
are still significant (see this preamble at Section VIII, Significance 
of Risk). A

[[Page 47738]]

TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ would reduce some of the remaining risks to 
workers at the proposed PEL. The OSH Act requires the Agency to set its 
standards to address significant risks of harm to the extent 
economically and technologically feasible, so OSHA would have very 
limited flexibility to adopt a higher PEL if a lower PEL is 
technologically and economically feasible.
    While OSHA's preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed TWA 
PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is economically and technologically feasible, 
OSHA has less confidence in the feasibility of a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\. In some industry sectors it is difficult to determine whether a 
TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ could be achieved in most operations most of 
the time (see Section IX.D of this preamble, Technological 
Feasibility). OSHA believes that one way this uncertainty could be 
resolved would be with additional information on exposure control 
technologies and the exposure levels that are currently being achieved 
in these industry sectors. OSHA requests additional data and 
information to inform its final determinations on feasibility (see 
Section IX.D of this preamble, Technological Feasibility) and the 
alternative PELs under consideration.
    Regulatory Alternative #5, which would set a TWA PEL at 0.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ and an action level at 0.25 [mu]g/m\3\, both higher than in the 
proposal, responds to an issue raised during the Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) process conducted in 2007 to consider a draft 
OSHA beryllium proposed rule that culminated in an SBAR Panel report 
(SBAR, 2008). That report included a recommendation that OSHA consider 
both the economic impact of a low TWA PEL and regulatory alternatives 
that would ease cost burden for small entities. OSHA has provided a 
full analysis of the economic impact of its proposed PELs (see Chapter 
VI of the PEA), and Regulatory Alternative #5 addresses the second half 
of that recommendation. However, the higher 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ TWA PEL does 
not appear to be consistent with the Agency's mandate under the OSH Act 
to promulgate a lower PEL if it is feasible and could prevent 
additional fatalities and non-fatal illnesses. The data presented in 
Table IX-20 below indicate that the lower TWA PEL would prevent 
additional fatalities and non-fatal illnesses, but nevertheless the 
Agency solicits comments on this alternative and OSHA's analysis of the 
costs and benefits associated with it.
    Table IX-20 below presents, for informational purposes, the 
estimated costs, benefits, and net benefits of the proposed rule under 
the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and for the regulatory 
alternatives of a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and a TWA PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ (Regulatory Alternatives #4 and #5, respectively), using 
alternative discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. In addition, the 
table presents the incremental costs, the incremental benefits, and the 
incremental net benefits, of going from a TWA PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ to 
the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and then of going from the 
proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ to a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Table IX-20 also breaks out costs by provision and benefits by type of 
disease and by morbidity/mortality.
    OSHA has not made a determination that a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ 
would be feasible for all application groups (that is, engineering and 
work practices would be sufficient to reduce and maintain beryllium 
exposures to a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or below in most operations 
most of the time in the affected industries). For Regulatory 
Alternative #4, the Agency attempted to identify engineering controls 
and their costs for those affected application groups where the 
technology feasibility analysis in Chapter IV of the PEA indicated that 
a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ could be achieved. For those application 
groups, OSHA costed out the set of feasible controls necessary to meet 
this alternative PEL. For the rest of the affected application groups, 
OSHA assumed that all workers exposed between 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ would have to wear respirators to achieve compliance with 
the 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ TWA PEL and estimated the associated additional 
costs for respiratory protection. For all affected industries, OSHA 
also estimated the costs to satisfy the ancillary requirements 
specified in the proposed rule for all affected workers under the 
alternative TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. For both controls and 
respirators, the unit costs were the same as presented in Chapter V of 
the PEA.
    The estimated benefits for Regulatory Alternative #4 were 
calculated based on the number of workers identified with exposures 
between 0.1 and 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, using the methods and unit benefit 
values developed in Chapter VII of the PEA.
    As Table IX-20 shows, going from a TWA PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ to a 
TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ would prevent, annually, an additional 29 
beryllium-related fatalities and an additional 15 non-fatal illnesses. 
This is consistent with OSHA's preliminary risk assessment, which 
indicates significant risk to workers exposed at a TWA PEL of 0.5 
[mu]g/m\3\; furthermore, OSHA's preliminary feasibility analysis 
indicates that a lower TWA PEL than 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ is feasible. Net 
benefits of this regulatory alternative versus the proposed TWA PEL of 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ would decrease from $538.2 million to $370.0 million 
using a 3 percent discount rate and from $216.2 million to $144.4 
million using 7 percent discount rate.
    Table IX-20 also shows the costs and benefits of going from the 
proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ to a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. As 
shown there, going from a TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ to a TWA PEL of 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ would prevent an additional 2 beryllium-related fatalities 
and 1 additional non-fatal illness. Net benefits of this regulatory 
alternative versus the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ would 
increase from $538.2 million to $543.5 million using a 3 percent 
discount rate and decrease from $216.2 million to $214.9 million using 
a 7 percent discount rate.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 47739]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.033


[[Page 47740]]


Informational Alternative Featuring Unchanged PEL but Full Ancillary 
Provisions
    An Informational Analysis: This proposed regulation has the 
somewhat unusual feature for an OSHA substance-specific health standard 
that most of the quantified benefits would come from the ancillary 
provisions rather than from meeting the PEL with engineering controls. 
OSHA decided to analyze for informational purposes the effect of 
retaining the existing PEL but applying all of the ancillary 
provisions, including respiratory protection. Under this approach, the 
TWA PEL would remain at 2.0 micrograms per cubic meter, but all of the 
other proposed provisions (including respiratory protection, which OSHA 
does not consider an ancillary provision) would be required with their 
triggers remaining the same as in the proposed rule--either the 
presence of airborne beryllium at any level (e.g., initial monitoring, 
written exposure control plan), at certain kinds of dermal exposure 
(PPE), at the action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (e.g., periodic 
monitoring, medical removal), or at 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (e.g., regulated 
areas, respiratory protection, medical surveillance).
    Given the record regarding beryllium exposures, this approach is 
not one OSHA could legally adopt because the absence of a more 
protective requirement for engineering controls would not be consistent 
with section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, which requires OSHA to ``set the 
standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the 
basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer 
material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such 
employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard 
for the period of his working life.'' For that reason, this additional 
analysis is provided strictly for informational purposes. E.O. 12866 
and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to identify approaches that maximize net 
benefits, and this analysis is purely for the purpose of exploring 
whether this approach would hold any real promise to maximize net 
benefits if it was permissible under the OSH Act. It does not appear to 
hold such promise because an ancillary-provisions-only approach would 
not be as protective and thus offers fewer benefits than one that 
includes a lower PEL and engineering controls, and OSHA estimates the 
costs would be about the same (or slightly lower, depending on certain 
assumptions) under that approach as under the traditional proposed 
approach.
    On an industry by industry basis, OSHA found that some industries 
would have lower costs if they could adopt the ancillary-provisions-
only approach. Some employers would use engineering controls where they 
are cheaper, even if they are not mandatory. OSHA does not have 
sufficient information to do an analysis of the employer-by-employer 
situations in which there exist some employers for whom the ancillary-
provisions-only approach might be cheaper. In the majority of affected 
industries, the Agency estimates there are no costs saving to the 
ancillary-provisions-only approach. However, OSHA estimates a total of 
$2,675,828 per year in costs saving for entire industries where the 
ancillary-provisions-only approach would be less expensive.
    The above discussion does not account for the possibility that the 
lack of engineering controls would result in higher beryllium exposures 
for workers in adjacent (non-production) work areas due to the 
increased level of beryllium in the air. Because of a lack of data, and 
because the issue did not arise in the other regulatory alternatives 
OSHA considered (all of which have a PEL of less than 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\), 
OSHA did not carefully examine exposure levels in non-production areas 
for either cost or benefit purposes. To the extent such exposure levels 
would be above the action level, there would be additional costs for 
respiratory protection.
    The ancillary-provisions-only approach adds uncertainty to the 
benefits analysis such that the benefits of the rule as proposed may 
exceed, and perhaps greatly exceed, the benefits of this ancillary-
provisions-only approach:
    (1) Most exposed individuals would be in respirators, which OSHA 
considers less effective than engineering controls in preventing 
employee exposure to beryllium. OSHA last did an extensive review of 
the evidence on effectiveness of respirators for its APFs rulemaking in 
2006 (71 FR 50128-45, August 24, 2006). OSHA has not in the past tried 
to quantify the size of this effect, but it could partially negate the 
estimated benefits of 92 CBD deaths prevented per year and 4 lung 
cancer cases prevented per year by the proposed standard.
    (2) As noted above, in the proposal OSHA did not consider benefits 
caused by reductions in exposure in non-production areas. Unless 
employers act to reduce exposures in the production areas, the absence 
of a requirement for such controls would largely negate such benefits 
from reductions in exposure in the non-productions areas.
    (3) OSHA believes that there is a strong possibility that the 
benefits of the ancillary provisions (a midpoint estimate of 
eliminating 45 percent of all remaining cases of CBD) would be 
partially or wholly negated in the absence of engineering controls that 
would reduce both airborne and surface dust levels. The measured 
reduction in benefits from ancillary provision was in a facility with 
average exposure levels of less than 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Based on these considerations, OSHA believes that the ancillary-
provisions-only approach is not one that is likely to maximize net 
benefits. The costs saving, if any, are estimated to be small, and the 
difficult-to-measure declines in benefits could be substantial.
3. A Method-of-Compliance Alternative
    Paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed rule contains requirements for the 
implementation of engineering and work practice controls to minimize 
beryllium exposures in beryllium work areas. For each operation in a 
beryllium work area, employers must ensure that at least one of the 
following engineering and work practice controls is in place to 
minimize employee exposure: Material and/or process substitution; 
ventilated enclosures; local exhaust ventilation; or process controls, 
such as wet methods and automation. Employers are exempt from using 
engineering and work practice controls only when they can show that 
such controls are not feasible or where exposures are below the action 
level based on two exposure samples taken seven days apart.
    These requirements, which are based on the stakeholders' 
recommended beryllium standard that beryllium industry and union 
stakeholders submitted to OSHA in 2012 (Materion and United 
Steelworkers, 2012), address a concern associated with the proposed TWA 
PEL. OSHA expects that day-to-day changes in workplace conditions, such 
as workers' positioning or patterns of airflow, may cause frequent 
exposures above the TWA PEL in workplaces where periodic sampling 
indicates exposures are between the action level and the TWA PEL. As a 
result, the default under the standard is that the controls are 
required until the employer can demonstrate that exposures have not 
exceeded the action level from at least two separate measurements taken 
seven days apart.
    OSHA believes that substitution or engineering controls such as 
those outlined in paragraph (f)(2)(i) provide the most reliable means 
to control variability in exposure levels. However, OSHA also 
recognizes that the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(i) are

[[Page 47741]]

not typical of OSHA standards, which usually require engineering 
controls only where exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. The Agency is 
therefore considering Regulatory Alternative #6, which would drop the 
provisions of (f)(2)(i) from the proposed standard and make conforming 
edits to paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii). This regulatory alternative 
does not eliminate the need for engineering controls to comply with the 
proposed TWA PEL and STEL, but does eliminate the requirement to use 
one or more of the specified engineering or work practice controls 
where exposures equal or exceed the action level. As shown in Table IX-
21, Regulatory Alternative #6 would decrease the annualized cost of the 
proposed rule by about $457,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent and 
by about $480,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent. OSHA has not been 
able to estimate the change in benefits resulting from Regulatory 
Alternative #6 at this time and invites public comment on this issue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.034

4. Regulatory Alternatives That Affect Ancillary Provisions
    The proposed standard contains several ancillary provisions 
(provisions other than the exposure limits), including requirements for 
exposure assessment, medical surveillance, medical removal, training, 
and regulated areas or access control. As reported in Chapter V of the 
PEA, these ancillary provisions account for $27.8 million (about 72 
percent) of the total annualized costs of the rule ($37.6 million) 
using a 3 percent discount rate, or $28.6 million (about 73 percent) of 
the total annualized costs of the rule ($39.1 million) using a 7 
percent discount rate. The most expensive of the ancillary provisions 
are the requirements for housekeeping and training, with annualized 
costs of $12.6 million and $5.8 million, respectively, at a 3 percent 
discount rate ($12.9 million and $5.8 million, respectively, at a 7 
percent discount rate).
    OSHA's reasons for including each of the proposed ancillary 
provisions are explained in Section XVIII of this preamble, Summary and 
Explanation of the Standards.
    In particular, OSHA is proposing the requirements for exposure 
assessment to provide a basis for ensuring that appropriate measures 
are in place to limit worker exposures. Medical surveillance is 
especially important because workers exposed above the proposed TWA 
PEL, as well as many workers exposed below the proposed TWA PEL, are at 
significant risk of death and illness. Medical surveillance would allow 
for identification of beryllium-related adverse health effects at an 
early stage so that appropriate intervention measures can be taken. 
OSHA is proposing regulated areas and access control because they serve 
to limit exposure to beryllium to as few employees as possible. OSHA is 
proposing worker training to ensure that employers inform employees of 
the hazards to which they are exposed, along with associated protective 
measures, so that employees understand how they can minimize their 
exposure to beryllium. Worker training on beryllium-related work 
practices is particularly important in controlling beryllium exposures 
because engineering controls frequently require action on the part of 
workers to function effectively.
    OSHA has examined a variety of regulatory alternatives involving 
changes to one or more of the proposed ancillary provisions. The 
incremental cost of each of these regulatory alternatives and its 
impact on the total costs of the proposed rule is summarized in Table 
IX-22 at the end of this section. OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that several of these ancillary provisions will increase the benefits 
of the proposed rule, for example, by helping to ensure the TWA PEL is 
not exceeded or by lowering the risks to workers given the significant 
risk remaining at the proposed TWA PEL. However, except for Regulatory 
Alternative #7 (involving the elimination of all ancillary provisions), 
OSHA did not estimate changes in monetized benefits for the regulatory 
alternatives that affect ancillary provisions. Two regulatory 
alternatives that involve all ancillary provisions are presented below 
(#7 and #8), followed by regulatory alternatives for exposure 
monitoring (#9, #10, and #11), for regulated areas (#12), for personal

[[Page 47742]]

protective clothing and equipment (#13), for medical surveillance (#14 
through #21), and for medical removal (#22).
a. All Ancillary Provisions
    The SBAR Panel recommended that OSHA analyze a PEL-only standard as 
a regulatory alternative. The Panel also recommended that OSHA consider 
not applying ancillary provisions of the standard where exposure levels 
are low so as to minimize costs for small businesses (SBAR, 2008). In 
response to these recommendations, OSHA analyzed Regulatory Alternative 
#7, a PEL-only standard, and Regulatory Alternative #8, which would 
apply ancillary provisions of the beryllium standard only where 
exposures exceed the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or the proposed 
STEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Regulatory Alternative #7 would solely update 1910.1000 Tables Z-1 
and Z-2, so that the proposed TWA PEL and STEL would apply to all 
workers in general industry. This alternative would eliminate all of 
the ancillary provisions of the proposed rule, including exposure 
assessment, medical surveillance, medical removal, PPE, housekeeping, 
training, and regulated areas or access control. Under this regulatory 
alternative, OSHA estimates that the costs for the proposed ancillary 
provisions of the rule (estimated at $27.8 million annually at a 3 
percent discount rate) would be eliminated. In order to meet the PELs, 
employers would still commonly need to do monitoring, train workers on 
the use of controls, and set up some kind of regulated areas to 
indicate where respirator use would be required. It is also likely 
that, under this alternative, many employers would follow the 
recommendations of Materion and the United Steelworkers to provide 
medical surveillance, PPE, and other protective measures for their 
workers (Materion and USW, 2012). OSHA has not attempted to estimate 
the extent to which these ancillary-provision costs would be incurred 
if they were not formally required or whether any of these costs under 
Regulatory Alternative #7 would reasonably be attributable to the 
proposed rule. OSHA welcomes comment on the issue.
    OSHA has also estimated the effect of this regulatory alternative 
on the benefits of the rule. As a result of eliminating all of the 
ancillary provisions, annualized benefits are estimated to decrease 57 
percent, relative to the proposed rule, from $575.8 million to $249.1 
million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $255.3 million to 
$110.4 million using a 7 percent discount rate. This estimate follows 
from OSHA's analysis of benefits in Chapter VII of the PEA, which found 
that about 57 percent of the benefits of the proposed rule, evaluated 
at their mid-point value, were attributable to the combination of the 
ancillary provisions. As these estimates show, OSHA expects that the 
benefits estimated under the proposed rule will not be fully achieved 
if employers do not implement the ancillary provisions of the proposed 
rule.
    Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a 
comprehensive standard is needed to protect workers exposed to 
beryllium. The stakeholders' recommended standard that representatives 
of the primary beryllium manufacturing industry and the United 
Steelworkers union provided to OSHA confirms the importance of 
ancillary provisions in protecting workers from the harmful effects of 
beryllium exposure (Materion and USW, 2012). Ancillary provisions such 
as personal protective clothing and equipment, regulated areas, medical 
surveillance, hygiene areas, housekeeping requirements, and hazard 
communication all serve to reduce the risks to beryllium-exposed 
workers beyond that which the proposed TWA PEL alone could achieve.
    Moreover, where there is continuing significant risk at the TWA 
PEL, the decision in the Asbestos case (Bldg. and Constr. Trades Dep't, 
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1988)) indicated that 
OSHA should use its legal authority to impose additional requirements 
on employers to further reduce risk when those requirements will result 
in a greater than de minimis incremental benefit to workers' health. 
Nevertheless, OSHA requests comment on this alternative.
    Under Regulatory Alternative #8, several ancillary provisions that 
the current proposal would require under a variety of exposure 
conditions (e.g., dermal contact, any airborne exposure, exposure at or 
above the action level) would instead only apply where exposure levels 
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. Regulatory Alternative #8 affects the 
following provisions of the proposed standard:

--Exposure monitoring: Whereas the proposed standard requires annual 
monitoring when exposure levels are at or above the action level and at 
or below the TWA PEL, Regulatory Alternative #8 would require annual 
exposure monitoring only where exposure levels exceed the TWA PEL or 
STEL;
--Written exposure control plan: Whereas the proposed standard requires 
written exposure control plans to be maintained in any facility covered 
by the standard, Regulatory Alternative #8 would require only 
facilities with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL to maintain a plan;
--Housekeeping: Whereas the proposed standard's housekeeping 
requirements apply across a wide variety of beryllium exposure 
conditions, Alternative #8 would limit housekeeping requirements to 
areas and employees with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL;
--PPE: Whereas the proposed standard requires PPE for employees under a 
variety of conditions, such as exposure to soluble beryllium or visible 
contamination with beryllium, Alternative #8 would require PPE only for 
employees exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL;
--Medical Surveillance: Whereas the proposed standard's medical 
surveillance provisions require employers to offer medical surveillance 
to employees with signs or symptoms of beryllium-related health effects 
regardless of their exposure level, Alternative #8 would require 
surveillance only for those employees exposed above the TWA PEL or 
STEL.
    To estimate the cost savings for this alternative, OSHA re-
estimated the group of workers that would fall under the above 
provisions and the changes to their scope. Combining these various 
adjustments along with associated unit costs, OSHA estimates that, 
under this regulatory alternative, the costs for the proposed rule 
would decline from $37.6 million to $18.9 million using a 3 percent 
discount rate and from $39.1 million to $20.0 million using a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    The Agency has not quantified the impact of this alternative on the 
benefits of the rule. However, ancillary provisions that offer 
protective measures to workers exposed below the proposed TWA PEL, such 
as personal protective clothing and equipment, beryllium work areas, 
hygiene areas, housekeeping requirements, and hazard communication, all 
serve to reduce the risks to beryllium-exposed workers beyond that 
which the proposed TWA PEL and STEL could achieve. OSHA's preliminary 
conclusion is that the requirements triggered by the action level and 
other exposures below the proposed PELs will result in very real and 
necessary, but difficult to quantify, further reduction in risk beyond 
that provided by the PELs alone.
    The remainder of this section discusses additional regulatory 
alternatives that apply to individual

[[Page 47743]]

ancillary provisions. At this time, OSHA is not able to quantify the 
effects of these regulatory alternatives on benefits. The Agency 
solicits comment on the effects of these regulatory alternatives on the 
benefits of the proposed rule.
b. Exposure Monitoring
    Paragraph (d) of the proposed standard, Exposure Monitoring, 
requires annual monitoring where exposures are at or above the action 
level and at or below the TWA PEL. It does not require periodic 
monitoring where exposure levels have been determined to be below the 
action level, or above the TWA PEL. The rationale for this provision is 
provided in this preamble discussion of paragraph (a) in Section XVIII, 
Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard. Below is a brief 
summary, followed by a discussion of three alternatives.
    Because of the variable nature of employee exposures to airborne 
concentrations of beryllium, maintaining exposures below the action 
level provides reasonable assurance that employees will not be exposed 
to beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL on days when no exposure 
measurements are made. Even when all measurements on a given day fall 
at or below the TWA PEL, if those measurements are still at or above 
the action level, there is a smaller safety margin and a greater chance 
that on another day, when exposures are not measured, the employee's 
exposure may exceed the TWA PEL. When exposure measurements are at or 
above the action level, the employer cannot be reasonably confident 
that employees have not been exposed to beryllium concentrations in 
excess of the TWA PEL during at least some part of the work week. 
Therefore, requiring periodic exposure measurements when the action 
level is met or exceeded provides the employer with a reasonable degree 
of confidence in the results of the exposure monitoring. The proposed 
action level that would trigger the exposure monitoring is one-half of 
the TWA PEL, which reflects the Agency's typical approach to setting 
action levels (see, e.g., Inorganic arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018), 
Ethylene oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047), Benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), and 
Methylene Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052)).
    Certain other aspects of the proposed periodic monitoring 
requirements, which the Agency based on the stakeholders' recommended 
standard submitted by Materion and the United Steelworkers (Materion 
and USW, 2012), depart significantly from OSHA's usual exposure 
monitoring requirements. The proposed standard only requires annual 
monitoring, and does not require periodic monitoring when exposures are 
recorded above the TWA PEL, whereas most OSHA standards require 
monitoring at least every 6 months when exposure levels exceed the 
action level, and every 3 months when exposures are above the TWA PEL. 
For example, the standards for vinyl chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017), 
inorganic arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018), lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), cadmium 
(29 CFR 1910.1027), methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), 
acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045), ethylene oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047), 
and formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048), all specify periodic monitoring at 
least every six months when exposures are at, or above, the action 
level. Monitoring is required every three months when exposures exceed 
the TWA PEL in the standards for methylene chloride, ethylene oxide, 
acrylonitrile, inorganic arsenic, lead, and vinyl chloride. In the 
standards for cadmium, 1,3-Butadiene, formaldehyde, benzene and 
asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001), monitoring is required every six months 
when exposures exceed the TWA PEL. In these standards, monitoring 
workers exposed above the TWA PEL ensures that employers know workers' 
exposure levels in order to select appropriate respirators and other 
PPE, and that records of their exposures are available if needed for 
medical, legal, or epidemiological purposes.
    OSHA has examined three regulatory alternatives that would modify 
the requirements of paragraph (d) to be more similar to OSHA's typical 
periodic monitoring requirements. Under Regulatory Alternative #9, 
employers would be required to perform periodic exposure monitoring 
every 180 days when exposures are at or above the action level or above 
the STEL, but at or below the TWA PEL. As shown in Table IX-22, 
Regulatory Alternative #9 would increase the annualized cost of the 
proposed rule by about $773,000 using either a 3 percent or 7 percent 
discount rate.
    Under Regulatory Alternative #10, employers would be required to 
perform periodic exposure monitoring every 180 days when exposures are 
at or above the action level or above the STEL, including where 
exposures exceed the TWA PEL. As shown in Table IX-22, Regulatory 
Alternative #10 would increase the annualized cost of the proposed rule 
by about $929,000 using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate.
    Under Regulatory Alternative #11, employers would be required to 
perform periodic exposure monitoring every 180 days when exposures are 
at or above the action level, and every 90 days where exposures exceed 
the TWA PEL or STEL. This alternative is similar to the periodic 
monitoring requirements in the draft proposed rule presented to the 
SERs during the 2007 OSHA beryllium SBAR Panel process. Of the exposure 
monitoring alternatives, it is also the most similar to the exposure 
monitoring provisions of most other 6(b)(5) standards. As shown in 
Table IX-22, Regulatory Alternative #11 would increase the annualized 
cost of the proposed rule by about $1.07 million using either a 3 
percent or 7 percent discount rate.
c. Regulated Areas
    Proposed paragraph (e) requires employers to establish and maintain 
beryllium work areas wherever employees are exposed to airborne 
beryllium, regardless of the level of exposure, and regulated areas 
wherever airborne concentrations of beryllium exceed the TWA PEL or 
STEL. Employers are required to demarcate beryllium work areas and 
regulated areas and limit access to regulated areas to authorized 
persons.
    The SBAR Panel report recommended that OSHA consider dropping or 
limiting the provision for regulated areas (SBAR, 2008). In response to 
this recommendation, OSHA examined Regulatory Alternative #12, which 
would eliminate the requirement that employers establish regulated 
areas. This alternative is meant only to eliminate the requirement to 
set up and demarcate specific physical areas: All ancillary provisions 
would be triggered by the same conditions as under the standard's 
definition of a ``regulated area.'' For example, under the current 
proposal, employees who work in regulated areas for at least 30 days 
annually are eligible for medical surveillance. If OSHA were to remove 
the requirement to establish regulated areas, the medical surveillance 
provisions would be altered so that employees who work more than 30 
days annually in jobs or areas with exposures that exceed the TWA PEL 
or STEL are eligible for medical surveillance. This alternative would 
not eliminate the proposed requirement to establish beryllium work 
areas. As shown in Table IX-22, Regulatory Alternative #12 would 
decrease the annualized cost of the proposed rule by about $522,000 
using a 3 percent discount rate, and by about $523,000 using a 7 
percent discount rate.

[[Page 47744]]

d. Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
    Regulatory Alternative #13 would modify the requirements for 
personal protective equipment (PPE) by requiring appropriate PPE 
whenever there is potential for skin contact with beryllium or 
beryllium-contaminated surfaces. This alternative would be broader, and 
thus more protective, than the PPE requirement in the proposed 
standard, which requires PPE to be used in three circumstances: (1) 
Where exposure exceeds the TWA PEL or STEL; (2) where employees' 
clothing or skin may become visibly contaminated with beryllium; and 
(3) where employees may have skin contact with soluble beryllium 
compounds. These PPE requirements were based on the stakeholders' 
recommended standard that Materion and the United Steelworkers 
submitted to the Agency (Materion and USW, 2012).
    The proposed rule's requirement to use PPE where work clothing or 
skin may become ``visibly contaminated'' with beryllium differs from 
prior standards, which do not require contamination to be visible in 
order for PPE to be required. While OSHA's language regarding PPE 
requirements varies somewhat from standard to standard, previous 
standards tend to emphasize potential for contact with a substance that 
can trigger health effects via dermal exposure, rather than ``visible 
contamination'' with the substance. For example, the standard for 
chromium (VI) requires the employer to provide appropriate PPE where a 
hazard is present or is likely to be present from skin or eye contact 
with chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026). The lead and cadmium standards 
require PPE where employees are exposed above the PEL or where there is 
potential for skin or eye irritation, regardless of airborne exposure 
level. Under the Methylenedianiline (MDA) standard (29 CFR 1910.1050), 
PPE must be provided where employees are subject to dermal exposure to 
MDA, where liquids containing MDA can be splashed into the eyes, or 
where airborne concentrations of MDA are in excess of the PEL.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed PPE requirements in 
Regulatory Alternative #13, which would modify the proposed PPE 
requirements to be similar to the chromium (VI), lead, cadmium, and MDA 
standards. Because small beryllium particles can pass through intact or 
broken skin and cause sensitization, limiting the requirements for PPE 
based on surfaces that are ``visibly contaminated'' may not adequately 
protect workers from beryllium exposure. Submicron particles (less than 
1 [mu]g in diameter) are not visible to the naked eye and yet may pass 
through the skin and cause beryllium sensitization. Although solubility 
may play a role in the level of sensitization risk, the available 
evidence suggests that contact with insoluble, as well as soluble, 
beryllium can cause sensitization via dermal contact (see this preamble 
at Section V, Health Effects). Sensitized workers are at significant 
risk of developing CBD (see this preamble at Section V, Health Effects, 
and Section VIII, Significance of Risk).
    To estimate the cost of Regulatory Alternative #13, OSHA assumed 
that all at-risk workers, except administrative occupations, would 
require protective clothing and a pair of work gloves that would need 
to be replaced annually. The economic analysis of the proposed standard 
already contained costs for protective clothing for all employees whose 
clothing might be contaminated by beryllium (the analysis assumed that 
all clothing contamination would be visible, or the clothing is already 
provided even if not required by this standard) and gloves for many 
jobs where workers were expected to be exposed to visible contamination 
or soluble beryllium; thus OSHA estimated the cost of this alternative 
as the cost of providing gloves for the remainder of the jobs where 
workers have potential for skin exposure even in the absence of visible 
contamination. As shown in Table IX-22, Regulatory Alternative #13 
would increase the annualized cost of the proposed rule by about 
$138,000 using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate.
e. Medical Surveillance
    The proposed requirements for medical surveillance include: (1) 
Medical examinations, including a test for beryllium sensitization, for 
employees who are exposed to beryllium in a regulated area (i.e., above 
the proposed TWA PEL or STEL) for 30 days or more per year, who are 
exposed to beryllium in an emergency, or who show signs or symptoms of 
CBD; and (2) CT scans for employees who were exposed above the proposed 
TWA PEL or STEL for more than 30 days in a 12-month period for 5 years 
or more. The proposed standard would require annual medical exams to be 
provided for employees exposed in a regulated area for 30 days or more 
per year and for employees showing signs or symptoms of CBD, while 
tests for beryllium sensitization and CT scans would be provided to 
eligible employees biennially.
    OSHA estimated in Chapter V of the PEA that the medical 
surveillance requirements would apply to 4,528 workers in general 
industry, of whom 387 already receive that surveillance.\43\ In Chapter 
V, OSHA estimated the costs of medical surveillance for the remaining 
4,141 workers who would now have such protection due to the proposed 
standard. The Agency's preliminary analysis indicates that 4 workers 
with beryllium sensitization and 6 workers with CBD will be referred to 
pulmonary specialists annually as a result of this medical 
surveillance. Medical surveillance is particularly important for this 
rule because beryllium-exposed workers, including many workers exposed 
below the proposed PELs, are at significant risk of illness. OSHA did 
not estimate, and the benefits analysis does not include, monetized 
benefits resulting from early discovery of illness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See current compliance rates for medical surveillance in 
Chapter V of the PEA, Table V-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has examined eight regulatory alternatives (#14 through #21) 
that would modify the proposed rule's requirements for employee 
eligibility, the tests that must be offered, and the frequency of 
periodic exams. Medical surveillance was a subject of special concern 
to SERs during the SBAR Panel process, and the SBAR Panel offered many 
comments and recommendations related to medical surveillance for OSHA's 
consideration. Some of the Panel's concerns have been partially 
addressed in this proposal, which was modified since the SBAR Panel was 
convened (see this preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation 
of the Proposed Standard, for more detailed discussion). Several of the 
regulatory alternatives presented here (#16, #18, and #20) also respond 
to recommendations by the SBAR Panel to reduce burdens on small 
businesses by dropping or reducing the frequency of medical 
surveillance requirements. OSHA is also considering several additional 
regulatory alternatives that would increase the frequency of 
surveillance or the range of employees covered by medical surveillance 
(#14, #15, #17, #19, and #21).
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that a significant risk of 
beryllium sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer exists at exposure levels 
below the proposed TWA PEL and that there is evidence that beryllium 
sensitization can occur even from short-term exposures (see this 
preamble at Section V, Health Effects, and Section VIII,

[[Page 47745]]

Significance of Risk). The Agency therefore anticipates that more 
employees would develop adverse health effects without receiving the 
benefits of early intervention in the disease process because they are 
not eligible for medical surveillance (see this preamble at Section V, 
Health Effects).
    OSHA is considering three regulatory alternatives that would expand 
eligibility for medical surveillance to a broader group of employees 
than those eligible under the proposed standard. Under Regulatory 
Alternative #14, medical surveillance would be available to employees 
who are exposed to beryllium above the proposed TWA PEL or STEL, 
including employees exposed for fewer than 30 days per year. Regulatory 
Alternative #15 would expand eligibility for medical surveillance to 
employees who are exposed to beryllium above the proposed action level, 
including employees exposed for fewer than 30 days per year. Regulatory 
Alternative #21 would extend eligibility for medical surveillance as 
set forth in proposed paragraph (k) to all employees in shipyards, 
construction, and general industry who meet the criteria of proposed 
paragraph (k)(1). However, all other provisions of the standard would 
be in effect only for employers and employees that fall within the 
scope of the proposed rule. Each of these alternatives would provide 
surveillance to fewer workers (and cost less to employers) than the 
draft proposed rule presented to SERs during the SBAR Panel process, 
which included skin contact as a trigger and would therefore cover most 
beryllium-exposed workers in general industry, construction, and 
maritime. These alternatives would provide more surveillance (and cost 
more to employers) than the medical surveillance requirements in the 
current proposal.
    To estimate the cost of Regulatory Alternative #14, OSHA assumed 
that 1 person would enter regulated areas for less than 30 days a year 
for every 4 people working in regulated areas on a regular basis. Thus, 
this alternative includes costs for an incremental number of annual 
medical exams equal to 25 percent of the number of workers estimated to 
be working in regulated areas after the standard is promulgated. As 
shown in Table IX-22, Regulatory Alternative #14 would increase the 
annualized cost of the proposed rule by about $38,000 using either a 3 
percent or 7 percent discount rate.
    To estimate the cost of Regulatory Alternative #15, OSHA assumed 
that all workers exposed above the action level before the standard 
would continue to be exposed after the standard is promulgated. OSHA 
also assumed that 1 person would enter areas exceeding the action level 
for fewer than 30 days a year for every 4 people working in an area 
exceeding the action level on a regular basis. Thus, this alternative 
includes costs for medical exams for the number of workers exposed 
between the action level and the TWA PEL as well as an incremental 25 
percent of all workers exposed above the action level. As shown in 
Table IX-22, Regulatory Alternative #15 would increase the annualized 
cost of the proposed rule by about $3.9 million using a discount rate 
of 3 percent, and by about $4.0 million using a discount rate of 7 
percent.
    For Alternative #21, OSHA is considering two different scenarios to 
estimate costs: One where the TWA PEL for the groups outside the scope 
of the proposed standard changes from 2 [mu]g/m\3\ to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, 
as in Regulatory Alternative #2; and one where the TWA PEL remains at 
the current level of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. For costing purposes, these have 
been designated as Regulatory Alternative #21a and Regulatory 
Alternative #21b, respectively.
    For Regulatory Alternative #21a, medical surveillance above the 
proposed TWA PEL of 0.2, OSHA estimated the cost of extending medical 
surveillance to workers in aluminum production, abrasive blasting in 
construction, maritime abrasive blasting, maritime welding, and coal 
fired power plants, assuming that all feasible controls are in place to 
reduce exposures to the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or lower. 
OSHA did not include control costs to achieve compliance with a TWA PEL 
of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, as these costs were addressed in Regulatory 
Alternative #2. (For a summary of the estimates of affected workers and 
the exposure profile, see the discussion accompanying Regulatory 
Alternative # 2.) As shown in Table IX-22, Regulatory Alternative #21a 
would increase the annualized cost of the proposed rule by about $4.4 
million using a 3-percent discount rate and $4.5 million using a 7-
percent discount rate.
    For Alternative #21b, medical surveillance above the current TWA 
PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, OSHA estimated that all abrasive blasters in 
construction and shipyards who are currently above the current TWA PEL 
of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\would be eligible for medical surveillance. As 
discussed under alternative #2, outside of abrasive blasting, OSHA has 
identified a small group of maritime welders who may be exposed to 
beryllium above the current TWA PEL in their work. Of these workers, 90 
percent would be below the current TWA PEL if their employers 
instituted all feasible engineering and work practice controls to meet 
the existing standard. If they came into compliance with the current 
PELs, they would not be required to offer employees medical 
surveillance under Alternative #21b. OSHA estimated that the other 10 
percent of these maritime welders, and 10 percent of workers in primary 
aluminum production and coal-fired power generation, with all feasible 
engineering controls and work practices in place, would still be 
exposed above the current TWA PEL and would be eligible for medical 
surveillance under Alternative #21b. OSHA's customary method in 
preparing an economic analysis of a new standard is to cost out the 
incremental cost of the new standard assuming full compliance with 
existing standards. Finally, OSHA estimated that 15 percent of the 
workers excluded from the scope of the proposed standard absent the 
alternative would show signs and symptoms of CBD or be exposed in 
emergencies, and so would be eligible for medical surveillance. As 
shown in Table IX-22, under these assumptions Regulatory Alternative 
#21b would increase the annualized cost of the proposed rule by about 
$3.0 million using a 3-percent discount rate and $3.1 million using a 
7-percent discount rate. The Agency notes that, as abrasive blasters 
are the primary application group with beryllium exposure in 
construction and shipyards, it is unlikely that as many as 15 percent 
of other workers would show signs and symptoms of beryllium exposure or 
be exposed to beryllium in an emergency. Thus, OSHA believes the stated 
cost of about $3.0 million may overestimate the true costs for this 
alternative and invites comment on this issue.
    In response to concerns raised during the SBAR Panel process about 
testing requirements, OSHA is considering two regulatory alternatives 
that would provide greater flexibility in the program of tests provided 
as part of an employer's medical surveillance program. Under Regulatory 
Alternative #16, employers would not be required to offer employees 
testing for beryllium sensitization. As shown in Table IX-22, this 
alternative would decrease the annualized cost of the proposed rule by 
about $710,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent, and by about 
$724,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.
    Regulatory Alternative #18 would eliminate the CT scan requirement 
from the proposed rule. This alternative would decrease the annualized 
cost of

[[Page 47746]]

the proposed rule by about $472,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent, 
and by about $481,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.
    OSHA is considering several alternatives to the proposed frequency 
of sensitization testing, CT scans, and general medical examinations. 
The frequency of periodic medical surveillance is an important factor 
in the efficacy of the surveillance in protecting worker health. 
Regular, appropriately frequent medical surveillance promotes awareness 
of beryllium-related health effects and early intervention in disease 
processes among workers. In addition, the longer the time interval 
between when a worker becomes sensitized and when the worker's case is 
identified in the surveillance program, the more difficult it will be 
to identify and address the exposure conditions that led to 
sensitization. Therefore, reducing the frequency of sensitization 
testing would reduce the usefulness of the surveillance information in 
identifying problem areas and reducing risks to other workers. These 
concerns must be weighed against the costs and other burdens of 
surveillance.
    Regulatory alternative #17 would require employers to offer annual 
testing for beryllium sensitization to eligible employees, as in the 
draft proposal presented to the SBAR Panel. As shown in Table IX-22, 
this alternative would increase the annualized cost of the proposed 
rule by about $392,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent, and by about 
$381,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.
    Regulatory Alternative #19 would similarly increase the frequency 
of periodic CT scans from biennial to annual scans, increasing the 
annualized cost of the proposed rule by about $459,000 using a discount 
rate of 3 percent, and by about $450,000 using a discount rate of 7 
percent.
    Finally, under Regulatory Alternative #20, employers would only 
have to provide all periodic components of the medical surveillance 
exams biennially to eligible employees. This alternative would decrease 
the annualized cost of the proposed rule by about $446,000 using a 
discount rate of 3 percent and by about $433,000 using a discount rate 
of 7 percent.
f. Medical Removal
    Under paragraph (l) of the proposed standard, Medical Removal, 
employees in jobs with exposure at or above the action level become 
eligible for medical removal when they are diagnosed with CBD or 
confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization. When an employee 
chooses removal, the employer is required to remove the employee to 
comparable work in an environment where beryllium exposure is below the 
action level if such work is available and the employee is either 
already qualified or can be trained within one month. If comparable 
work is not available, paragraph (l) would require the employer to 
place the employee on paid leave for six months or until comparable 
work becomes available (whichever comes first). Or, rather than 
choosing removal, an eligible employee could choose to remain in a job 
with exposure at or above the action level and wear a respirator. The 
proposed medical removal protection (MRP) requirements are based on the 
stakeholders' recommended beryllium standard that representatives of 
the beryllium production industry and the United Steelworkers union 
submitted to OSHA in 2012 (Materion and USW, 2012).
    The scientific information on effects of exposure cessation is 
limited at this time, but the available evidence suggests that removal 
from exposure can be beneficial for individuals who are sensitized or 
have early-stage CBD (see this preamble at Section VIII, Significance 
of Risk). As CBD progresses, symptoms become serious and debilitating. 
Steroid treatment is less effective at later stages, once fibrosis has 
developed (see this preamble at Section VIII, Significance of Risk). 
Given the progressive nature of the disease, OSHA believes it is 
reasonable to conclude that removal from exposure to beryllium will 
benefit sensitized employees and those with CBD. Physicians at National 
Jewish Health, one of the main CBD research and treatment sites in the 
US, ``consider it important and prudent for individuals with beryllium 
sensitization and CBD to minimize their exposure to airborne 
beryllium,'' and ``recommend individuals diagnosed with beryllium 
sensitization and CBD who continue to work in a beryllium industry to 
have exposure of no more than 0.01 micrograms per cubic meter of 
beryllium as an 8-hour time-weighted average'' (NJMRC, 2013). However, 
OSHA is aware that MRP may prove costly and burdensome for some 
employers and that the scientific literature on the effects of exposure 
cessation on the development of CBD among sensitized individuals and 
the progression from early-stage to late-stage CBD is limited.
    The SBAR Panel report included a recommendation that OSHA give 
careful consideration to the impacts that an MRP requirement could have 
on small businesses (SBAR, 2008). In response to this recommendation, 
OSHA analyzed Regulatory Alternative #22, which would remove the 
proposed requirement that employers offer MRP. As shown in Table IX-22, 
this alternative would decrease the annualized cost of the proposed 
rule by about $149,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent, and by about 
$166,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.

[[Page 47747]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.035


[[Page 47748]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.036

5. Timing
    As proposed, the new standard would become effective 60 days 
following publication in the Federal Register. The majority of employer 
duties in the standard would become enforceable 90 days following the 
effective date. Change rooms, however, would not be required until one 
year after the effective date, and the deadline for engineering 
controls would be no later than two years after the effective date.
    OSHA invites suggestions for alternative phase-in schedules for 
engineering controls, medical surveillance, and other provisions of the 
standard. Although OSHA did not explicitly develop or quantitatively 
analyze any other regulatory alternatives involving longer-term or more 
complex phase-ins of the standard (possibly involving more delayed 
implementation dates for small businesses), some general outcomes are 
likely. For example, a longer phase-in time would have several 
advantages, such as reducing initial costs of the standard or allowing 
employers to coordinate their environmental and occupational safety and 
health control strategies to minimize potential costs. However, a 
longer phase-in would also postpone and reduce the benefits of the 
standard. Suggestions for alternatives may apply to specific industries 
(e.g., industries where first-year or annualized cost impacts are 
highest), specific size-classes of employers (e.g., employers with 
fewer than 20 employees), combinations of these factors, or all firms 
covered by the rule.
    OSHA requests comments on all these regulatory alternatives, 
including the Agency's regulatory alternatives presented above, the 
Agency's analysis of these alternatives, and whether there are other 
regulatory alternatives the Agency should consider.

I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996, requires the 
preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for 
proposed rules where there would be a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Under the 
provisions of the law, each such analysis shall contain:

[[Page 47749]]

    1. A description of the impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities;
    2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered;
    3. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    4. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record;
    6. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule;
    7. A description and discussion of any significant alternatives to 
the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities, such as:
    (a) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities;
    (b) The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities;
    (c) The use of performance rather than design standards; and
    (d) An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 
for such small entities.

5 U.S.C. 603, 607. The Regulatory Flexibility Act further states that 
the required elements of the IRFA may be performed in conjunction with, 
or as part of, any other agenda or analysis required by any other law 
if such other analysis satisfies the provisions of the IRFA. 5 U.S.C. 
605.
    While a full understanding of OSHA's analysis and conclusions with 
respect to costs and economic impacts on small entities requires a 
reading of the complete PEA and its supporting materials, the IRFA 
summarizes the key aspects of OSHA's analysis as they affect small 
entities.
1. A Description of the Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
    Section IX.F of this preamble summarized the impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities. Table IX-9 showed costs as a 
percentage of profits and revenues for small entities, classified as 
small by the Small Business Administration, and Tables IX-10 showed 
costs as a percentage of revenues and profits for business entities 
with fewer than 20 employees. (The costs in these tables were 
annualized using a discount rate of 3 percent.)
2. A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered
    Chronic beryllium disease (CBD) is a hypersensitivity, or allergic 
reaction, to beryllium that leads to a chronic inflammatory disease of 
the lungs. It takes months to years after initial beryllium exposure 
before signs and symptoms of CBD occur. Removing an employee with CBD 
from the beryllium source does not always lead to recovery. In some 
cases CBD continues to progress following removal from beryllium 
exposure. CBD is not a chemical pneumonitis but an immune-mediated 
granulomatous lung disease. OSHA's preliminary risk assessment, 
presented in Section VI of this preamble, indicates that there is 
significant risk of beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium 
disease from a 45-year (working life) exposure to beryllium at the 
current TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\. The risk assessment further indicates 
that there is significant risk of lung cancer to workers exposed to 
beryllium at the current TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\. The proposed 
standard, with a lower PEL of .2 [mu]g/m\3\, will help to address these 
health concerns.
    For CBD to occur, an employee must first become sensitized (i.e., 
allergic) to beryllium. Once an employee is sensitized, inhaled 
beryllium that deposits and persists in the lung may trigger a cell-
mediated immune response (i.e., hypersensitivity reaction) that results 
in the formation of a type of lung scarring known as a granuloma. The 
granuloma consists of a localized mass of immune and inflammatory cells 
that have formed around a beryllium particle lodged in the 
interstitium, which is tissue between the air sacs that can be affected 
by fibrosis or scarring. With time, the granulomas spread and can lead 
to chronic cough, shortness of breath (especially upon exertion), 
fatigue, abnormal pulmonary function, and lung fibrosis.
    While CBD primarily affects the lungs, it can also involve other 
organs such as the liver, skin, spleen, and kidneys. As discussed in 
more detail in this preamble, some studies demonstrate that 
sensitization and CBD cases have occurred in workplaces that use a wide 
range of beryllium compounds, including several beryllium salts, 
refined beryllium metal, beryllium oxide, and the beryllium alloys. 
While water-soluble and insoluble beryllium compounds have the 
potential to cause sensitization, it has been suggested that CBD is the 
result of occupational exposure to beryllium oxide and other water-
insoluble berylliums rather than exposure to water-soluble beryllium or 
beryllium ores. However, there are inadequate data, at this time, on 
employees selectively exposed to specific beryllium compounds to 
eliminate a potential CBD concern for any particular form of this 
metal. Regardless of the type of beryllium compound, in order to cause 
respiratory disease the inhaled beryllium must contain particulates 
that are small enough to reach the bronchoalveolar region of the lung 
where the disease takes place (OSHA, 2007).
    Some research suggests that skin exposure to small beryllium 
particles or beryllium-containing solutions may also lead to 
sensitization (Tinkle et al., 2003). These additional risk factors may 
explain why some individuals with seemingly brief, low level exposure 
to airborne beryllium become sensitized while others with long-term 
high exposures do not. Other studies indicate that even though 
employees sensitized to beryllium do not exhibit clinical symptoms, 
their immune function is altered such that inhalation to previously 
safe levels of beryllium can now trigger serious lung disease (Kreiss 
et al., 1996; Kreiss et al., 1997; Kelleher et al., 2001 and Rossman, 
2001).
    In the 1980s, the laboratory blood test known as the BeLPT was 
developed. The test substantially improved identification of beryllium-
sensitized individuals and provides an opportunity to diagnose CBD at 
an early stage. The BeLPT measures the ability of immune cells (i.e., 
peripheral blood lymphocytes) to react with beryllium. It has been 
reported that the BeLPT can identify 70 to 90 percent of those 
sensitized with a high specificity (approximately 1 to 3 percent false 
positives) (Newman et al., 2001; Stange et al., 2004).
    An employee with an abnormal BeLPT (i.e., the individual is 
sensitized) can undergo fiber-optic bronchoscopy to obtain a lung 
biopsy sample from which granulomatous lung inflammation can be 
pathologically observed prior to the onset of symptoms. The combination 
of a confirmed abnormal BeLPT (that is, a second abnormal result from 
the BeLPT) and microscopic evidence of granuloma formation is 
considered diagnostic for CBD. The BeLPT assists in differentiating CBD 
from other granulomatous lung diseases (e.g., sarcoidosis) with similar 
lung

[[Page 47750]]

pathology. This pre-clinical diagnostic tool provides opportunities for 
early intervention that did not exist when diagnosis relied on clinical 
symptoms, chest x-rays, and abnormal pulmonary function (OSHA, 2007).
    The BeLPT/lung biopsy diagnostic approach has been utilized in 
several occupational surveys and surveillance programs over the last 
fifteen years. The findings have expanded scientific awareness of 
sensitization and CBD prevalence among beryllium employees and provided 
a better understanding of its work-related risk factors. Some of the 
more informative studies come from nuclear weapons facilities operated 
by the Department of Energy (Viet et al., 2000; Stange et al., 2001; 
DOE/HSS Report, 2006), a beryllium ceramics plant in Arizona (Kreiss et 
al., 1996; Henneberger et al., 2001; Cummings et al., 2007), a 
beryllium production plant in Ohio (Kreiss et al., 1997; Kent et al., 
2001), a beryllium machining facility in Alabama (Kelleher et al., 
2001; Madl et al., 2007), and a beryllium alloy plant (Shuler et al., 
2005) and another beryllium processing plant (Rosenman et al., 2005), 
both in Pennsylvania. The prevalence of beryllium sensitization from 
these surveyed workforces generally ranged from 1 to 10 percent with a 
prevalence of CBD from 0.6 to 8 percent.
    In most of the surveys discussed above, 36-100 percent of those 
workers who initially tested positive with the BeLPT were diagnosed 
with CBD upon pathological evaluation. Most of these workers diagnosed 
with CBD had worked four to10 years on the job, although some were 
diagnosed within several months of employment. Surveys that found a 
high proportion (e.g., larger than 50 percent) of CBD among the 
sensitized employees were from facilities with a large number of 
employees who had been exposed to respirable beryllium for many years. 
It has been estimated from ongoing surveillance of sensitized 
individuals, with an average follow-up time of 4.5 years, that 37 
percent of beryllium-exposed employees were estimated to progress to 
CBD (Newman et al, 2005). Another study of nuclear weapons facility 
employees enrolled in an ongoing medical surveillance program found 
that only about 20 percent of sensitized individuals employed less than 
five years eventually were diagnosed with CBD while 40 percent of 
sensitized employees employed ten years or more developed CBD (Stange 
et al., 2001). This observation, along with the study findings that CBD 
prevalence increases with cumulative exposure (described below), 
suggests that sensitized employees who acquire a higher lung burden of 
beryllium may be at greater risk of developing CBD than sensitized 
employees who have lesser amounts of beryllium in their lungs.
    The greatest prevalence of sensitization and CBD were reported for 
production processes that involve heating beryllium metal (e.g., 
furnace operations, hot wire pickling, and annealing) or generating and 
handling beryllium powder (e.g., machining, forming, firing). For 
example, nearly 15 percent of machinists at the Arizona beryllium 
ceramics plant were sensitized, compared to just 1 percent of workers 
who never worked in machining (Kreiss et al., 1996). A low prevalence 
of sensitization and CBD was reported among current employees at the 
Department of Energy (DOE) clean-up sites where beryllium was once used 
in the production of nuclear weapons (DOE/OSS, 2006). These sites have 
been subject to the DOE CBD-prevention programs since 1999. While the 
prevalence of sensitization and CBD in non-production jobs was less, 
cases of CBD were found among secretaries, office employees, and 
security guards. CBD cases have also been reported in downstream uses 
of beryllium such as dental laboratories and metal recycling (OSHA, 
2007).
    The potential importance of respirable and ultrafine beryllium 
particulates in the onset of CBD is illustrated in studies of employees 
at a large beryllium metal, alloy, and oxide production plant in Ohio. 
An initial cross-sectional survey reported that the highest prevalence 
of sensitization and CBD occurred among workers employed in beryllium 
metal production, even though the highest airborne total mass 
concentrations of beryllium were generally among employees operating 
the beryllium alloy furnaces in a different area of the plant (Kreiss 
et al., 1997). Preliminary follow-up investigations of particle size-
specific sampling at five furnace sites within the plant determined 
that the highest respirable (e.g., particles less than10 [mu]m in 
diameter) and alveolar-deposited (e.g., particles less than1 [mu]m in 
diameter) beryllium mass and particle number concentrations, as 
collected by a general area impactor device, were measured at the 
beryllium metal production furnaces rather than the beryllium alloy 
furnaces (Kent et al., 2001; McCawley et al., 2001). A statistically 
significant linear trend was reported between the above alveolar-
deposited particle mass concentration and prevalence of CBD and 
sensitization in the furnace production areas. On the other hand, a 
linear trend was not found for CBD and sensitization prevalence and 
total beryllium mass concentration. The authors concluded that these 
findings suggest that alveolar-deposited particles may be a more 
relevant exposure metric for predicting the incidence of CBD or 
sensitization than the total mass concentration of airborne beryllium 
(OSHA, 2007).
    Several epidemiological cohort studies have reported excess lung 
cancer mortality among workers employed in U.S. beryllium production 
and processing plants during the 1930s to 1960s. The largest and most 
comprehensive study investigated the mortality experience of over 9,000 
workers employed in seven different beryllium processing plants over a 
30 year period (Ward et. al., 1992). The employees at the two oldest 
facilities (i.e., Lorain, OH and Reading, PA) were found to have 
significant excess lung cancer mortality relative to the U.S. 
population. These two plants were believed to have the highest exposure 
levels to beryllium. A different analysis of the lung cancer mortality 
in this cohort using various local reference populations and alternate 
adjustments for smoking generally found smaller, non-significant, 
excess mortality among the beryllium employees (Levy et al., 2002). All 
the cohort studies are limited by a lack of job history and air 
monitoring data that would allow investigation of mortality trends with 
beryllium exposure.
    The weight of evidence indicates that beryllium compounds should be 
regarded as potential occupational lung carcinogens, and OSHA has 
regulated it since 1974. Other organizations, such as the International 
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program 
(NTP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have reached 
similar conclusions with respect to the carcinogenicity of beryllium.
3. A Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed 
Rule
    The objective of the proposed beryllium standard is to reduce the 
number of fatalities and illnesses occurring among employees exposed to 
beryllium. This objective will be achieved by requiring employers to 
install engineering controls where appropriate and to provide employees 
with the equipment, respirators, training, medical surveillance, and 
other protective measures to perform their jobs safely. The legal basis 
for the rule is the responsibility given the U.S.

[[Page 47751]]

Department of Labor through the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (OSH Act). The OSH Act provides that, in promulgating health 
standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents, the 
Secretary ``shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to 
the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence that 
no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional 
capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt 
with by such standard for the period of his working life.'' 29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(5). See Section II of this preamble for a more detailed 
discussion.
4. A Description of, and an Estimate of, the Number of Small Entities 
to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
    OSHA has completed a preliminary analysis of the impacts associated 
with this proposed rule, including an analysis of the type and number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply. In order to 
determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this 
rulemaking, OSHA used the definitions of small entities developed by 
the Small Business Administration (SBA) for each industry.
    The proposed standard would impact occupational exposures to 
beryllium in all forms, compounds, and mixtures in general industry. 
Based on the definitions of small entities developed by SBA for each 
industry, the proposal is estimated to potentially affect a total of 
3,741 small entities as shown in Table IX-1 in Chapter IX of the PEA.
    The Agency also estimated costs and conducted a screening analysis 
for very small employers (those with fewer than 20 employees). OSHA 
estimates that approximately 2,875 very small entities would be 
affected by the proposed standard, as shown in Table III-13 in Chapter 
III of the PEA.
5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
    Tables IX-23 and IX-24 show the average costs of the proposed 
standard by NAICS code and by compliance requirement (PEL/STEL or 
ancillary provisions) for, respectively, small entities (classified as 
small by SBA) and very small entities (those with fewer than 20 
employees). Total costs are reported as N/A for NAICS codes with no 
affected entities in the relevant size classification. The weighted 
average cost per small entity for the proposed rule would be about 
$8,638 annually, with PEL/STEL compliance accounting for about 23 
percent of the costs and ancillary provisions accounting for about 77 
percent of the costs.
    The weighted average cost per very small entity for the proposed 
rule would be about $2,212 annually, with PEL/STEL compliance 
accounting for about 39 percent of the costs and ancillary provisions 
accounting for about 61 percent of the costs.

[[Page 47752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.037


[[Page 47753]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.038


[[Page 47754]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.039


[[Page 47755]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.040

6. Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule
    Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act exempts the working conditions for 
certain Federal and non-Federal employees from the provisions of the 
OSH Act to the extent that other Federal agencies exercise statutory 
authority to prescribe and enforce occupational safety and health 
standards. The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a regulation in 1999 
entitled Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) (10 CFR 
part 850, 64 FR 68854-68914, December 8, 1999). Additionally, DOE 
issued 10 CFR part

[[Page 47756]]

851, Worker Safety and Health Program (71 FR 6931-6948, February 9, 
2006), which establishes requirements for worker safety and health for 
DOE contractors at DOE sites. The CBDPP establishes a beryllium program 
for DOE employees and DOE contractor employees. Therefore, under 
Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, OSHA's beryllium standard would not 
apply to work subject to the CBDPP. DOE has included in its regulations 
a requirement for compliance with any more stringent PEL established by 
OSHA in rulemaking (10 CFR 850.22). OSHA requests comment on the 
potential overlap of DOE's rule with OSHA's proposed rule. (See I. 
Issues and Alternatives in this preamble).
    There is also a Federal statute addressing the compensation of some 
employees with beryllium related illnesses--The Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000 and its 
subsequent amendments. The EEOICPA creates a Federal employees' 
compensation program that covers beryllium-related health effects for 
DOE employees and its contractor employees, including many private 
companies that work away from DOE sites. Several of the private 
companies whose employees are covered by the OSH Act, either directly 
in amendments to the OSH Act or identified in subsequent Department of 
Labor regulations on that Act, would be covered by an OSHA occupational 
health standard for beryllium and EEOICPA.
    There would be no conflict or duplication, however, between an OSHA 
standard and the EEOICPA. In general, the OSHA standard would have 
requirements to protect employee health in the future, and the EEOICPA 
provides compensation for employees who have developed beryllium-
related illness. There is some overlap between the two in that they may 
both require similar medical examinations, or require employers to 
provide some compensation to employees, but the proposed OSHA standard 
specifically contemplates and addresses that overlap to avoid conflict 
and duplication. The explanation for proposed paragraph (k) in Section 
XVIII of this preamble, Summary and Explanation, notes that employers 
may satisfy the both examination requirements with a single 
examination, and the proposed standard specifies that the amount of an 
employer's financial obligations will be reduced by the amount of 
EEOICPA payments received by that employee (see proposed paragraph 
(l)(4)).
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule Which Accomplish the Stated 
Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant 
Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
    This section first discusses several provisions in the proposed 
standard that OSHA has adopted or modified based on comments from small 
entity representatives (SERs) during the SBREFA process or on 
recommendations made by the SBAR Panel as potentially alleviating 
impacts on small entities. Then, the Agency presents various regulatory 
alternatives to the proposed OSHA beryllium standard.
a. Elements of the Proposed Rule To Reduce Impacts on Small Entities
    During the SBAR Panel, SERs requested a clearer definition of the 
triggers for medical surveillance. This concern was rooted in the cost 
of BeLPTs and the trigger of potential skin contact. For the proposed 
rule, the Agency has removed skin contact as a trigger for medical 
surveillance along with providing four clearly defined trigger 
mechanisms. The newly defined medical surveillance provision reduces 
the number of employees requiring a BeLPT, particularly for small 
businesses with low exposures.
    Some of the SERs in low-exposure industries wanted to be 
``shielded'' from ``expensive'' compliance with a standard they 
perceive to be unnecessary and suggested a PEL-only standard that 
triggered provisions on the PEL. The alternative of a PEL-only standard 
and ancillary provisions triggered only by the PEL are discussed in 
Chapter 8 of the PEA (and is repeated in the following section).
    Some SERs were already applying many of the protective controls and 
practices that would be required by the ancillary provisions of the 
standard. However, many SERs objected to the requirements regarding 
hygiene facilities. For this proposed rule, OSHA has preliminarily 
concluded that all affected employers currently have hand washing 
facilities. OSHA has also preliminarily concluded that no affected 
employers will be required to install showers. The Agency has 
determined that the long-term rental of modular units was 
representative of costs for a range of reasonable approaches to comply 
with the change room part of the provision. Alternatively, employers 
could renovate and rearrange their work areas in order to meet the 
requirements of this provision.
b. Regulatory Alternatives
    For the convenience of those persons interested only in OSHA's 
regulatory flexibility analysis, this section repeats the discussion of 
the various regulatory alternatives to the proposed OSHA beryllium 
standard presented in Chapter VIII of the PEA, but only for the 
regulatory alternatives to the proposed OSHA beryllium standard that 
lower costs. OSHA believes that this presentation of specific 
regulatory alternatives explores the possibility of less costly ways 
(than the proposed rule) to provide an adequate level of worker 
protection from exposure to beryllium.
    Each regulatory alternative presented here is described and 
analyzed relative to the proposed rule. Where appropriate, the Agency 
notes whether the regulatory alternative, to be a legitimate candidate 
for OSHA consideration, requires evidence contrary to the Agency's 
preliminary findings of significant risk and feasibility. As noted 
above, for this chapter on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
the Agency is only presenting regulatory alternatives that reduce costs 
for small entities. (See Chapter VIII for the full list of all 
alternatives analysed.) There are eight regulatory alternatives and an 
informational alternative that reduce costs for small entities (and for 
all businesses in total). Using the numbering scheme from Chapter VIII, 
these are Regulatory Alternatives #5, #6, #7, #8. #12, #16, #18, and 
#22. To facilitate comment, OSHA has organized these potentially less 
costly regulatory alternatives (and a general discussion of possible 
phase-ins of the rule) into four categories: (1) Exposure limits; (2) 
methods of compliance; (3) ancillary provisions; and (4) timing.
(1) Exposure limit (TWA PEL, STEL, and ACTION LEVEL) alternatives
    Regulatory Alternative #5, which would set a TWA PEL at 0.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ and an action level at 0.25 [mu]g/m\3\, both higher than in the 
proposal, responds to an issue raised during the Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) process conducted in 2007 to consider a draft 
OSHA beryllium proposed rule that culminated in an SBAR Panel report 
(SBAR, 2008). That report included a recommendation that OSHA consider 
both the economic impact of a low TWA PEL and regulatory alternatives 
that would ease cost burden for small entities. OSHA has provided a 
full analysis of the economic impact of its proposed PELs (see Chapter 
VI of the PEA), and Regulatory Alternative #5

[[Page 47757]]

addresses the second half of that recommendation. However, the higher 
0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ TWA PEL does not appear to be consistent with the 
Agency's mandate under the OSH Act to promulgate a lower PEL if it is 
feasible and could prevent additional fatalities and non-fatal 
illnesses. The data presented in Table IX-25 below indicate that the 
lower TWA PEL would prevent additional fatalities and non-fatal 
illnesses, but nevertheless the Agency solicits comments on this 
alternative and OSHA's analysis of the costs and benefits associated 
with it.
    Table IX-25 below presents, for informational purposes, the 
estimated costs, benefits, and net benefits of the proposed rule under 
the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and for the regulatory 
alternative of a TWA PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ (Regulatory Alternative #5), 
using alternative discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. Table IX-
25 also breaks out costs by provision and benefits by type of disease 
and by morbidity/mortality. As Table IX-25 shows, going from a TWA PEL 
of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ to a TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ would prevent, 
annually, an additional 29 beryllium-related fatalities and an 
additional 15 non-fatal illnesses.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 47758]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.041


[[Page 47759]]


BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Informational Alternative Featuring Unchanged PEL but Full Ancillary 
Provisions
    An Informational Analysis: This proposed regulation has the 
somewhat unusual feature for an OSHA substance-specific health standard 
that most of the quantified benefits would come from the ancillary 
provisions rather than from meeting the PEL with engineering controls. 
OSHA decided to analyze for informational purposes the effect of 
retaining the existing PEL but applying all of the ancillary 
provisions, including respiratory protection. Under this approach, the 
TWA PEL would remain at 2.0 micrograms per cubic meter, but all of the 
other proposed provisions (including respiratory protection, which OSHA 
does not consider an ancillary provision) would be required with their 
triggers remaining the same as in the proposed rule--either the 
presence of airborne beryllium at any level (e.g., initial monitoring, 
written exposure control plan), at certain kinds of dermal exposure 
(PPE), at the action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (e.g., periodic 
monitoring, medical removal), or at 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (e.g., regulated 
areas, respiratory protection, medical surveillance).
    Given the record regarding beryllium exposures, this approach is 
not one OSHA could legally adopt because the absence of a more 
protective requirement for engineering controls would not be consistent 
with section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, which requires OSHA to ``set the 
standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the 
basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer 
material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such 
employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard 
for the period of his working life.'' For that reason, this additional 
analysis is provided strictly for informational purposes. EO 12866 and 
EO 13563 direct agencies to identify approaches that maximize net 
benefits, and this analysis is purely for the purpose of exploring 
whether this approach would hold any real promise to maximize net 
benefits if it was permissible under the OSH Act. It does not appear to 
hold such promise because an ancillary-provisions-only approach would 
not be as protective and thus offers fewer benefits than one that 
includes a lower PEL and engineering controls, and OSHA estimates the 
costs would be about the same (or slightly lower, depending on certain 
assumptions) under that approach as under the traditional proposed 
approach.
    On an industry by industry basis, OSHA found that some industries 
would have lower costs if they could adopt the ancillary-provisions-
only approach. Some employers would use engineering controls where they 
are cheaper, even if they are not mandatory. OSHA does not have 
sufficient information to do an analysis of the employer-by-employer 
situations in which there exist some employers for whom the ancillary-
provisions-only approach might be cheaper. In the majority of affected 
industries, the Agency estimates there are no costs saving to the 
ancillary-provisions-only approach. However, OSHA estimates a total of 
$2,675,828 per year in costs saving for entire industries where the 
ancillary-provisions-only approach would be less expensive.
    The above discussion does not account for the possibility that the 
lack of engineering controls would result in higher beryllium exposures 
for workers in adjacent (non-production) work areas due to the 
increased level of beryllium in the air. Because of a lack of data, and 
because the issue did not arise in the other regulatory alternatives 
OSHA considered (all of which have a PEL of less than 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\), 
OSHA did not carefully examine exposure levels in non-production areas 
for either cost or benefit purposes. To the extent such exposure levels 
would be above the action level, there would be additional costs for 
respiratory protection.
    The ancillary-provisions-only approach adds uncertainty to the 
benefits analysis such that the benefits of the rule as proposed may 
exceed, and perhaps greatly exceed, the benefits of this ancillary-
provisions-only approach:
    (1) Most exposed individuals would be in respirators, which OSHA 
considers less effective than engineering controls in preventing 
employee exposure to beryllium. OSHA last did an extensive review of 
the evidence on effectiveness of respirators for its APFs rulemaking in 
2006 (71 FR 50128-45 Aug 24, 2006). OSHA has not in the past tried to 
quantify the size of this effect, but it could partially negate the 
estimated benefits of 92 CBD deaths prevented per year and 4 lung 
cancer cases prevented per year by the proposed standard.
    (2) As noted above, in the proposal OSHA did not consider benefits 
caused by reductions in exposure in non-production areas. Unless 
employers act to reduce exposures in the production areas, the absence 
of a requirement for such controls would largely negate such benefits 
from reductions in exposure in the non-productions areas.
    (3) OSHA believes that there is a strong possibility that the 
benefits of the ancillary provisions (a midpoint estimate of 
eliminating 45 percent of all remaining cases of CBD) would be 
partially or wholly negated in the absence of engineering controls that 
would reduce both airborne and surface dust levels. The measured 
reduction in benefits from ancillary provision was in a facility with 
average exposure levels of less than 0.2 [micro]g/m \3\.
    Based on these considerations, OSHA believes that the ancillary-
provisions-only approach is not one that is likely to maximize net 
benefits. The costs saving, if any, are estimated to be small, and the 
difficult-to-measure declines in benefits could be substantial.
(2) A Method-of-compliance Alternative
    Paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed rule contains requirements for the 
implementation of engineering and work practice controls to minimize 
beryllium exposures in beryllium work areas. For each operation in a 
beryllium work area, employers must ensure that at least one of the 
following engineering and work practice controls is in place to 
minimize employee exposure: Material and/or process substitution; 
ventilated enclosures; local exhaust ventilation; or process controls, 
such as wet methods and automation. Employers are exempt from using 
engineering and work practice controls only when they can show that 
such controls are not feasible or where exposures are below the action 
level based on two exposure samples taken seven days apart.
    These requirements, which are based on the stakeholders' 
recommended beryllium standard that beryllium industry and union 
stakeholders submitted to OSHA in 2012 (Materion and USW, 2012), 
address a concern associated with the proposed TWA PEL. OSHA expects 
that day-to-day changes in workplace conditions, such as workers' 
positioning or patterns of airflow, may cause frequent exposures above 
the TWA PEL in workplaces where periodic sampling indicates exposures 
are between the action level and the TWA PEL. As a result, the default 
under the standard is that the controls are required until the employer 
can demonstrate that exposures have not exceeded the action level from 
at least two separate measurements taken seven days apart.
    OSHA believes that substitution or engineering controls such as 
those outlined in paragraph (f)(2)(i) provide the most reliable means 
to control variability in exposure levels. However, OSHA also 
recognizes that the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(i) are

[[Page 47760]]

not typical of OSHA standards, which usually require engineering 
controls only where exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. The Agency is 
therefore considering Regulatory Alternative #6, which would drop the 
provisions of (f)(2)(i) from the proposed standard and make conforming 
edits to paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii). This regulatory alternative 
does not eliminate the need for engineering controls to comply with the 
proposed TWA PEL and STEL, but does eliminate the requirement to use 
one or more of the specified engineering or work practice controls 
where exposures equal or exceed the action level. As shown in Table IX-
26, Regulatory Alternative #6 would decrease the annualized cost of the 
proposed rule by about $457,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent and 
by about $480,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent. OSHA has not been 
able to estimate the change in benefits resulting from Regulatory 
Alternative #6 at this time and invites public comment on this issue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.042

(3) Regulatory Alternatives That Affect Ancillary Provisions
    The proposed standard contains several ancillary provisions 
(provisions other than the exposure limits), including requirements for 
exposure assessment, medical surveillance, medical removal, training, 
and regulated areas or access control. As reported in Chapter V of the 
PEA, these ancillary provisions account for $27.8 million (about 72 
percent) of the total annualized costs of the rule ($37.6 million) 
using a 3 percent discount rate, or $28.6 million (about 73 percent) of 
the total annualized costs of the rule ($39.1 million) using a 7 
percent discount rate. The most expensive of the ancillary provisions 
are the requirements for housekeeping and training, with annualized 
costs of $12.6 million and $5.8 million, respectively, at a 3 percent 
discount rate ($12.9 million and $5.8 million, respectively, at a 7 
percent discount rate).
    OSHA's reasons for including each of the proposed ancillary 
provisions are explained in Section XVIII of this preamble, Summary and 
Explanation of the Standards. In particular, OSHA is proposing the 
requirements for exposure assessment to provide a basis for ensuring 
that appropriate measures are in place to limit worker exposures. 
Medical surveillance is especially important because workers exposed 
above the proposed TWA PEL, as well as many workers exposed below the 
proposed TWA PEL, are at significant risk of death and illness. Medical 
surveillance would allow for identification of beryllium-related 
adverse health effects at an early stage so that appropriate 
intervention measures can be taken. OSHA is proposing regulated areas 
and access control because they serve to limit exposure to beryllium to 
as few employees as possible. OSHA is proposing worker training to 
ensure that employers inform employees of the hazards to which they are 
exposed, along with associated protective measures, so that employees 
understand how they can minimize their exposure to beryllium. Worker 
training on beryllium-related work practices is particularly important 
in controlling beryllium exposures because engineering controls 
frequently require action on the part of workers to function 
effectively.
    OSHA has examined a variety of regulatory alternatives involving 
changes to one or more of the proposed ancillary provisions. The 
incremental cost of each of these regulatory alternatives and its 
impact on the total costs of the proposed rule is summarized in Table 
IX-27 at the end of this section. OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that several of these ancillary provisions will increase the benefits 
of the proposed rule, for example, by helping to ensure the TWA PEL is 
not exceeded or by lowering the risks to workers given the significant 
risk remaining at the proposed TWA PEL. However, except for Regulatory 
Alternative #7 (involving the elimination of all ancillary provisions), 
OSHA did not estimate changes in monetized benefits for the regulatory 
alternatives that affect ancillary provisions. Two regulatory 
alternatives that involve all ancillary provisions are presented below 
(#7 and #8), followed

[[Page 47761]]

by regulatory alternatives for regulated areas (#12), for medical 
surveillance (#16 and #18), and for medical removal (#22).
(a) All Ancillary Provisions
    The SBAR Panel recommended that OSHA analyze a PEL-only standard as 
a regulatory alternative. The Panel also recommended that OSHA consider 
not applying ancillary provisions of the standard where exposure levels 
are low so as to minimize costs for small businesses (SBAR, 2008). In 
response to these recommendations, OSHA analyzed Regulatory Alternative 
#7, a PEL-only standard, and Regulatory Alternative #8, which would 
apply ancillary provisions of the beryllium standard only where 
exposures exceed the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or the proposed 
STEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Regulatory Alternative #7 would solely update 1910.1000 Tables Z-1 
and Z-2, so that the proposed TWA PEL and STEL would apply to all 
workers in general industry. This alternative would eliminate all of 
the ancillary provisions of the proposed rule, including exposure 
assessment, medical surveillance, medical removal, PPE, housekeeping, 
training, and regulated areas or access control. Under this regulatory 
alternative, OSHA estimates that the costs for the proposed ancillary 
provisions of the rule (estimated at $27.8 million annually at a 3 
percent discount rate) would be eliminated. In order to meet the PELs, 
employers would still commonly need to do monitoring, train workers on 
the use of controls, and set up some kind of regulated areas to 
indicate where respirator use would be required. It is also likely 
that, under this alternative, many employers would follow the 
recommendations of Materion and the United Steelworkers to provide 
medical surveillance, PPE, and other protective measures for their 
workers (Materion and USW, 2012). OSHA has not attempted to estimate 
the extent to which these ancillary-provision costs would be incurred 
if they were not formally required or whether any of these costs under 
Regulatory Alternative #7 would reasonably be attributable to the 
proposed rule. OSHA welcomes comment on the issue.
    OSHA has also estimated the effect of this regulatory alternative 
on the benefits of the rule. As a result of eliminating all of the 
ancillary provisions, annualized benefits are estimated to decrease 57 
percent, relative to the proposed rule, from $575.8 million to $249.1 
million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $255.3 million to 
$110.4 million using a 7 percent discount rate. This estimate follows 
from OSHA's analysis of benefits in Chapter VII of the PEA, which found 
that about 57 percent of the benefits of the proposed rule, evaluated 
at their mid-point value, were attributable to the combination of the 
ancillary provisions. As these estimates show, OSHA expects that the 
benefits estimated under the proposed rule will not be fully achieved 
if employers do not implement the ancillary provisions of the proposed 
rule.
    Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a 
comprehensive standard is needed to protect workers exposed to 
beryllium. The stakeholders' recommended standard that representatives 
of the primary beryllium manufacturing industry and the United 
Steelworkers union provided to OSHA confirms the importance of 
ancillary provisions in protecting workers from the harmful effects of 
beryllium exposure (Materion and USW, 2012). Ancillary provisions such 
as personal protective clothing and equipment, regulated areas, medical 
surveillance, hygiene areas, housekeeping requirements, and hazard 
communication all serve to reduce the risks to beryllium-exposed 
workers beyond that which the proposed TWA PEL alone could achieve.
    Moreover, where there is continuing significant risk at the TWA 
PEL, the decision in the Asbestos case (Bldg. and Constr. Trades Dep't, 
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1988)) indicated that 
OSHA should use its legal authority to impose additional requirements 
on employers to further reduce risk when those requirements will result 
in a greater than de minimis incremental benefit to workers' health. 
Nevertheless, OSHA requests comment on this alternative.
    Under Regulatory Alternative #8, several ancillary provisions that 
the current proposal would require under a variety of exposure 
conditions (e.g., dermal contact, any airborne exposure, exposure at or 
above the action level) would instead only apply where exposure levels 
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. Regulatory Alternative #8 affects the 
following provisions of the proposed standard:
-- Exposure monitoring: Whereas the proposed standard requires annual 
monitoring when exposure levels are at or above the action level and at 
or below the TWA PEL, Regulatory Alternative #8 would require annual 
exposure monitoring only where exposure levels exceed the TWA PEL or 
STEL;
--Written exposure control plan: Whereas the proposed standard requires 
written exposure control plans to be maintained in any facility covered 
by the standard, Regulatory Alternative #8 would require only 
facilities with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL to maintain a plan;
-- Housekeeping: Whereas the proposed standard's housekeeping 
requirements apply across a wide variety of beryllium exposure 
conditions, Alternative #8 would limit housekeeping requirements to 
areas and employees with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL;
-- PPE: Whereas the proposed standard requires PPE for employees under 
a variety of conditions, such as exposure to soluble beryllium or 
visible contamination with beryllium, Alternative #8 would require PPE 
only for employees exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL;
-- Medical Surveillance: Whereas the proposed standard's medical 
surveillance provisions require employers to offer medical surveillance 
to employees with signs or symptoms of beryllium-related health effects 
regardless of their exposure level, Alternative #8 would require 
surveillance only for those employees exposed above the TWA PEL or 
STEL.
    To estimate the cost savings for this alternative, OSHA re-
estimated the group of workers that would fall under the above 
provisions and the changes to their scope. Combining these various 
adjustments along with associated unit costs, OSHA estimates that, 
under this regulatory alternative, the costs for the proposed rule 
would decline from $37.6 million to $18.9 million using a 3 percent 
discount rate and from $39.1 million to $20.0 million using a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    The Agency has not quantified the impact of this alternative on the 
benefits of the rule. However, ancillary provisions that offer 
protective measures to workers exposed below the proposed TWA PEL, such 
as personal protective clothing and equipment, beryllium work areas, 
hygiene areas, housekeeping requirements, and hazard communication, all 
serve to reduce the risks to beryllium-exposed workers beyond that 
which the proposed TWA PEL and STEL could achieve. OSHA's preliminary 
conclusion is that the requirements triggered by the action level and 
other exposures below the proposed PELs will result in very real and 
necessary, but difficult to quantify, further reduction in risk beyond 
that provided by the PELs alone.
    The remainder of this section discusses additional regulatory 
alternatives that apply to individual

[[Page 47762]]

ancillary provisions. At this time, OSHA is not able to quantify the 
effects of these regulatory alternatives on benefits. The Agency 
solicits comment on the effects of these regulatory alternatives on the 
benefits of the proposed rule.
(b) Regulated Areas
    Proposed paragraph (e) requires employers to establish and maintain 
beryllium work areas wherever employees are exposed to airborne 
beryllium, regardless of the level of exposure, and regulated areas 
wherever airborne concentrations of beryllium exceed the TWA PEL or 
STEL. Employers are required to demarcate beryllium work areas and 
regulated areas and limit access to regulated areas to authorized 
persons.
    The SBAR Panel report recommended that OSHA consider dropping or 
limiting the provision for regulated areas (SBAR, 2008). In response to 
this recommendation, OSHA examined Regulatory Alternative #12, which 
would eliminate the requirement that employers establish regulated 
areas. This alternative is meant only to eliminate the requirement to 
set up and demarcate specific physical areas: All ancillary provisions 
would be triggered by the same conditions as under the standard's 
definition of a ``regulated area.'' For example, under the current 
proposal, employees who work in regulated areas for at least 30 days 
annually are eligible for medical surveillance. If OSHA were to remove 
the requirement to establish regulated areas, the medical surveillance 
provisions would be altered so that employees who work more than 30 
days annually in jobs or areas with exposures that exceed the TWA PEL 
or STEL are eligible for medical surveillance. This alternative would 
not eliminate the proposed requirement to establish beryllium work 
areas. As shown in Table IX-27, Regulatory Alternative #12 would 
decrease the annualized cost of the proposed rule by about $522,000 
using a 3 percent discount rate, and by about $523,000 using a 7 
percent discount rate.
(e) Medical Surveillance
    The proposed requirements for medical surveillance include: (1) 
Medical examinations, including a test for beryllium sensitization, for 
employees who are exposed to beryllium in a regulated area (i.e., above 
the proposed TWA PEL or STEL) for 30 days or more per year, who are 
exposed to beryllium in an emergency, or who show signs or symptoms of 
CBD; and (2) CT scans for employees who were exposed above the proposed 
TWA PEL or STEL for more than 30 days in a 12-month period for 5 years 
or more. The proposed standard would require annual medical exams to be 
provided for employees exposed in a regulated area for 30 days or more 
per year and for employees showing signs or symptoms of CBD, while 
tests for beryllium sensitization and CT scans would be provided to 
eligible employees biennially.
    OSHA estimated in Chapter V of the PEA that the medical 
surveillance requirements would apply to 4,528 workers in general 
industry, of whom 387 already receive that surveillance.\44\ In Chapter 
V, OSHA estimated the costs of medical surveillance for the remaining 
4,141 workers who would now have such protection due to the proposed 
standard. The Agency's preliminary analysis indicates that four workers 
with beryllium sensitization and six workers with CBD will be referred 
to pulmonary specialists annually as a result of this medical 
surveillance. Medical surveillance is particularly important for this 
rule because beryllium-exposed workers, including many workers exposed 
below the proposed PELs, are at significant risk of illness. OSHA did 
not estimate, and the benefits analysis does not include, monetized 
benefits resulting from early discovery of illness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See current compliance rates for medical surveillance in 
Chapter V of the PEA, Table V-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Medical surveillance was a subject of special concern to SERs 
during the SBAR Panel process, and the SBAR Panel offered many comments 
and recommendations related to medical surveillance for OSHA's 
consideration. Some of the Panel's concerns have been partially 
addressed in this proposal, which was modified since the SBAR Panel was 
convened (see this preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation 
of the Proposed Standard, for more detailed discussion). The regulatory 
alternatives presented in this sub-section (#16, #18, and #20) also 
respond to recommendations by the SBAR Panel to reduce burdens on small 
businesses by dropping or reducing the frequency of medical 
surveillance requirements. OSHA has preliminarily determined that a 
significant risk of beryllium sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer 
exists at exposure levels below the proposed TWA PEL and that there is 
evidence that beryllium sensitization can occur even from short-term 
exposures (see this preamble at Section V, Health Effects, and Section 
VIII, Significance of Risk). The Agency therefore anticipates that more 
employees would develop adverse health effects without receiving the 
benefits of early intervention in the disease process because they are 
not eligible for medical surveillance (see this preamble at Section V, 
Health Effects).
    In response to concerns raised during the SBAR Panel process about 
testing requirements, OSHA is considering two regulatory alternatives 
that would provide greater flexibility in the program of tests provided 
as part of an employer's medical surveillance program. Under Regulatory 
Alternative #16, employers would not be required to offer employees 
testing for beryllium sensitization. As shown in Table IX-27, this 
alternative would decrease the annualized cost of the proposed rule by 
about $710,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent, and by about 
$724,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.
    Regulatory Alternative #18 would eliminate the CT scan requirement 
from the proposed rule. This alternative would decrease the annualized 
cost of the proposed rule by about $472,000 using a discount rate of 3 
percent, and by about $481,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.
    OSHA is considering several alternatives to the proposed frequency 
of sensitization testing, CT scans, and general medical examinations. 
The frequency of periodic medical surveillance is an important factor 
in the efficacy of the surveillance in protecting worker health. 
Regular, appropriately frequent medical surveillance promotes awareness 
of beryllium-related health effects and early intervention in disease 
processes among workers. In addition, the longer the time interval 
between when a worker becomes sensitized and when the worker's case is 
identified in the surveillance program, the more difficult it will be 
to identify and address the exposure conditions that led to 
sensitization. Therefore, reducing the frequency of sensitization 
testing would reduce the usefulness of the surveillance information in 
identifying problem areas and reducing risks to other workers. These 
concerns must be weighed against the costs and other burdens of 
surveillance.
    Finally, under Regulatory Alternative #20, employers would only 
have to provide all periodic components of the medical surveillance 
exams biennially to eligible employees. This alternative would decrease 
the annualized cost of the proposed rule by about $446,000 using a 
discount rate of 3 percent and by about $433,000 using a discount rate 
of 7 percent.

[[Page 47763]]

(d) Medical Removal
    Under paragraph (l) of the proposed standard, Medical Removal, 
employees in jobs with exposure at or above the action level become 
eligible for medical removal when they are diagnosed with CBD or 
confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization. When an employee 
chooses removal, the employer is required to remove the employee to 
comparable work in an environment where beryllium exposure is below the 
action level if such work is available and the employee is either 
already qualified or can be trained within one month. If comparable 
work is not available, paragraph (l) would require the employer to 
place the employee on paid leave for six months or until comparable 
work becomes available (whichever comes first). Or, rather than 
choosing removal, an eligible employee could choose to remain in a job 
with exposure at or above the action level and wear a respirator. The 
proposed medical removal protection (MRP) requirements are based on the 
stakeholders' recommended beryllium standard that representatives of 
the beryllium production industry and the United Steelworkers union 
submitted to OSHA in 2012 (Materion and USW, 2012).
    The scientific information on effects of exposure cessation is 
limited at this time, but the available evidence suggests that removal 
from exposure can be beneficial for individuals who are sensitized or 
have early-stage CBD (see this preamble at Section VIII, Significance 
of Risk). As CBD progresses, symptoms become serious and debilitating. 
Steroid treatment is less effective at later stages, once fibrosis has 
developed (see this preamble at Section VIII, Significance of Risk). 
Given the progressive nature of the disease, OSHA believes it is 
reasonable to conclude that removal from exposure to beryllium will 
benefit sensitized employees and those with CBD. Physicians at National 
Jewish Health, one of the main CBD research and treatment sites in the 
US, ``consider it important and prudent for individuals with beryllium 
sensitization and CBD to minimize their exposure to airborne 
beryllium,'' and ``recommend individuals diagnosed with beryllium 
sensitization and CBD who continue to work in a beryllium industry to 
have exposure of no more than 0.01 micrograms per cubic meter of 
beryllium as an 8-hour time-weighted average'' (NJMRC, 2013). However, 
OSHA is aware that MRP may prove costly and burdensome for some 
employers and that the scientific literature on the effects of exposure 
cessation on the development of CBD among sensitized individuals and 
the progression from early-stage to late-stage CBD is limited.
    The SBAR Panel report included a recommendation that OSHA give 
careful consideration to the impacts that an MRP requirement could have 
on small businesses (SBAR, 2008). In response to this recommendation, 
OSHA analyzed Regulatory Alternative #22, which would remove the 
proposed requirement that employers offer MRP. As shown in Table IX-27, 
this alternative would decrease the annualized cost of the proposed 
rule by about $149,000 using a discount rate of 3 percent, and by about 
$166,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.

[[Page 47764]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.043

(5) Timing
    As proposed, the new standard would become effective 60 days 
following publication in the Federal Register. The majority of employer 
duties in the standard would become enforceable 90 days following the 
effective date. Change rooms, however, would not be required until one 
year after the effective date, and the deadline for engineering 
controls would be no later than two years after the effective date.
    OSHA invites suggestions for alternative phase-in schedules for 
engineering controls, medical surveillance, and other provisions of the 
standard. Although OSHA did not explicitly develop or quantitatively 
analyze any other regulatory alternatives involving longer-term or more 
complex phase-ins of the standard (possibly involving more delayed 
implementation dates for small businesses), some general outcomes are 
likely. For example, a longer phase-in time would have several 
advantages, such as reducing initial costs of the standard or allowing 
employers to coordinate their environmental and occupational safety and 
health control strategies to minimize potential costs. However, a 
longer phase-in would also postpone and reduce the benefits of the 
standard. Suggestions for alternatives may apply to specific industries 
(e.g., industries where first-year or annualized cost impacts are 
highest), specific size-classes of employers (e.g., employers with 
fewer than 20 employees), combinations of these factors, or all firms 
covered by the rule.
    OSHA requests comments on all these regulatory alternatives, 
including the Agency's regulatory alternatives presented above, the 
Agency's analysis of these alternatives, and whether there are other 
regulatory alternatives the Agency should consider.
SBAR Panel
    Table IX-28 lists all of the SBAR Panel recommendations and OSHA's 
response to those recommendations.

[[Page 47765]]



       Table IX-28--SBAR Panel Recommendations and OSHA Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Panel recommendation                    OSHA response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Panel recommends that OSHA evaluate  OSHA has reviewed its cost
 carefully the costs and technological    estimates and the
 feasibility of engineering controls at   technological feasibility of
 all PEL options, especially those at     engineering controls at
 the lowest levels.                       various PEL levels. These
                                          issues are discussed in the
                                          Regulatory Alternatives
                                          Chapter of the PEA.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA has removed the initial
 alternatives that would alleviate the    exposure monitoring
 need for monitoring in operations with   requirement for workers likely
 exposures far below the PEL. The Panel   to be exposed to beryllium by
 also recommends that OSHA consider       skin or eye contact through
 explaining more clearly how employers    routine handling of beryllium
 may use ``objective data'' to estimate   powders or dusts or contact
 exposures. Although the draft proposal   with contaminated surfaces.
 contains a provision allowing           The periodic monitoring
 employers to initially estimate          requirement presented in the
 exposures using ``objective data''       SBAR Panel report required
 (e.g., data showing that the action      monitoring every 6 months for
 level is unlikely to be exceeded for     airborne levels at or above
 the kinds of process or operations an    the action level but below the
 employer has), the SERs did not appear   PEL, and every 3 months for
 to have fully understood how this        exposures at or above the PEL.
 alternative may be used.                 The proposed standard requires
                                          annual exposure monitoring for
                                          levels at or above the action
                                          level and at or below the PEL.
                                         By reducing the frequency of
                                          periodic monitoring from every
                                          6 months (version submitted to
                                          the SBAR panel) to annually
                                          where exposure levels are at
                                          or below the PEL (the proposed
                                          standard), the Agency has
                                          lessened the need for
                                          monitoring in small business
                                          operations with exposures at
                                          or below the PEL.
                                         In this preamble, OSHA has
                                          clarified the circumstances
                                          under which an employer may
                                          use historical and objective
                                          data in lieu of initial
                                          monitoring.
                                         OSHA is also considering
                                          whether to create a guidance
                                          product on the use of
                                          objective data. These issues
                                          are discussed in this preamble
                                          at Section XVIII, Summary and
                                          Explanation of the Proposed
                                          Standard, (d): Exposure
                                          Monitoring.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  In this preamble, OSHA has
 providing some type of guidance to       clarified the circumstances
 describe how to use objective data to    under which an employer may
 estimate exposures in lieu of            use historical and objective
 conducting personal sampling.            data in lieu of initial
Using objective data could provide        monitoring. OSHA is also
 significant regulatory relief to         considering whether to create
 several industries where airborne        a guidance product on the use
 exposures are currently reported by      of objective data to satisfy
 SERs to be well below even the lowest    the requirements of the
 PEL option. In particular, since         proposed rule.
 several ancillary provisions, which     These issues are discussed in
 may have significant costs for small     this preamble at Section
 entities may be triggered by the PEL     XVIII, Summary and Explanation
 or an action level, OSHA should          of the Proposed Standard, (d):
 consider encouraging and simplifying     Exposure Monitoring.
 the development of objective data from
 a variety of sources.
The Panel recommends that OSHA revisit   SERs with very low exposure
 its analysis of the costs of regulated   levels or only occasional work
 areas if a very low PEL is proposed.     with beryllium will not be
 Drop or limit the provision for          required to have regulated
 regulated areas: SERs with very low      areas unless exposures are
 exposure levels or only occasional       above the proposed PEL of 0.2
 work with beryllium questioned the       [mu]g/m\3\.
 need for separating areas of work by    The proposed standard requires
 exposure level. Segregating machines     the employer to establish and
 or operations, SERs said, would affect   maintain a regulated area
 productivity and flexibility. Until      wherever employees are, or can
 the health risks of beryllium are        be expected to be exposed to
 known in their industries, SERs          airborne beryllium at levels
 challenged the need for regulated        above a PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
 areas.
The Panel recommends that OSHA revisit   The Agency has removed skin
 its cost model for hygiene areas to      exposure as a trigger for the
 reflect SERs' comments that estimated    hygiene provision. The
 costs are too low and more carefully     requirement for washing
 consider the opportunity costs of        facilities applies to each
 using space for hygiene areas where      employee working in a
 SERs report they have no unused space    beryllium work area. A
 in their physical plant for them. The    beryllium work area means any
 Panel also recommends that OSHA          work area where employees are,
 consider more clearly defining the       or can reasonably be expected
 triggers (skin exposure and              to be, exposed to airborne
 contaminated surfaces) for the hygiene   beryllium. OSHA has
 areas provisions. In addition, the       preliminarily concluded that
 Panel recommends that OSHA consider      all affected employers
 alternative requirements for hygiene     currently have hand-washing
 areas dependent on airborne exposure     facilities.
 levels or types of processes. Such      OSHA has also preliminarily
 alternatives might include, for          concluded that no affected
 example, hand washing facilities in      employers will be required to
 lieu of showers in particular cases or   install showers.
 different hygiene area triggers where   Change rooms have only been
 exposure levels are very low.            costed for regulated areas or
                                          where employees are, or can
                                          reasonably be expected to be,
                                          exposed to airborne beryllium
                                          at levels above the PEL. The
                                          Agency has determined that the
                                          long-term rental of modular
                                          units was representative of
                                          costs for a range of
                                          reasonable approaches to
                                          comply with the change room
                                          part of the provision.
                                          Alternatively, employers could
                                          renovate and rearrange their
                                          work areas in order to meet
                                          the requirements of this
                                          provision.

[[Page 47766]]

 
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  In this preamble, OSHA has
 clearly explaining the purpose of the    clarified the purpose of the
 housekeeping provision and describing    housekeeping provision.
 what affected employers must do to       However, due to the variety of
 achieve it. For example, OSHA should     work settings in which
 consider explaining more specifically    beryllium is used, OSHA has
 what surfaces need to be cleaned and     preliminarily concluded that a
 how frequently they need to be           highly specific directive on
 cleaned. The Panel recommends that the   what surfaces need to be
 Agency consider providing guidance in    cleaned, and how frequently,
 some form so that employers understand   would not provide effective
 what they must do. The Panel also        guidance to businesses.
 recommends that once the requirements    Instead, at the suggestion of
 are clarified that the Agency re-        industry and union
 analyzes its cost estimates.             stakeholders (Materion and
The Panel also recommends that OSHA       USW, 2012), OSHA's proposed
 reconsider whether the risk and cost     standard includes a more
 of all parts of the medical              flexible requirement for
 surveillance provisions are              employers to develop a written
 appropriate where exposure levels are    exposure control plan specific
 very low. In that context, the Panel     to their facilities. The
 recommends that OSHA should also         written exposure control plan
 consider the special problems and        must include documentation of
 costs to small businesses that up        operations and jobs with
 until now may not have had to provide    beryllium exposure and
 or manage the various parts of an        housekeeping procedures,
 occupational health standard or          including surface cleaning and
 program.                                 beryllium migration control.
                                          OSHA requests suggestions for
                                          examples of specific guidance
                                          that could be helpful to
                                          employers preparing written
                                          exposure control plans.
                                         These issues are discussed in
                                          this preamble at Section
                                          XVIII, Summary and Explanation
                                          of the Proposed Standard, (f)
                                          Methods of Compliance and (j)
                                          Housekeeping.
                                         Regulatory Alternative #20
                                          would reduce the frequency of
                                          physical examinations from
                                          annual to biennial, matching
                                          the frequency of BeLPT testing
                                          in the proposed rule.
                                         These alternatives for medical
                                          surveillance are discussed in
                                          the Regulatory Alternatives
                                          Chapter and in this preamble
                                          at section XVIII, Summary and
                                          Explanation of the Proposed
                                          Standard, (k) Medical
                                          Surveillance.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  Under the proposed standard,
 that small entities may lack the         employees are only eligible
 flexibility and resources to provide     for medical removal if they
 alternative jobs to employees who test   are sensitized or have been
 positive for the BeLPT, and whether      diagnosed with CBD; skin
 MRP achieves its intended purpose        exposure is not a trigger for
 given the course of beryllium disease.   medical removal (unlike the
 The Panel also recommends that if MRP    version submitted by the SBAR
 is implemented, that its effects on      Panel). After becoming
 the viability of very small firms with   eligible for medical removal
 a sensitized employee be considered      an employee may choose to
 carefully.                               remain in a job with exposure
                                          at or above the action level,
                                          provided that the employee
                                          wears a respirator in
                                          accordance with the
                                          Respiratory Protection
                                          standard (29 CFR 1910.134). If
                                          the employee chooses removal,
                                          the employer is only required
                                          to place the employee in
                                          comparable work with exposure
                                          below the action level if such
                                          work is available; if such
                                          work is not available, the
                                          employer may place the
                                          employee on paid leave for six
                                          months or until such work
                                          becomes available.
                                         OSHA discusses the basis of the
                                          provision and requests
                                          comments on it in this
                                          preamble at Section XVIII,
                                          Summary and Explanation of the
                                          Proposed Standard, (l) Medical
                                          Removal Protection. OSHA
                                          provides an analysis of costs
                                          and economic impacts of the
                                          provision in the PEA in
                                          Chapter 5 and Chapter 6,
                                          respectively.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  As stated above, the triggers
 more clearly defining the trigger        for medical surveillance in
 mechanisms for medical surveillance      the proposed standard have
 and also consider additional or          changed from those presented
 alternative triggers--such as limiting   to the SBAR Panel. Whereas the
 the BeLPT to a narrower range of         draft standard presented at
 exposure scenarios and reducing the      the SBAR Panel required
 frequency of BeLPT tests and physical    medical surveillance for
 exams. The Panel also recommends that    employees with skin contact--
 OSHA reconsider whether the risk and     potentially applying to
 cost of all parts of the medical         employees with any level of
 surveillance provisions are              airborne exposure--the
 appropriate where exposure levels are    proposed standard ties medical
 very low. In that context, the Panel     surveillance to exposures
 recommends that OSHA should also         above the proposed PEL of 0.2
 consider the special problems and        [mu]g/m\3\ (or signs or
 costs to small businesses that up        symptoms of beryllium-related
 until now may not have had to provide    health effects, or emergency
 or manage the various parts of an        exposure). Thus, small
 occupational health standard or          businesses with exposures
 program.                                 below the proposed PEL would
                                          not need to provide or manage
                                          medical surveillance for their
                                          employees unless employees
                                          develop signs or symptoms of
                                          beryllium-related health
                                          effects or are exposed in
                                          emergencies.
                                         These issues are discussed in
                                          this preamble at section
                                          XVIII, Summary and Explanation
                                          of the Proposed Standard, (k)
                                          Medical Surveillance.
The Panel recommends that the Agency,    OSHA has reviewed the possible
 in evaluating the economic feasibility   effects of the proposed
 of a potential regulation, consider      regulation on market demand
 not only the impacts of estimated        and/or foreign production, in
 costs on affected establishments, but    addition to the Agency's usual
 also the effects of the possible         measures of economic impact
 outcomes cited by SERs: loss of market   (costs as a fraction of
 demand, the loss of market to foreign    revenues and profits). This
 competitors, and of U.S. production      discussion can be found in
 being moved abroad by U.S. firms. The    Chapter VI of the PEA
 Panel also recommends that OSHA          (entitled Economic Feasibility
 consider the potential burdens on        Analysis and Regulatory
 small businesses of dealing with         Flexibility Determination).
 employees who have a positive test
 from the BeLPT. OSHA may wish to
 address this issue by examining the
 experience of small businesses that
 currently provide the BeLPT.

[[Page 47767]]

 
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  The provisions in the standard
 seeking ways of minimizing costs for     presented in the SBAR panel
 small businesses where the exposure      report applied to all
 levels may be very low. Clarifying the   employees, whereas the
 use of objective data, in particular,    proposed standard's ancillary
 may allow industries and                 provisions are only applied to
 establishments with very low exposures   employees in work areas who
 to reduce their costs and involvement    are, or can reasonably be
 with many provisions of a standard.      expected to be, exposed to
 The Panel also recommends that the       airborne beryllium.
 Agency consider tiering the              In addition, the scope of the
 application of ancillary provisions of   proposed standard includes
 the standard according to exposure       several limitations. Whereas
 levels and consider a more limited or    the standard presented in the
 narrowed scope of industries.            SBAR panel report covered
                                          beryllium in all forms and
                                          compounds in general industry,
                                          construction, and maritime,
                                          the scope of the proposed
                                          standard (1) applies only to
                                          general industry; (2) does not
                                          apply to beryllium-containing
                                          articles that the employer
                                          does not process; and (3) does
                                          not apply to materials that
                                          contain less than 0.1 percent
                                          beryllium by weight.
                                         In this preamble, OSHA has
                                          clarified the circumstances
                                          under which an employer may
                                          use historical and objective
                                          data in lieu of initial
                                          monitoring (Section XVIII,
                                          Summary and Explanation of
                                          this Proposed Standard, (d)
                                          Exposure Monitoring). OSHA is
                                          also considering whether to
                                          create a guidance product on
                                          the use of objective data to
                                          comply with the requirements
                                          of this proposed standard.
                                          OSHA is considering two
                                          Regulatory Alternatives that
                                          would reduce the impact of
                                          ancillary alternatives on
                                          employers, including small
                                          businesses. Regulatory
                                          Alternative #7, a PEL-only
                                          standard, would drop all
                                          ancillary provisions from the
                                          standard. Regulatory
                                          Alternative #8 would limit the
                                          application of several
                                          ancillary provisions,
                                          including Exposure Monitoring,
                                          the written exposure control
                                          plan section of Method of
                                          Compliance, PPE, Housekeeping,
                                          and Medical Surveillance, to
                                          operations or employees with
                                          exposure levels exceeding the
                                          TWA PEL or STEL. These
                                          alternatives are discussed in
                                          the Regulatory Alternatives
                                          Chapter and in this preamble
                                          at Section I, Issues and
                                          Alternatives.
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide   The explanation and analysis
 an explanation and analysis for all      for all health outcomes (and
 health outcomes (and their scientific    their scientific basis) are
 basis) upon which it is regulating       discussed in this preamble at
 employee exposure to beryllium. The      Section V, Health Effects, and
 Panel also recommends that OSHA          Section VI, Preliminary Risk
 consider to what extent a very low PEL   Assessment. They are also
 (and lower action level) may result in   reviewed in this preamble at
 increased costs of ancillary             Section VIII, Significance of
 provisions to small entities (without    Risk, and the Benefits Chapter
 affecting airborne employee              of the PEA. OSHA requests
 exposures). Since in the draft           comment on these health
 proposal the PEL and action level are    outcomes.
 critical triggers, the Panel            As discussed above, OSHA is
 recommends that OSHA consider            considering Regulatory
 alternate action levels, including an    Alternatives #7 and #8, which
 action level set at the PEL, if a very   would eliminate or reduce the
 low PEL is proposed.                     impact of ancillary provisions
                                          on employers, respectively.
                                          These alternatives are
                                          discussed in the Regulatory
                                          Alternatives Chapter of the
                                          PEA and in this preamble at
                                          Section I, Issues and
                                          Alternatives. OSHA seeks
                                          comment on other ways to avoid
                                          costs of ancillary provisions
                                          when they are not necessary to
                                          protect employees from
                                          exposure to beryllium.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA has removed skin exposure
 more clearly and thoroughly defining     as a trigger for several
 the triggers for ancillary provisions,   ancillary provisions in this
 particularly the skin exposure           proposed standard, including
 trigger. In addition, the Panel          Exposure Monitoring, Hygiene
 recommends that OSHA clearly explain     Areas and Practices, and
 the basis and need for small entities    Medical Surveillance. In
 to comply with ancillary provisions.     addition, the language of this
 The Panel also recommends that OSHA      proposed standard regarding
 consider narrowing the trigger related   skin exposure has changed: for
 to skin and contamination to capture     some ancillary provisions,
 only those situations where surfaces     including PPE and
 and surface dust may contain beryllium   Housekeeping, the requirements
 in a concentration that is significant   are triggered by visible
 enough to pose any risk--or limiting     contamination with beryllium
 the application of the trigger for       or dermal contact with soluble
 some ancillary provisions.               beryllium compounds. These
                                          requirements are discussed in
                                          this preamble at Section
                                          XVIII, Summary and Explanation
                                          of this Proposed Standard. The
                                          Agency has also explained the
                                          basis and need for compliance
                                          with ancillary provisions in
                                          this preamble at Section
                                          XVIII, Summary and
                                          Explanation.
Several SERs said that OSHA should       In the Technological
 first assume the burden of describing    Feasibility Analysis presented
 the exposure level in each industry      in the PEA, OSHA has described
 rather than employers doing so. Others   the exposure level in each
 said that the Agency should accept       industry or application group.
 exposure determinations made on an      In this preamble, OSHA has
 industry-wide basis, especially where    clarified the circumstances
 exposures were far below the PEL         under which an employer may
 options under consideration.             use historical and objective
As noted above, the Panel recommends      data in lieu of initial
 that OSHA consider alternatives that     monitoring (section XVIII,
 would alleviate the need for             Summary and Explanation of
 monitoring in operations or processes    this Proposed Standard, (d)
 with exposures far below the PEL. The    Exposure Monitoring). Industry-
 use of objective data is a principal     wide data may be used as
 method for industries with low           objective data to support an
 exposures to satisfy compliance with a   employer's case that exposures
 proposed standard. The Panel             at its facilities are far
 recommends that OSHA consider            below the PEL. OSHA is also
 providing some guidance to small         considering whether to create
 entities in the use of objective data.   a guidance product on the use
                                          of objective data to comply
                                          with requirements in the
                                          proposed standard.

[[Page 47768]]

 
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA has provided discussion of
 more fully evaluating whether the        the BeLPT in Appendix A to the
 BeLPT is suitable as a test for          regulatory text; in this
 beryllium sensitization in an OSHA       preamble at section V, Health
 standard and respond to the points       Effects; and in this preamble
 raised by the SERs about its efficacy.   at section XVIII, Summary and
 In addition, the Agency should           Explanation, (k) Medical
 consider the availability of other       Surveillance. In the
 tests under development for detecting    regulatory text, OSHA has
 beryllium sensitization and not limit    clarified that a test for
 either employers' choices or new         beryllium sensitization other
 science and technology in this area.     than the BeLPT may be used in
 Finally, the Panel recommends that       lieu of the BeLPT if a more
 OSHA re-consider the trigger for         reliable and accurate
 medical surveillance where exposures     diagnostic test is developed.
 are low and consider if there are        In this preamble at Section I,
 appropriate alternatives.                Issues and Alternatives, the
                                          Agency requests comments on
                                          the BeLPT and on the
                                          reliability and accuracy of
                                          alternate tests.
                                         As stated above, the triggers
                                          for medical surveillance in
                                          this proposed standard have
                                          changed from those presented
                                          to the SBAR Panel. Whereas the
                                          draft standard presented
                                          during the SBREFA process
                                          required medical surveillance
                                          for employees with skin
                                          contact--potentially applying
                                          to employees with any level of
                                          airborne exposure--this
                                          proposed standard ties medical
                                          surveillance to exposures
                                          above the proposed PEL of 0.2
                                          [mu]g/m\3\ (or signs or
                                          symptoms of beryllium-related
                                          health effects, or emergency
                                          exposure). The triggers for
                                          medical surveillance are
                                          discussed in this preamble at
                                          section XVIII, Summary and
                                          Explanation, (k) Medical
                                          Surveillance.
                                         OSHA is considering Regulatory
                                          Alternative #16, which would
                                          eliminate BeLPT testing
                                          requirements from this
                                          proposed standard. This
                                          alternative is discussed in
                                          the Regulatory Alternatives
                                          Chapter and in in this
                                          preamble at Section XVIII,
                                          Summary and Explanation of the
                                          Proposed Standard, (k) Medical
                                          Surveillance.
Seeking ways of minimizing costs to low  The standard presented in the
 risk processes and operations: OSHA      SBAR panel report had skin
 should consider alternatives for         exposure as a trigger. The
 minimizing costs to industries,          only skin exposure trigger in
 operations, or processes that have low   this proposed standard is the
 exposures. Such alternatives may         requirement for PPE when
 include, but not be limited to:          employees' skin is potentially
 encouraging the use of objective data    exposed to soluble beryllium
 by such mechanisms as providing          compounds. OSHA uses an
 guidance for objective data; assuring    exposure profile to determine
 that triggers for skin exposure and      which workers will be affected
 surface contamination are clear and do   by the standard. As a result,
 not pull in low risk operations;         this proposed standard
 providing guidance on least-cost ways    establishes regulated work
 for low risk facilities to determine     areas and exposure monitoring
 what provisions of the standard they     only with respect to employees
 need to comply with; and considering     who are, or can reasonably be
 ways to limit the scope of 28 the        expected to be, exposed to
 standard if it can be ascertained that   airborne beryllium.
 certain processes do not represent a    In addition, the scope of this
 significant risk.                        proposed standard includes
                                          several limitations. Whereas
                                          the standard presented in the
                                          SBAR panel report covered
                                          beryllium in all forms and
                                          compounds in general industry,
                                          construction, and maritime,
                                          the scope of this proposed
                                          standard (1) applies only to
                                          general industry; (2) does not
                                          apply to beryllium-containing
                                          articles that the employer
                                          does not process; and (3) does
                                          not apply to materials that
                                          contain less than 0.1 percent
                                          beryllium by weight. In this
                                          preamble, OSHA has clarified
                                          the circumstances under which
                                          an employer may use historical
                                          and objective data in lieu of
                                          initial monitoring (Section
                                          XVIII, Summary and Explanation
                                          of this Proposed Standard, (d)
                                          Exposure Monitoring). OSHA is
                                          also considering whether to
                                          create a guidance product on
                                          the use of objective data.
PEL-only standard: One SER recommended   OSHA is considering Regulatory
 a PEL-only standard. This would          Alternative #7, a PEL-only
 protect employees from airborne          standard. This alternative is
 exposure risks while relieving the       discussed in the Regulatory
 beryllium industry of the cost of the    Alternatives Chapter of the
 ancillary provisions. The Panel          PEA and in this preamble at
 recommends that OSHA, consistent with    Section I, Issues and
 its statutory obligations, analyze       Alternatives.
 this alternative.
Alternative triggers for ancillary       OSHA has removed skin exposure
 provisions: The Panel recommends that    as a trigger for several
 OSHA clarify and consider eliminating    ancillary provisions in this
 or narrowing the triggers for            proposed standard, including
 ancillary provisions associated with     Exposure Monitoring, Hygiene
 skin exposure or contamination. In       Areas and Practices, and
 addition, the Panel recommends that      Medical Surveillance. In
 OSHA should consider trying ancillary    addition, the language of this
 provisions dependent on exposure         proposed standard regarding
 rather than have these provisions all    skin exposure has changed: for
 take effect with the same trigger. If    some ancillary provisions,
 OSHA does rely on a trigger related to   including PPE and
 skin exposure, OSHA should thoroughly    Housekeeping, the requirements
 explain and justify this approach        are triggered by visible
 based on an analysis of the scientific   contamination with beryllium
 or research literature that shows a      or skin contact with soluble
 risk of sensitization via exposure to    beryllium compounds. These
 skin. If OSHA adopts a relatively low    requirements are discussed in
 PEL, OSHA should consider the effects    this preamble at Section
 of alternative airborne action levels    XVIII, Summary and
 in pulling in many low risk facilities   Explanation. OSHA has
 that may be unlikely to exceed the       explained the scientific basis
 PEL--and consider using only the PEL     for minimizing skin exposure
 as a trigger at very low levels.         to beryllium in this preamble
                                          at Section V, Health Effects,
                                          and explains the basis for
                                          specific ancillary provisions
                                          related to skin exposure in
                                          this preamble at Section
                                          XVIII, Summary and
                                          Explanation.

[[Page 47769]]

 
                                         In this proposed standard, the
                                          application of ancillary
                                          provisions is dependent on
                                          exposure, and not all
                                          provisions take effect with
                                          the same trigger. A number of
                                          requirements are triggered by
                                          exposures (or a reasonable
                                          expectation of exposures)
                                          above the PEL or action level
                                          (AL). As discussed above, OSHA
                                          is considering Regulatory
                                          Alternatives #7 and #8, which
                                          would eliminate or reduce the
                                          impact of ancillary provisions
                                          on employers, respectively.
                                          These alternatives are
                                          discussed in the Regulatory
                                          Alternatives Chapter of the
                                          PEA and in this preamble at
                                          Section I, Issues and
                                          Alternatives.
Revise the medical surveillance          Responding to comments from
 provisions, including eliminating the    SERs, OSHA has revised the
 BeLPT: The BeLPT was the most common     medical surveillance provision
 complaint from SERs. The Panel           and removed the skin exposure
 recommends that OSHA carefully examine   trigger for medical
 the value of the BeLPT and consider      surveillance. As a result,
 whether it should be a requirement of    OSHA estimates that the number
 a medical surveillance program. The      of small-business employees
 Panel recommends that OSHA present the   requiring a BeLPT will be
 scientific evidence that supports the    substantially reduced.
 use of the BeLPT as several SERs were   OSHA has provided discussion of
 doubtful of its reliability. The Panel   the BeLPT in Appendix A to the
 recommends that OSHA also consider       regulatory text; in this
 reducing the frequency of physicals      preamble at section V, Health
 and the BeLPT, if these provisions are   Effects; and in this preamble
 included in a proposal. The Panel        at section XVIII, Summary and
 recommends that OSHA also consider a     Explanation, (k) Medical
 performance-based medical surveillance   Surveillance. In the
 program, permitting employers in         regulatory text, OSHA has
 consultation with physicians and         clarified that a test for
 health experts to develop appropriate    beryllium sensitization other
 tests and their frequency.               than the BeLPT may be used in
                                          lieu of the BeLPT if a more
                                          reliable and accurate
                                          diagnostic test is developed.
                                          In this preamble at Section I,
                                          Issues and Alternatives, the
                                          Agency requests comments on
                                          the BeLPT and on the
                                          reliability and accuracy of
                                          alternate tests.
                                         The frequency of periodic BeLPT
                                          testing in this proposed
                                          standard is biennial, whereas
                                          annual testing was included in
                                          the draft standard presented
                                          to the SBAR Panel.
                                         Regulatory Alternative #20
                                          would reduce the frequency of
                                          physical examinations from
                                          annual to biennial, matching
                                          the frequency of BeLPT testing
                                          in this proposed rule.
                                         In response to the suggestion
                                          to allow performance-based
                                          medical surveillance, OSHA is
                                          considering two regulatory
                                          alternatives that would
                                          provide greater flexibility in
                                          the program of tests provided
                                          as part of an employer's
                                          medical surveillance program.
                                          Regulatory Alternative #16
                                          would eliminate BeLPT testing
                                          requirements from this
                                          proposed standard. Regulatory
                                          Alternative #18 would
                                          eliminate the CT scan
                                          requirement from this proposed
                                          standard. These alternatives
                                          are discussed in the
                                          Regulatory Alternatives
                                          Chapter and in this preamble
                                          at Section XVIII, Summary and
                                          Explanation, (k) Medical
                                          Surveillance.
No medical removal protection (MRP):     This proposed standard includes
 OSHA's draft proposed standard did not   an MRP provision. OSHA
 include any provision for medical        discusses the basis of the
 removal protection, but OSHA did ask     provision and requests
 the SERs to comment on MRP as a          comments on it in this
 possibility. Based on the SER            preamble at Section XVIII,
 comments, the Panel recommends that if   Summary and Explanation, (l)
 OSHA includes an MRP provision, the      Medical Removal Protection.
 agency provide a thorough analysis of    OSHA provides an analysis of
 why such a provision is needed, what     costs and economic impacts of
 it might accomplish, and what its full   the provision in the PEA in
 costs and economic impacts on those      Chapter V and Chapter VI,
 small businesses that need to use it     respectively.
 might be.                               The Agency is considering
                                          Alternative #22, which would
                                          eliminate the MRP requirement
                                          from the standard. This
                                          alternative is discussed in
                                          the Regulatory Alternatives
                                          Chapter and in in this
                                          preamble at section XVIII,
                                          Summary and Explanation, (l)
                                          Medical Removal Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

A. Overview

    The proposed general industry standard for occupational exposure to 
beryllium contains collection of information (paperwork) requirements 
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. PRA-95 defines 
``collection of information'' to mean, ``the obtaining, causing to be 
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or 
the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of 
form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
    Under PRA-95, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information unless OMB approves it, and the agency 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, the public 
is not required to respond to a collection of information unless the 
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control 
number. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 
shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of 
information if the collection of information does not display a 
currently valid OMB control number.

B. Solicitation of Comments

    OSHA prepared and submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) 
for the collection of information requirements identified in this NPRM 
to OMB for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Agency 
solicits comments on the proposed collection of information 
requirements and the estimated burden hours and costs associated with 
these requirements, including comments on the following items:
     Whether the proposed collection of information 
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the

[[Page 47770]]

Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and 
cost) of the information collection requirements, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility and clarity of the information 
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the compliance burden on employers, for 
example, by using automated or other technological techniques for 
collecting and transmitting information.

 C. Proposed Collection of Information Requirements

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(1), the 
following paragraphs provide information about this ICR.
    1. Title: Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
    2. Description of the ICR: The proposed Beryllium standard contains 
collection of information requirements which are essential components 
of the occupational safety and health standard that will assist both 
employers and their employees in identifying the exposures to beryllium 
and beryllium compounds, the medical effects of such exposures, and the 
means to reduce the risk of overexposures to beryllium and beryllium 
compounds.
3. Brief Summary of the Collection of Information Requirements
    Below is a summary of the collection of information requirements 
identified in the Beryllium proposal. Specific details contained in the 
following collections of information requirements are discussed in 
Section XVIII: Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard.
Sec.  1910.1024(d) Exposure Monitoring
    Under paragraph (d)(5)(i) of the proposed standard, within 15 
working days after receiving the results of any exposure monitoring 
completed under this standard, employers must notify each employee 
whose exposure is characterized by the monitoring in writing. Employers 
must either notify each of these employees individually in writing, or 
post the exposure monitoring results in an appropriate location 
accessible to all of these employees. In this proposed standard, the 
following provisions require exposure monitoring: Sec.  
1910.1024(d)(1), General; Sec.  1910.1024(d)(2), Initial Exposure 
Monitoring; Sec.  1910.1024(d)(3), Periodic Exposure Monitoring; Sec.  
1910.1024(d)(4), Additional Monitoring.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(ii) details additional information an 
employer would need to include in the written notification in 
(d)(5)(i), should beryllium exposure exceed the TWA PEL or STEL: a 
description of the suspected or known sources of exposure, and the 
corrective action(s) the employer has taken or will take to reduce the 
employee's exposure to or below the applicable PEL.
Sec.  1910.1024(e)(2)(i) & (ii) Demarcation of Beryllium Work Areas
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) would require employers to identify 
each beryllium work area through signs or any other methods that 
adequately establish and inform each employee of the boundaries of each 
beryllium work area. Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would require employers to 
identify each regulated area in accordance with paragraph (m)(2).
Sec.  1910.1024(f)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) Written Exposure Control Plan
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i) would require employers to establish, 
implement, and maintain a written exposure control plan for beryllium 
work areas. The plan must contain: (A) An inventory of operations and 
job titles reasonably expected to have exposure; (B) an inventory of 
operations and job titles reasonably expected to have exposure at or 
above the action level; (C) an inventory of operations and job titles 
reasonably expected to have exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL; (D) 
procedures for minimizing cross-contamination, including but not 
limited to preventing the transfer of beryllium between surfaces, 
equipment, clothing, materials, and articles within beryllium work 
areas; (E) procedures for keeping surfaces in the beryllium work area 
as free as practicable of beryllium; (F) procedures for minimizing the 
migration of beryllium from beryllium work areas to other locations 
within or outside the workplace; (G) an inventory of engineering and 
work practice controls; and (H) procedures for removal, laundering, 
storage, cleaning, repairing, and disposal of beryllium-contaminated 
personal protective clothing and equipment, including respirators.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) would require employers to update 
their exposure control plans whenever any change in production 
processes, materials, equipment, personnel, work practices, or control 
methods results or can reasonably be expected to result in new or 
additional exposures to beryllium. Paragraph (f)(1)(ii) also requires 
employers to update their plans when an employee is confirmed positive 
for beryllium sensitization, is diagnosed with CBD, or shows other 
signs or symptoms related to beryllium exposure. In addition, this 
paragraph requires employers to update their plans if the employer has 
any reason to believe that new or additional exposures are occurring or 
will occur. Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii) would require employers to 
make a copy of the exposure control plan accessible to each employee 
who is or can reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne 
beryllium in accordance with OSHA's Access to Employee Exposure and 
Medical Records (Records Access) standard (29 CFR 1910.1020(e)).
Sec.  1910.1024(g) Respiratory Protection
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1) would require employers to provide at no 
cost and ensure that each employee uses respiratory protection during 
certain periods or operations. Where the proposed standard requires an 
employee to use respiratory protection, proposed paragraph (g)(2) 
requires such use to be in accordance with the Respiratory Protection 
Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).
    The Respiratory Protection Standard's collection of information 
requirements indicate that employers must: develop a written respirator 
program; obtain and maintain employee medical evaluation records; 
provide the physician or other licensed health care professional 
(PLHCP) with information about the employee's respirator and the 
conditions under which the employee will use the respirator; administer 
fit tests for employees who will use negative- or positive-pressure, 
tight-fitting facepieces; and establish and retain written information 
regarding medical evaluations, fit testing, and the respirator program.
Sec.  1910.1024(h) Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
Sec.  1910.1024(h)(2)(v) Removal and Storage
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2)(v) would require employers to ensure that 
any protective clothing or equipment required by the standard which is 
removed from the workplace for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or 
disposal is labeled in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed 
standard and the Hazard Communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.
Sec.  1910.1024(h)(3)(iii) Cleaning and Replacement
    Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iii) would require employers to inform in 
writing the persons or the business entities who launder, clean or 
repair the protective clothing or equipment required by this

[[Page 47771]]

standard of the potentially harmful effects of exposure to airborne 
beryllium and contact with soluble beryllium compounds and how the 
protective clothing and equipment must be handled in accordance with 
the standard.
Sec.  1910.1024(j)(3) Housekeeping
    Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) requires waste, debris, and materials 
visibly contaminated with beryllium and consigned for disposal to be 
disposed of in sealed, impermeable enclosures. Proposed paragraph 
(j)(3)(ii) requires these enclosures to be labeled in accordance with 
proposed paragraph (m)(3) of the standard.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(iii) requires materials designated for 
recycling that are visibly contaminated with beryllium to be cleaned to 
remove the visible particulate or placed in sealed, impermeable 
enclosures that are labeled in accordance with proposed paragraph 
(m)(3) of the standard.
Sec.  1910.1024(k) Medical Surveillance
Sec.  1910.1024(k)(1), (2), and (3) Employee Medical Surveillance
    Proposed paragraph (k)(1) details when and under what conditions an 
employer must make medical surveillance available to its employees. 
Paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed standard specifies the frequency of 
medical examinations that are to be offered to those employees covered 
by the medical surveillance program, and proposed paragraph (k)(3) 
details the content of the medical examinations.
Sec.  1910.1024(k)(4) Information Provided to the PLHCP
    Proposed paragraph (k)(4) would require employers to provide a copy 
of this standard and its appendices to the examining PLHCP. In 
addition, the proposed paragraph would require employers to provide the 
following information, if known, to the PLHCP: (A) A description of the 
employee's former and current duties that relate to the employee's 
occupational exposure; (B) the employee's former and current levels of 
occupational exposure; (C) a description of any protective clothing and 
equipment, including respirators, used by the employee, including when 
and for how long the employee has used that protective clothing and 
equipment; and (D) information from records of employment-related 
medical examinations previously provided to the employee, currently 
within the control of the employer, after obtaining a medical release 
from the employee.
Sec.  1910.1024(k)(5)(i), (ii), and (iii) Licensed Physician's Written 
Medical Opinion
    Under proposed paragraph (k)(5)(i), the employer must obtain a 
written medical opinion from the licensed physician within 30 days of 
the employee's medical examination. The written medical opinion must 
contain the following information: (A) The licensed physician's opinion 
as to whether the employee has any detected medical condition that 
would place the employee at increased risk of CBD from further 
exposure; (B) any recommended limitations on the employee's exposure, 
including the use and limitations of protective clothing or equipment, 
including respirators; and (C) a statement that the PLHCP has explained 
the results of the medical examination to the employee, including any 
tests conducted, any medical conditions related to exposure that 
require further evaluation or treatment, and any special provisions for 
use of protective clothing or equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(5)(ii) would require the employer to ensure 
that neither the licensed physician nor any other PLHCP reveals to the 
employer findings or diagnoses which are unrelated to beryllium 
exposure.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(5)(iii) would require the employer to 
provide a copy of the licensed physician's written medical opinion to 
the employee within two weeks after receiving it.
Sec.  1910.1024(k)(7) Beryllium Sensitization Test Results Research
    Proposed paragraph (k)(7) would require employers, upon request by 
OSHA, to convey employees' beryllium sensitization test results to OSHA 
for evaluation and analysis.
Sec.  1910.1024(m) Communication of Hazards
    Proposed paragraph (m)(1)(i) would require chemical manufacturers, 
importers, distributors, and employers to comply with all applicable 
requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) for beryllium 
(29 CFR 1910.1200). Proposed paragraph (m)(1)(ii) requires that when 
classifying the hazards of beryllium, the employer must address at 
least the following: cancer; lung effects (chronic beryllium disease 
and acute beryllium disease); beryllium sensitization; skin 
sensitization; and skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(1)(iii) would require employers to include 
beryllium in the hazard communication program established to comply 
with the HCS, and ensure that each employee has access to labels on 
containers and safety data sheets for beryllium.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(i) would require employers to post 
warning signs at each approach to a regulated area so that each 
employee is able to read and understand the signs and take necessary 
protective steps before entering the area. Proposed paragraph 
(m)(2)(ii) would require these signs to be legible and readily visible, 
and contains language that would be required to appear on each warning 
sign.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(3) would require employers to label each bag 
and container of clothing, equipment, and materials visibly 
contaminated with beryllium consistent with the Hazard Communication 
standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200. Proposed paragraph (m)(3) also contains 
language that would be required to appear on every such label.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(iv) would require employers to make 
copies of the standard and its appendices readily available at no cost 
to each employee and designated employee representative.
Sec.  1910.1024(m)(4)(iv) Employee Information
    Paragraph (m)(4)(iv) requires that employers make copies of the 
standard and its appendices readily available at no cost to each 
employee and designated employee representative.
Sec.  1910.1024(n) Recordkeeping
Sec.  1910.1024(n)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) Exposure Measurements.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(1)(i) would require employers to keep 
records of all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to 
beryllium as required by paragraph (d) of the standard.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(1)(ii) would require employers to include at 
least the following information in the records: (A) The date of 
measurement for each sample taken; (B) the operation that is being 
monitored; (C) the sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of 
their accuracy; (D) the number, duration, and results of samples taken; 
(E) the type of personal protective clothing and equipment, including 
respirators, worn by monitored employees at the time of monitoring; 
and, (F) the name, social security number, and job classification of 
each employee represented by the monitoring, indicating which employees 
were actually monitored.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(1)(iii) would require employers to maintain 
employee exposure monitoring records in

[[Page 47772]]

accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(1)(ii).
Sec.  1910.1024(n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) Historical Monitoring Data
    Proposed paragraph (n)(2)(i) would require employers to establish 
an accurate record of any historical monitoring data used to satisfy 
the initial monitoring requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed 
standard. Paragraph (n)(2)(ii) would require the employer to 
demonstrate that the data comply with the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(2) of the standard. Paragraph (n)(2)(iii) would require the 
employer to maintain historical monitoring data in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.1020.
Sec.  1910.1024(n)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) Objective Data
    Proposed paragraph (n)(3)(i) would require employers to establish 
accurate records of any objective data relied upon to satisfy the 
requirement for initial monitoring in proposed paragraph (d)(2). 
Proposed paragraph (n)(3)(ii) would require employers to have at least 
the following information in such records: (A) The data relied upon; 
(B) the beryllium-containing material in question; (C) the source of 
the objective data; (D) a description of the operation exempted from 
initial monitoring and how the data support the exemption; and (E) 
other information demonstrating that the data meet the requirements for 
objective data contained in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of the proposed 
standard. Proposed paragraph (n)(3)(iii) would require employers to 
maintain objective data records in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.
Sec.  1910.1024(n)(4)(i), (ii), & (iii) Medical Surveillance
    Proposed paragraph (n)(4)(i) would require employers to establish 
accurate records for each employee covered by the medical surveillance 
requirements in proposed paragraph (k). Proposed paragraph (n)(4)(ii) 
would require employers to include in employee medical records the 
following information about the employee: (A) Name, social security 
number, and job classification; (B) a copy of all licensed physicians' 
written opinions; and (C) a copy of the information provided to the 
PLHCP as required by paragraph (k)(4) of the proposed standard. 
Proposed paragraph (n)(4)(iii) would require employers to maintain 
medical records in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.
Sec. Sec.  1910.1024(n)(5)(i) & (ii) Training
    Proposed paragraph (n)(5)(i) would require employers to prepare an 
employee training record at the completion of any training required by 
the proposed standard. The training record must contain the following 
information: The name, social security number, and job classification 
of each employee trained; the date the training was completed; and the 
topic of the training. Proposed paragraph (n)(5)(ii) would require 
employers to maintain employee training records for three years after 
the completion of training. This record maintenance requirement would 
also apply to records of annual retraining or additional training as 
described in paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed standard.
Sec.  1910.1024(n)(6) Access to Records
    Under proposed paragraph (n)(6), employers must make all records 
maintained as a requirement of the standard available for examination 
and copying to the Assistant Secretary, the Director of NIOSH, each 
employee, and each employee's designated representative(s) in 
accordance with the Access to employee exposure and medical records 
standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
Sec.  1910.1024(n)(7) Transfer of Records
    Paragraph (n)(7) of the proposed standard would require employers 
to comply with the transfer requirements contained in the Access to 
employee exposure and medical records standard (29 CFR 1910.1020(h)). 
That existing standard requires employers either to transfer records to 
successor employers or, if there is no successor employer, to inform 
employees of their access rights at least three months before the 
cessation of the employer's business.
    4. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit. This standard 
applies to employers in general industry who have employees that may 
have occupational exposures to any form of beryllium, including 
compounds and mixtures, except those articles and materials exempted by 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of the proposed standard. This standard 
does not apply to articles, as defined in the Hazard Communication 
standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200(c)), that contain beryllium and that 
the employer does not process. Also, this standard does not apply to 
materials containing less than 0.1% beryllium by weight.
    5. Number of respondents: Employers in general industry that have 
employees working in jobs affected by beryllium exposure (4,088 
employers).
    6. Frequency of responses: Frequency of response varies depending 
on the specific collection of information.
    7. Number of responses:155,818.
    8. Average time per response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hours) for 
a clerical worker to generate and maintain an employee medical record, 
to 8 hours for a human resource manager to develop and implement a 
written exposure control plan.
    9. Estimated total burden hours: 80,776.
    10. Estimated cost (capital-operation and maintenance): 
$10,900,579.

D. Submitting Comments

    Members of the public who wish to comment on the paperwork 
requirements in this proposal must send their written comments to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer 
for the Department of Labor, OSHA (RIN-1218-AB76), Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-5806 (this 
is not a toll-free numbers), email: [email protected]. The 
Agency encourages commenters also to submit their comments on these 
paperwork requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA-
H005C-2006-0870), along with their comments on other parts of the 
proposed rule. For instructions on submitting these comments to the 
rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal Register notice 
titled DATES and ADDRESSES.

E. Docket and Inquiries

    To access the docket to read or download comments and other 
materials related to this paperwork determination, including the 
complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing the 
Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork 
determinations in detail) use the procedures described under the 
section of this notice titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an 
electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, scroll under ``Currently Under 
Review'' to ``Department of Labor (DOL)'' to view all of the DOL's 
ICRs, including those ICRs submitted for proposed rulemakings. To make 
inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, 
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone (202) 693-2222.

XI. Federalism

    The Agency reviewed the proposed beryllium rule according to the 
Executive Order (E.O.) on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 
1999), which requires that Federal

[[Page 47773]]

agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy 
options, consult with States before taking actions that would restrict 
States' policy options and take such actions only when clear 
constitutional authority exists and the problem is of national scope. 
The E.O. allows Federal agencies to preempt State law only with the 
expressed consent of Congress; in such cases, Federal agencies must 
limit preemption of State law to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the 
``Act'' or ``OSH Act,'' 29 U.S.C. 667), Congress expressly provides 
that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the 
development and enforcement of occupational safety and health 
standards; States that obtain Federal approval for such a plan are 
referred to as ``State-Plan States.'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational 
safety and health standards developed by State-Plan States must be at 
least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and 
places of employment as the Federal standards.
    While OSHA drafted this proposed rule to protect employees in every 
State, Section 18(c)(2) of the OSHA Act permits State-Plan States to 
develop and enforce their own standards, provided the requirements in 
these standards are at least as safe and healthful as the requirements 
specified in this proposed rule if it is promulgated.
    In summary, this proposed rule complies with E.O. 13132. In States 
without OSHA-approved State plans, Congress expressly provides for OSHA 
standards to preempt State occupational safety and health standards in 
areas addressed by the Federal standards; in these States, this rule 
limits State policy options in the same manner as every standard 
promulgated by the Agency. In States with OSHA-approved State plans, 
this rulemaking does not significantly limit State policy options.

XII. State-Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 State and U.S. territories 
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans 
(``State-Plan States'') must revise their standards to reflect the new 
standard or amendment. The State standard must be at least as effective 
as the Federal standard or amendment, and must be promulgated within 
six months of the publication date of the final Federal rule. 29 CFR 
1953.5(a).
    The State may demonstrate that a standard change is not necessary 
because, for example, the State standard is already the same as or at 
least as effective as the Federal standard change. In order to avoid 
delays in worker protection, the effective date of the State standard 
and any of its delayed provisions must be the date of State 
promulgation or the Federal effective date, whichever is later. The 
Assistant Secretary may permit a longer time period if the State makes 
a timely demonstration that good cause exists for extending the time 
limitation. 29 CFR 1953.5(a).
    Of the 27 States and territories with OSHA-approved State plans, 22 
cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 
New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The five 
states and territories whose OSHA-approved State plans cover only 
public-sector employees are: Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New 
York, and the Virgin Islands.
    This proposed beryllium rule applies to general industry. If 
adopted as proposed, all State Plan States would be required to revise 
their general industry standard appropriately within six months of 
Federal promulgation.

XIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1532, an agency must prepare a written ``qualitative 
and quantitative assessment'' of any regulation creating a mandate that 
``may result in the expenditure by the State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more'' in any one year before issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. OSHA's proposal does not place a mandate on State 
or local governments, for purposes of the UMRA, because OSHA cannot 
enforce its regulations or standards on State or local governments (see 
29 U.S.C. 652(5)). Under voluntary agreement with OSHA, some States 
enforce compliance with their State standards on public sector 
entities, and these agreements specify that these State standards must 
be equivalent to OSHA standards. The OSH Act also does not cover tribal 
governments in the performance of traditional governmental functions, 
though it does when tribal governments engage in commercial activity. 
However, the proposal would not require tribal governments to expend, 
in the aggregate, $100,000,000 or more in any one year for their 
commercial activities. Thus, although OSHA may include compliance costs 
for affected governmental entities in its analysis of the expected 
impacts associated with a proposal, the proposal does not trigger the 
requirements of UMRA based on its impact on State, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Based on the analysis presented in the Preliminary Economic 
Analysis (see Section IX above), OSHA concludes that the proposal would 
impose a Federal mandate on the private sector in excess of $100 
million in expenditures in any one year. The Preliminary Economic 
Analysis constitutes the written statement containing a qualitative and 
quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits required 
under Section 202(a) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532).

XIV. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    E.O.13045 (66 FR 19931 (Apr. 23, 2003)) requires that Federal 
agencies submitting covered regulatory actions to OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review pursuant to E.O. 
12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)) must provide OIRA with (1) an 
evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects that the 
planned regulation may have on children, and (2) an explanation of why 
the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency. E.O.13045 
defines ``covered regulatory actions'' as rules that may (1) be 
economically significant under E.O. 12866 (i.e., a rulemaking that has 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or would 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities), and (2) concern an environmental health risk or safety 
risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children. In this context, the term ``environmental health risks and 
safety risks'' means risks to health or safety that are attributable to 
products or substances that children are likely to come in contact with 
or ingest (e.g., through air, food, water, soil, product use).
    The proposed beryllium rule is economically significant under E.O. 
12866 (see Section IX of this preamble). However, after reviewing the 
proposed beryllium rule, OSHA has determined that the rule would not 
impose environmental health or safety risks to children as set forth in 
E.O. 13045. The proposed rule would require employers to limit employee 
exposure to beryllium and take other precautions to protect employees 
from adverse health effects

[[Page 47774]]

associated with exposure to beryllium. OSHA is not aware of any studies 
showing that exposure to beryllium disproportionately affects children 
or that employees under 18 years of age who may be exposed to beryllium 
are disproportionately affected by such exposure. Based on this 
preliminary determination, OSHA believes that the proposed beryllium 
rule does not constitute a covered regulatory action as defined by E.O. 
13045. However, if such conditions exist, children who are exposed to 
beryllium in the workplace would be better protected from exposure to 
beryllium under the proposed rule than they are currently.

XV. Environmental Impacts

    OSHA has reviewed the beryllium proposal according to the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500), 
and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). Based 
on that review, OSHA does not expect that the proposed rule, in and of 
itself, would create additional environmental issues. OSHA has made a 
preliminary determination that the proposed standard will have no 
impact on air, water, or soil quality; plant or animal life; the use of 
land or aspects of the external environment. Therefore, OSHA concludes 
that the proposed beryllium standard would have no significant 
environmental impacts.

XVI. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13175 on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000), and determined that it does not have ``tribal 
implications'' as defined in that order. The rule, if promulgated, 
would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, 
on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.

XVII. Public Participation

    OSHA encourages members of the public to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting comments on the proposal.
    Written Comments. OSHA invites interested persons to submit written 
data, views, and arguments concerning this proposal. In particular, 
OSHA encourages interested persons to comment on the issues raised at 
the end of each section. When submitting comments, persons must follow 
the procedures specified above in the sections titled DATES and 
ADDRESSES.
    Informal public hearings. The Agency will schedule an informal 
public hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment 
period.

XVIII. Summary and Explanation

Introduction

    This section of the preamble explains the requirements that OSHA 
proposes to control occupational exposure to beryllium, including the 
purpose of these requirements and how they will protect workers from 
hazardous beryllium exposures.
    OSHA believes, based on currently available information, that the 
proposed requirements are necessary and appropriate to protect workers 
exposed to beryllium. In developing this proposed rule, OSHA has 
considered many sources of data and information, including responses to 
the Request for Information (RFI) for ``Occupational Exposure to 
Beryllium'' (OSHA, 2002); the responses from Small Entity 
Representatives (SERs) who participated in the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) process (OSHA, 2007a); recommendations of the Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel (OSHA, 2008b); the Department of Energy 
(DOE) Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program rule (DOE, 1999); 
and numerous scientific studies, professional journal articles, and 
other data obtained by the Agency.
    The provisions in the proposed standard are generally consistent 
with other recent OSHA health standards, such as chromium (VI)(29 CFR 
1910.1026) and cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027). Using a similar approach 
across health standards, when possible, makes them more understandable 
and easier for employers to follow, and helps to facilitate uniformity 
of interpretation. This approach is also consistent with section 
6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, which states that health standards shall 
consider ``experience gained under this and other health and safety 
laws'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)). However, to the extent that protecting 
workers from occupational exposure to beryllium requires different or 
unique approaches, the Agency has formulated proposed requirements to 
address the specific hazards and working conditions associated with 
beryllium exposure.
    Also pursuant to section 6(b)(5), OSHA has expressed the proposed 
requirements in performance-based language, where possible, to provide 
employers with greater flexibility in determining the most effective 
strategies for controlling beryllium hazards in their workplaces. OSHA 
believes this approach allows employers to incorporate changes and 
advancements in control strategy, technology, and industry practice, 
thereby reducing the need to revise the rule when those changes occur.
(a) Scope and Application
    In paragraph (a)(1), OSHA proposes to apply this standard to 
occupational exposure to beryllium in all forms, compounds, and 
mixtures in general industry.
    For the purpose of the proposed rule, OSHA is treating beryllium 
generally, instead of individually addressing specific compounds, 
forms, and mixtures. Based on a review of scientific studies, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the toxicological effects of beryllium 
exposure on the human body are similar regardless of the form of 
beryllium (see the Health Effects section of this preamble at V.B.5; 
V.G). OSHA is not aware of any information that would lead the Agency 
to conclude that exposure to different forms of beryllium necessitates 
different regulatory approaches or requirements.
    OSHA has preliminarily decided to limit the scope of the rulemaking 
to general industry. This proposal is modeled on a suggested rule that 
was crafted by two major stakeholders in general industry, Materion 
Brush and the United Steelworkers Union (Materion and USW, 2012). In 
the course of developing this proposal, they provided OSHA with data on 
exposure and control measures and information on their experiences with 
handling beryllium in general industry settings. At this time, the 
information available to OSHA on beryllium exposures outside of general 
industry is limited, but suggests that most operations in other sectors 
are unlikely to involve beryllium exposure. The Agency hopes to 
expedite the rulemaking process by limiting the scope of this proposal 
to general industry and relying on already existing standards to 
protect workers in those operations outside of general industry where 
beryllium exposure may exist.
    The proposed rule would not apply to marine terminals, longshoring, 
or agriculture. OSHA has not found evidence indicating that beryllium 
is used or handled in these sectors in a way that might result in 
beryllium exposure. The proposed rule also excludes the construction 
and shipyard sectors. OSHA believes that occupational exposures to 
beryllium in

[[Page 47775]]

the construction and shipyard sectors occur primarily in abrasive 
blasting operations.
    Abrasive blasters and ancillary abrasive blasting workers are 
exposed to beryllium from coal slag and other abrasive blast material 
that may contain beryllium as a trace contaminant. Airborne 
concentrations of beryllium have been measured above the current TWA 
PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ when blast material containing beryllium is used as 
intended (see Appendix IV-C in the PEA, OSHA 2014). Abrasive blasters, 
pot tenders, and cleanup workers have the potential for significant 
airborne exposure during blasting operations and during cleanup of 
spent material that may contain beryllium as a trace contaminant.
    To address high concentrations of various hazardous chemicals in 
abrasive blasting material, employers must already be using engineering 
and work practice controls to limit workers' exposures and must be 
supplementing these controls with respiratory protection when 
necessary. For example, abrasive blasters in the construction industry 
fall under the protection of the Ventilation standard (29 CFR 1926.57). 
The Ventilation standard includes an abrasive blasting subsection (29 
CFR 1926.57(f)), which requires that abrasive blasting respirators be 
worn by all abrasive blasting operators when working inside blast-
cleaning rooms (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(ii)(A)), or when using silica sand 
in manual blasting operations where the nozzle and blast are not 
physically separated from the operator in an exhaust-ventilated 
enclosure (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(ii)(B)), or when needed to protect 
workers from exposures to hazardous substances in excess of the limits 
set in Sec.  1926.55 (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(ii)(C); ACGIH, 1971)). For 
maritime, standard 29 CFR 1915.34(c) covers similar requirements for 
respiratory protection needed in blasting operations. Due to these 
requirements, OSHA believes that abrasive blasters already have 
controls in place and wear respiratory protection during blasting 
operations. Thus, in estimating costs for Regulatory Alternatives #2a 
and #2b, OSHA judged that the reduction of the TWA PEL would not impose 
costs for additional engineering controls or respiratory protection in 
abrasive blasting (see Appendix VIII-C in this chapter for details). 
OSHA requests comment on this issue--in particular, whether abrasive 
blasters using blast material that may contain beryllium as a trace 
contaminant are already using all feasible engineering and work 
practice controls, respiratory protection, and PPE that would be 
required by Regulatory Alternatives #2a and #2b.
    OSHA requests comment on the limitation of the scope to general 
industry, as well as information on beryllium exposures in all industry 
sectors. The Agency requests information on whether employees in the 
construction, maritime, longshoring, shipyard, and agricultural sectors 
are exposed to beryllium in any form and, if so, their levels of 
exposure and what types of exposure controls are currently in place. In 
particular, OSHA requests comment on whether abrasive blasters using 
blast material that may contain beryllium as a trace contaminant are 
already using all feasible engineering and work practice controls, 
respiratory protection, and PPE. OSHA also requests comment on 
Regulatory Alternatives #2a and #2b, presented at the end of this 
section, that would provide protection to workers in sectors outside of 
general industry. Regulatory Alternative #2a would expand the scope of 
the proposed standard to include employers in construction and 
maritime. Regulatory #2b would change the Z tables in 29 CFR 1910.1000 
and 29 CFR 1915.1000, and Appendix A of 29 CFR 1926.55, to lower the 
permissible exposure limits for beryllium for workers in all beryllium-
exposed occupations. Another regulatory alternative that would impact 
the scope of affected industries, extending eligibility for medical 
surveillance to employees in shipyards, construction, and parts of 
general industry excluded from the scope of the proposed standard, is 
discussed along with other medical surveillance alternatives (see this 
preamble at Section XVIII, paragraph (k), Regulatory Alternative #21). 
Depending on the nature of the data and comments provided, OSHA 
envisions possible expansions of its regulation of beryllium either as 
part of this rulemaking or at a later time.
    Paragraph (a)(2) specifies that the proposed rule would not apply 
to articles, as defined in the Hazard Communication standard (HCS) (29 
CFR 1910.1200(c)), that contain beryllium and that the employer does 
not process. The HCS defines an article as ``a manufactured item other 
than a fluid or particle: (i) Which is formed to a specific shape or 
design during manufacture; (ii) which has end use function(s) dependent 
in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use; and (iii) 
which under normal conditions of use does not release more than very 
small quantities e.g., minute or trace amounts of a hazardous chemical 
(as determined under paragraph (d) of this section), and does not pose 
a physical hazard or health risk to employees.'' For example, items or 
parts containing beryllium that employers assemble where the physical 
integrity of the item is not compromised are unlikely to release more 
than a very small quantity of beryllium that would not pose a physical 
or health hazard for workers. These items would be considered articles 
that are exempt from the scope of the proposed standard. Similarly, 
finished or processed items or parts containing beryllium that 
employers are simply packing in containers or affixing with shipping 
tags or labels are unlikely to release more than a minute or trace 
amount of beryllium. These items would also come within the proposed 
exemption. By contrast, if an employer performs operations such as 
machining, grinding, blasting, sanding, or other processes that 
physically alter an item, these operations would not fall within the 
exemption in proposed paragraph (a)(2) because they involve processing 
of the item and could result in significant exposure to beryllium-
containing material.
    Paragraph (a)(3) specifies that the proposed rule would not apply 
to materials containing less than 0.1% beryllium by weight. A similar 
exemption is included in several previously promulgated standards, 
including Benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), Methylenedianiline (MDA) (29 CFR 
1910.1050), and 1,3-Butadiene (BD) (29 CFR 1910.1051). These exemptions 
were established to limit the regulatory burden on employers who do not 
use materials containing 0.1 percent or more of the substance in 
question, on the premise that workers in exempted industries are not 
exposed at levels of concern. In the preamble to the MDA standard, OSHA 
states that the Agency relied on data showing that worker exposure to 
mixtures or materials of MDA containing less than 0.1 percent MDA did 
not create any hazards other than those expected from worker exposure 
beneath the action level (57 FR 35630, 35645-46, August 10, 1992). The 
exemption in the BD standard does not apply where airborne 
concentrations generated by such mixtures can exceed the action level 
or STEL. The exemption in the Benzene standard was based on indications 
that exposures resulting from substances containing trace amounts of 
benzene would generally be below the exposure limit, and on OSHA's 
belief that the exemption would encourage employers to reduce the 
concentration of benzene in certain

[[Page 47776]]

substances (43 FR 27962, 27968, June 27, 1978).
    OSHA is aware of two industries in the general industry sector that 
would be exempted from the proposed standard under proposed paragraph 
(a)(3): Coal-fired electric power generation and primary aluminum 
production. As discussed in the PEA, Chapter IV, Appendices A and B, 
most employees' TWA exposures in these industries do not exceed the 
proposed action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. However, exposures above the 
proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ have been found in some jobs and in 
facilities with poor housekeeping and work practices. In coal-fired 
electric power generation, these higher exposures are associated with 
intermittent exposure to fly ash during maintenance work in and around 
baghouses and boilers. Fly ash contains less than 0.01% beryllium; 
however, exposures between 0.1 and 0.4 [mu]g/m\3\ were observed among 
workers maintaining boilers. Exposures for baghouse cleaning frequently 
exceeded the current PEL, reaching as high as 13 [mu]g/m\3\. In 
aluminum production, the bauxite ore used as a raw material contains 
naturally occurring beryllium in the part per million range (i.e. 
<0.0001%); however, a study of four smelters showed that the arithmetic 
mean exposure was slightly above the proposed PEL, and the 95th 
percentile exposure (of 965 samples) was above 1 [mu]g/m\3\. BeLPT 
testing in a group of 734 aluminum workers found two cases of confirmed 
beryllium sensitization (0.27%) and an additional few abnormal results 
that could not be confirmed, either because the worker was not retested 
or the retest appeared normal (Taiwo et al., 2008).
    OSHA requests comment on the exemption proposed for the beryllium 
standard. Is it appropriate to include an exemption for operations 
where beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant, but some workers 
can nevertheless be significantly exposed? Should the Agency consider 
dropping the exemption, or constraining it to operations where 
exposures are below the proposed action level and STEL? OSHA requests 
additional data describing the levels of airborne beryllium in 
workplaces that fall under this exemption and comments on regulatory 
alternatives, discussed at the end of this section, that would 
eliminate or modify the exemption.
    A number of stakeholders, including SERs who participated in the 
SBREFA process, urged OSHA to exempt certain industries or processes 
and activities from the proposed standard. In support of this request, 
SERs from the stamping industry argued that their exposures are low, 
below 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ (OSHA, 2007a). In addition, some SERs requested 
exemptions from particular requirements. SERs from the dental 
laboratory industry requested exemptions from all requirements other 
than training and the permissible exposure limit (PEL). In support of 
this request, they also argued that their exposures are very low, 
around 0.02 [mu]g/m\3\ when ventilation is used. They indicated that 
they already have sufficient engineering and work practice controls in 
place to keep exposures low (OSHA, 2008b). The SBREFA Panel recommended 
that OSHA consider a more limited scope of industries (OSHA, 2008b).
    The Panel's recommendation is addressed in part in this proposed 
standard, which has a much more limited scope than the draft standard 
reviewed by the SBREFA Panel. Whereas the draft reviewed by the Panel 
covered beryllium in all forms and compounds in general industry, 
construction, and maritime, the scope of the current beryllium proposal 
includes general industry only, and does not apply to employers in 
construction and maritime. In addition, it provides an exemption for 
those working with materials that contain beryllium only as a trace 
contaminant (less than 0.1 percent composition by weight).
    Although much narrower than the scope in the SBREFA draft, the 
current proposal's scope includes industries of concern for some SERs. 
OSHA's preliminary feasibility analysis indicates that worker exposures 
in both dental laboratories and stamping facilities exceed or have the 
potential to exceed the proposed TWA PEL where appropriate controls are 
not in place (see section IX of this preamble, Summary of the 
Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis). Accordingly, OSHA has not exempted them from the proposed 
standard. However, if employers in these industries have historical or 
objective data that meet the requirements set forth in proposed 
paragraph (d)(2) demonstrating that they have no exposures or that 
exposures are below the action level and at or below the STEL, these 
employers may be able to satisfy many of their obligations under this 
proposed standard by reference to these data.
    Some stakeholders, including employers who do stripping operations, 
urged that OSHA exempt them from the proposed rule because any 
beryllium exposures generated in their facilities were comprised of 
larger-sized particles, which they contended were not as harmful as 
smaller ones (OSHA, 2008b). OSHA has decided not to exempt operations 
based on particle size. As discussed in this preamble at section V, 
Health Effects, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
particle size has a significant bearing on health outcomes.
    While acknowledging the concerns raised by SERs that the scope of 
the standard might be too broad, OSHA is concerned that the scope of 
the current proposal might be too narrow. Exposures have the potential 
to exceed the proposed PEL in some blasting operations in construction 
and maritime, and in some general industry operations where beryllium 
exists as a trace contaminant. Abrasive blasters and ancillary abrasive 
blasting workers are exposed to beryllium from coal slags and other 
abrasive blast material, which contain beryllium in amounts less than 
0.1 percent. Airborne concentrations of beryllium have been measured 
above the current TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ when the blast material is 
used as intended. Abrasive blasters, pot tenders, and cleanup workers 
working primarily in construction and shipyards have the potential for 
significant airborne exposure during blasting operations and during 
cleanup of spent blast material. Coal fly ash in coal powered utility 
facilities is also known to contain trace amounts of beryllium, which 
may become airborne during furnace and bag house operations and result 
in exposures exceeding the current PELs. Similarly, beryllium exists as 
a contaminant in aluminum ore and may result in exposures above the 
proposed PELs during aluminum refining and production.
    OSHA invites comment on the proposed scope of the standard and on 
Regulatory Alternatives 1 and 2 below, which would increase protection 
for workers in maritime and construction industries and in occupations 
dealing with beryllium as a trace contaminant.
Regulatory Alternatives 1a and 1b
    Regulatory Alternative #1a would modify the proposed scope to 
eliminate the exemption for materials containing less than 0.1 percent 
beryllium by weight. Under this alternative, the scope of the rule 
would cover employers in general industry, including industries or 
occupations where beryllium exists as a trace contaminant. Regulatory 
Alternative #1a would expand the scope of the proposed standard to 
include all operations in general industry where beryllium exists only 
as a trace contaminant; that is, where the materials used contain no 
more than 0.1 percent beryllium by weight. Regulatory

[[Page 47777]]

Alternative #1b is similar to Regulatory Alternative #1a, but exempts 
operations where the employer can show that employees' exposures will 
not meet or exceed the action level or exceed the STEL. Where the 
employer has objective data demonstrating that a material containing 
beryllium or a specific process, operation, or activity involving 
beryllium cannot release beryllium in concentrations at or above the 
proposed action level or above the proposed STEL under any expected 
conditions of use, the specific process, operation, or activity would 
be exempt from the proposed standard except for recordkeeping 
requirements pertaining to the objective data. Alternative #1a and 
Alternative #1b, like the proposed rule, would not cover employers or 
employees in construction or shipyards.
Regulatory Alternatives 2a and 2b
    These two alternatives would increase protections for workers in 
the construction and maritime sectors. Regulatory alternative #2a would 
expand the scope of the proposed standard to also include employers in 
construction and maritime. For example, this alternative would cover 
abrasive blasters, pot tenders, and cleanup staff working in 
construction and shipyards who have the potential for airborne 
beryllium exposure during blasting operations and during cleanup of 
spent media. Regulatory alternative #2b would amend 29 CFR 1910.1000 
Table Z-1, 29 CFR 1915.1000 Table Z, and 29 CFR 1926.55 Appendix A to 
replace the current permissible exposure limits for beryllium and 
beryllium compounds (and the reference in 1910.1000 Table Z-1 to Table 
Z-2) with the TWA PEL and STEL adopted through this rulemaking. This 
alternative would also delete the entry for beryllium and beryllium 
compounds in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-2 because the entry would instead 
be listed in Table Z-1 as described above. Note that OSHA is proposing 
an 8-hour TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and a 15-minute STEL of 2 [mu]g/
m\3\, and is also considering alternative TWA PELs of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ 
and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, and alternative STELs of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, 1 [mu]g/
m\3\, and 2.5 [mu]g/m\3\. This alternative would limit permissible 
airborne beryllium exposures for workers in all beryllium-exposed 
occupations including construction, maritime and other industries where 
beryllium is a trace contaminant.
    The Z Tables and 1926.55 Appendix A do not incorporate ancillary 
provisions such as exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, medical 
removal, and PPE. However, many of the occupations excluded from the 
scope of the proposed beryllium standard receive some ancillary 
provision protections from other rules, such as Personal Protective 
Equipment (1910 Subpart I, 1915 Subpart I, 1926.28, also 1926 Subpart 
E), Ventilation (1926.57), Hazard Communication (1910.1200), and 
specific provisions for welding (1910 Subpart Q, 1915 Subpart D, 1926 
Subpart J) and abrasive blasting (1910.109, 1926 Subpart U).
(b) Definitions
    Proposed paragraph (b) includes definitions of key terms used in 
the proposed standard. To the extent possible, OSHA uses the same terms 
and definitions in the proposed standard as the Agency has used in 
other OSHA health standards. Using similar terms across health 
standards, when possible, makes them more understandable and easier for 
employers to follow. In addition, using similar terms and definitions 
helps to facilitate uniformity of interpretation.
    ``Action level'' means an airborne concentration of beryllium of 
0.1 micrograms per cubic meter of air ([mu]g/m\3\) calculated as an 
eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA). Exposures at or above the 
action level but below the TWA PEL trigger the proposed requirements 
for periodic exposure monitoring (see paragraph (d)(3)). In addition, 
paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) requires employers to list as part of their 
Written Exposure Control Plan the operations and job titles reasonably 
expected to have exposure at or above the action level. Paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) requires employers to ensure that at least one of the 
controls listed in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) is in place unless employers 
can demonstrate for each operation or process either that such controls 
are not feasible, or that employee exposures do not exceed the action 
level based on at least two representative personal breathing zone 
samples taken seven days apart. Furthermore, whenever an employer 
allows employees to consume food or beverages in a beryllium work area, 
the employer must ensure that no employee is exposed to beryllium at or 
above the action level (paragraph (i)(4)(ii)). The action level is also 
relevant to the proposed medical removal requirements. Employees 
eligible for removal can chose to remain in environments with exposures 
above the action level provided they wear respirators (paragraph 
(l)(2)(ii)). These employees may also choose to be transferred to 
comparable work in environments with exposures below the action level 
(or if comparable work is not available, they may choose to be placed 
on paid leave for a period of at least six months (paragraph (l)(3)).
    OSHA's preliminary risk assessment indicates that significant risk 
remains at the proposed TWA PEL (see this preamble at section VI, 
Significance of Risk). When there is a continuing exposure risk at the 
PEL, the courts have ruled that OSHA has the legal authority to impose 
additional requirements, such as action levels, on employers to further 
reduce risk when those requirements will result in a greater than 
minimal incremental benefit to workers' health (Asbestos II, 838 F.2d 
at 1274). OSHA's preliminary conclusion is that an action level for 
beryllium exposure will result in a further reduction in risk beyond 
that provided by the PEL alone.
    Another important reason for proposing an action level involves the 
variable nature of employee exposures to beryllium. Because of this 
fact, OSHA believes that maintaining exposures below the action level 
provides reasonable assurance that employees will not be exposed to 
beryllium above the TWA PEL on days when no exposure measurements are 
made. This consideration is discussed later in this section of the 
preamble regarding proposed paragraph (d)(3).
    OSHA's decision to propose an action level of one-half of the TWA 
PEL is consistent with previous standards, including those for 
inorganic arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018), chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026), 
benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), ethylene oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047), and 
methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).
    ``Assistant Secretary'' means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, United States Department of Labor, or 
designee. Proposed paragraph (k)(7) requires employers to report 
employee BeLPT results to OSHA for evaluation and analysis if requested 
by the Assistant Secretary. Proposed paragraph (n)(6) requires 
employers to make all records required under this section available, if 
requested, to the Assistant Secretary for examination and copying.
    ``Beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT)'' means the 
measurement of blood lymphocyte proliferation in a laboratory test when 
lymphocytes are challenged with a soluble beryllium salt. A confirmed 
positive test result indicates the person has beryllium sensitization. 
For additional explanation of the BeLPT, see the Health Effects section 
of this preamble (section V), and Appendix A of this proposed standard. 
Under paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B), employers must update the exposure 
control plan when an employee is confirmed positive. The BeLPT could be 
used to

[[Page 47778]]

determine whether an employee is confirmed positive (see definition of 
confirmed positive in paragraph (b) of this proposed standard). 
Paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E) requires the BeLPT unless a more reliable and 
accurate test becomes available (see section I of this preamble, Issues 
and Alternatives, for discussion and request for comment regarding how 
OSHA should determine whether a test is more reliable and accurate than 
the BeLPT). Under paragraph (k)(7), employers must convey the results 
of medical tests such as the BeLPT to OSHA if requested.
    ``Beryllium work area'' means any work area where employees are, or 
can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium, 
regardless of the level of exposure. OSHA notes both a distinction and 
some overlap between the definitions of beryllium work area and 
regulated area in this proposal. Beryllium work areas are areas where 
employees are or can reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne 
beryllium at any level, whereas an area is a regulated area only if 
employees are or can reasonably be expected to be exposed above the TWA 
PEL or STEL. Therefore, while not all beryllium work areas are 
regulated areas, all regulated areas are beryllium work areas because 
they are areas with exposure to beryllium. Accordingly, all 
requirements for beryllium work areas also apply in all regulated 
areas, but requirements specific to regulated areas apply only to 
regulated areas and not to beryllium work areas where exposures do not 
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL.
    The presence of a beryllium work area triggers a number of the 
requirements in this proposal. Under paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii), 
employers must determine exposures for each beryllium work area. 
Furthermore, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i) require employers to 
establish, maintain, identify, and demarcate the boundaries of each 
beryllium work area. Under paragraph (f)(1)(i), employers must 
establish and maintain a written exposure control plan for beryllium 
work areas. And paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires employers to implement at 
least one of the controls listed in (f)(2)(i)(A)(1) through (4) for 
each operation in a beryllium work area unless one of the exemptions in 
(f)(2)(i)(B) applies. In addition, paragraph (i)(1) requires employers 
to provide readily accessible washing facilities to employees working 
in a beryllium work area, and to instruct employees to use these 
facilities when necessary. Where employees are allowed to eat or drink 
in beryllium work areas, employers must ensure that surfaces in these 
areas are as free as practicable of beryllium, that exposures are below 
the action level, and that these areas comply with the Sanitation 
standard (29 CFR 1910.141) (paragraph (i)(4)). Employers must maintain 
surfaces in all beryllium work areas as free as practicable of 
beryllium (paragraph (j)(1)(i)). Paragraph (j)(2) requires certain 
practices and prohibits other practices for cleaning surfaces in 
beryllium work areas.
    ``CBD Diagnostic Center'' means a medical facility that has the 
capability of performing an on-site clinical evaluation for the 
presence of chronic beryllium disease (CBD) that includes 
bronchoalveolar lavage, transbronchial biopsy and interpretation of the 
biopsy pathology, and the beryllium bronchoalveolar lavage lymphocyte 
proliferation test (BeBALLPT). For purposes of this proposal, the term 
``CBD Diagnostic Center'' refers to any medical facility that meets 
these criteria, whether or not the medical facility formally refers to 
itself as a CBD diagnostic center. For example, if a hospital has all 
of the capabilities required by this proposal for CBD diagnostic 
centers, the hospital would be considered a CBD diagnostic center for 
purposes of this proposal.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(6) requires employers to offer employees who 
have been confirmed positive a referral to a CBD diagnostic center for 
a clinical evaluation.
    ``Chronic beryllium disease (CBD)'' means a chronic lung disease 
associated with exposure to airborne beryllium. The Health Effects 
section of this preamble, section V, contains more information on CBD. 
CBD is relevant to several provisions of this proposal. Paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)(B) requires employers to update the exposure control plan 
whenever an employee is diagnosed with CBD. Under paragraph 
(k)(1)(i)(B), employers must make medical surveillance available at no 
cost to employees who show signs and symptoms of CBD. Paragraph 
(k)(3)(ii)(B) requires medical examinations conducted under this 
standard to emphasize screening for respiratory conditions, which would 
include CBD. Under paragraph (k)(5)(i)(A), the licensed physician's 
opinion must advise the employee on whether or not the employee has any 
detected medical condition that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of CBD from further exposure to beryllium. Furthermore, 
CBD is a criterion for medical removal under paragraph (l)(1). Under 
paragraph (m)(1)(ii), employers must address CBD in classifying 
beryllium hazards under the HCS. Employers must also train employees on 
the signs and symptoms of CBD (see paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A)).
    ``Confirmed positive'' means two abnormal test results from 
consecutive BeLPTs or a second abnormal BeLPT result within a two-year 
period of the first abnormal result. The definition of confirmed 
positive also includes a single result of a more reliable test 
indicating that a person has been identified as sensitized to 
beryllium. OSHA recognizes that diagnostic tests for beryllium 
sensitization could eventually be developed that would not require a 
second test to confirm sensitization. OSHA requests comment on how best 
to determine whether a new method is more reliable and accurate than 
the BeLPT for detecting beryllium sensitization (see section I of this 
preamble, Issues and Alternatives).
    Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) requires employers to update the exposure 
control plan whenever an employee is confirmed positive or is diagnosed 
with CBD. Under proposed paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E), employers are 
required to ensure that a BeLPT is offered to each eligible employee at 
the employee's first medical examination under this proposed standard, 
and every two years from the date of the first examination unless the 
employee receives an abnormal BeLPT result. If the employee's first 
BeLPT result is abnormal, the employer must provide the employee a 
second test within one month of the first test. If the employee's 
second BeLPT result is also abnormal, the employee is considered 
confirmed positive for purposes of this proposed standard. OSHA 
requests comment on the methods used to determine when a BeLPT test 
result is abnormal, and on standardizing the use and interpretation of 
the BeLPT (see section I of this preamble, Issues and Alternatives).
    A confirmed positive result will indicate to the licensed physician 
that the employee is sensitized to beryllium and is at increased risk 
of developing CBD (see paragraph (k)(5)(i)(A)). Employees who are 
confirmed positive are eligible for medical removal under proposed 
paragraph (l)(1).
    ``Director'' means the Director of the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, or designee. The proposed recordkeeping requirements 
mandate that, upon request, employers make all records required by this 
standard available to the Director (as well as the Assistant Secretary) 
for examination and copying (see paragraph (n)(6)). Typically, the 
Assistant Secretary sends representatives to review workplace safety 
and health records. However, the

[[Page 47779]]

Director may also review these records while conducting studies such as 
Health Hazard Evaluations of workplaces, or for other purposes.
    ``Emergency'' means any uncontrolled release of airborne beryllium. 
An emergency could result from equipment failure, rupture of 
containers, or failure of control equipment, among other causes.
    Emergencies trigger several requirements of this proposed standard. 
Under paragraph (g)(1)(iv), respiratory protection is required during 
emergencies to protect employees from potential overexposures. 
Emergencies also trigger clean-up requirements under paragraph 
(j)(1)(ii), and medical surveillance under paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C). In 
addition, under paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D), employers must train employees 
in applicable emergency procedures.
    ``Exposure'' and ``exposure to beryllium'' mean the exposure to 
airborne beryllium that would occur if the employee were not using a 
respirator. This definition is consistent with the term ``employee 
exposure'' in other OSHA standards such as Asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001), 
Benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), Chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026), Butadiene 
(29 CFR 1910.1051), and Methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). Many 
OSHA standards establish action levels and permissible exposure limits 
based on quantitative airborne exposures, and many of these standards' 
requirements are tied to exposures at or above the applicable action 
level, or above the applicable permissible exposure limit(s). This 
definition is also consistent with OSHA's hierarchy of controls policy, 
which requires employers to implement engineering and work practices 
controls to control exposure before resorting to respiratory 
protection. For additional discussion of OSHA's hierarchy of controls 
policy, see the discussion of paragraph (f) in this section of the 
preamble.
    ``High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter'' means a filter 
that is at least 99.97 percent effective in removing particles 0.3 
micrometers in diameter (see Department of Energy Technical Standard 
DOE-STD-3020-2005). HEPA filtration is an effective means of removing 
hazardous beryllium particles from the air. The proposed standard 
requires beryllium-contaminated surfaces to be cleaned by HEPA 
vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood of exposure 
(see paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii)). Other OSHA health standards also 
require the use of vacuum systems equipped with HEPA filtration (see 
Chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026) and Lead in construction (29 CFR 
1926.62)).
    ``Physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP)'' 
means an individual whose legally permitted scope of practice, such as 
license, registration, or certification, allows the person to 
independently provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide 
some or all of the health care services required in proposed paragraph 
(k). The Agency recognizes that personnel qualified to provide medical 
surveillance may vary from State to State, depending on State licensing 
requirements. Whereas all licensed physicians would meet this proposed 
definition of PLHCP, not all PLHCPs must be physicians.
    Under paragraph (k)(5) of the proposed standard, the written 
medical opinion must be completed by a licensed physician. However, 
other requirements of paragraph (k) may be performed by a PLHCP under 
the supervision of a licensed physician (see paragraphs (k)(1)(ii), 
(k)(3)(i), (k)(3)(ii)(G), (k)(5)(i)(C), and (k)(5)(ii)). The proposed 
standard also identifies what information must be given to the PLHCP 
providing the services listed in this standard, and requires that 
employers maintain a record of this information (see paragraphs (k)(4) 
and (n)(4)(ii)(C)).
    Allowing a PLHCP to provide some of the services required under 
this rule is consistent with other recent OSHA health standards, such 
as bloodborne pathogens (29 CFR 1910.1030), respiratory protection (29 
CFR 1910.134), and methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).
    ``Regulated area'' means an area that the employer must demarcate 
where employee exposure to airborne concentrations of beryllium 
exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, either the TWA PEL or 
STEL. These areas include temporary work areas where maintenance or 
non-routine tasks are performed. For an explanation of the distinction 
and overlap between beryllium work areas and regulated areas, see the 
explanation of beryllium work areas earlier in this section of the 
preamble. The requirements triggered by regulated areas are discussed 
below.
    Paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii) require employers to establish 
and demarcate regulated areas. Note that the demarcation requirements 
for regulated areas are more specific than those for other beryllium 
work areas (see also proposed paragraph (m)). Paragraph (e)(3) requires 
employers to restrict access to regulated areas to authorized persons, 
and paragraph (e)(4) requires employers to provide all employees in 
regulated areas appropriate respiratory protection and personal 
protective clothing and equipment, and to ensure that these employees 
use the required respiratory protection and protective clothing and 
equipment. Proposed paragraph (i)(5)(i) prohibits employers from 
allowing employees to eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply 
cosmetics in regulated areas.
    Under proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), employees who have worked in 
a regulated area for more than 30 days in the previous 12 months are 
eligible for medical surveillance. In addition, proposed paragraph 
(m)(2) requires warning signs associated with regulated areas to meet 
certain specifications. Proposed paragraph (m)(4) requires employers to 
train employees in the written exposure control plan required by 
paragraph (f)(1), including the location of regulated areas.
    This proposed definition of regulated areas is consistent with 
other substance-specific health standards, such as Cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027), Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), and Methylene Chloride (29 
CFR 1910.1052).
    ``This standard'' means this beryllium standard, 29 CFR 1910.1024.
(c) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)
    Paragraph (c) of the proposed standard establishes two permissible 
exposure limits (PELs) for beryllium in all forms, compounds, and 
mixtures: An 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(proposed paragraph (c)(1)), and a 15-minute short-term exposure limit 
(STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (proposed paragraph (c)(2)).
    The TWA PEL section of the proposed standard requires employers to 
ensure that each employee's exposure to beryllium, averaged over the 
course of an 8-hour work shift, does not exceed 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. The 
STEL section of the proposed standard requires employers to ensure that 
each employee's exposure sampled over any 15-minute period during the 
work shift does not exceed 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The existing Air 
Contaminants standard (29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-2) has two PELs for 
``beryllium and beryllium compounds'': (1) a 2 [mu]g/m\3\ TWA PEL, and 
(2) a ceiling concentration of 5 [mu]g/m\3\ that employers must ensure 
is not exceeded during the 8-hour work shift, except for a maximum peak 
of 25 [mu]g/m\3\ over a 30-minute period in an 8-hour work shift. OSHA 
adopted the current PELs in 1972 pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH 
Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Section 6(a) permitted OSHA, during the first 
two years after the OSH Act became

[[Page 47780]]

effective, to adopt as OSHA standards any established Federal standard 
or national consensus standard. The existing PELs were based on the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Beryllium and Beryllium 
Compounds standard (ANSI, 1970), which in turn was based on a 1949 U.S. 
Atomic Energy Commission adoption of a threshold limit for beryllium of 
2.0 [mu]/m\3\ and was included in the 1971 American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists Documentation of the Threshold Limit 
Values for Substances in Workroom Air (ACGIH, 1971).
    TWA PEL. OSHA is proposing the new TWA PEL because published 
studies and more recent exposure data submitted in the record from 
industrial facilities involved in beryllium work provide evidence that 
occupational exposure to a variety of beryllium compounds at levels 
below the current PELs pose a significant risk to workers (see this 
preamble at section VIII, Significance of Risk). OSHA's preliminary 
risk assessment, presented in section VI of this preamble, indicates 
that there is significant risk of beryllium sensitization \45\ and CBD 
from a 45-year (working life) exposure to beryllium at the current TWA 
PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\. The risk assessment further indicates that there 
is significant risk of lung cancer to workers exposed to beryllium at 
the current TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ As discussed in section VIII of this preamble, Significance 
of Risk, beryllium sensitization is a necessary precursor to 
developing CBD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA believes this proposed PEL would be feasible across all 
affected industry sectors (see section IX.D of this preamble, 
Technological Feasibility) and that compliance with the proposed PEL 
would substantially reduce employees' risks of beryllium sensitization, 
CBD, and lung cancer (see section VI of this preamble, Preliminary 
Beryllium Risk Assessment). OSHA's confidence in the feasibility of the 
proposed PEL is high, based both on the preliminary results of the 
Agency's feasibility analysis and on the recommendation of the proposed 
PEL by Materion Corporation and the United Steelworkers. Materion is 
the sole beryllium producer in the U.S., and its facilities include 
some of the processes where OSHA expects it will be most challenging to 
control beryllium exposures. As with several other provisions of the 
proposed standard, OSHA's proposal for the TWA PEL follows the draft 
recommended standard submitted to the Agency by Materion and the 
Steelworkers Union (see this preamble at section III, Events Leading to 
the Proposed Standard).
    OSHA's preliminary risk assessment indicates that the risks 
remaining at the proposed TWA PEL--while much lower than risks at the 
current PEL--are still significant (see this preamble at section VIII, 
Significance of Risk). In addition to the proposed PEL, the Agency is 
considering an alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ that would reduce 
risks to workers further than the proposed PEL would, although 
significant risk remains at 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ as well (see section VIII of 
this preamble, Significance of Risk, and Regulatory Alternatives 
presented at the end of this discussion). Compared with the proposed 
PEL, OSHA has less confidence in the feasibility of a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\. In some industry sectors it is difficult to determine whether a 
PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ could be achieved in most operations, most of the 
time. However, OSHA believes this uncertainty could be resolved with 
additional information on current exposure levels and exposure control 
technologies. OSHA requests additional data and information to inform 
its final determinations on feasibility (see section IX.D of this 
preamble, Technological Feasibility) and the alternative PELs under 
consideration.
    Because significant risks of sensitization and CBD remain at both 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, OSHA is also proposing a variety of 
ancillary provisions to help reduce risk to workers. These ancillary 
provisions include implementation of feasible engineering controls in 
beryllium work areas, respiratory protection, personal protective 
clothing and equipment, exposure monitoring, regulated areas, medical 
surveillance, medical removal, hygiene areas, housekeeping 
requirements, and hazard communication. The Agency believes these 
provisions will reduce the risk beyond that which the proposed TWA PEL 
alone could achieve. These provisions are discussed later in this 
section of the preamble.
    Other federal agencies and organizations have recommended 
occupational exposure limits for beryllium. As mentioned in this 
preamble at section III, Events Leading to the Proposed Standard, in 
1999 the Department of Energy (DOE) issued its Chronic Beryllium 
Disease Prevention Program rule (10 CFR part 850). The DOE rule 
established a beryllium action level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. This action 
level triggers many of the same requirements found in OSHA's proposed 
standard such as regulated areas, periodic exposure monitoring, hygiene 
facilities and practices, respiratory protection, and protective 
clothing and equipment (10 CFR 850.23(b)). Although the DOE rule 
retained OSHA's current TWA PEL, it also stated that employers would be 
required to ensure that employees are not exposed above any ``more 
stringent TWA PEL'' that OSHA may promulgate (10 CFR 850.22; 64 FR 
68873 and 68906, December 8, 1999).
    NIOSH has published a Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) of 0.5 
[mu]g/m\3\ as a Ceiling Limit and a NIOSH Alert on preventing CBD and 
beryllium sensitization (NIOSH, 1977; NIOSH, 2011). The NIOSH Alert 
provides guidance to workers and employers on the hazards of exposure 
to beryllium and ways to reduce or minimize exposure. In 2009, ACGIH 
adopted a revised Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for beryllium that 
lowered the TWA to 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ from 2 [mu]g/m\3\ (ACGIH, 2009).
    The SERs who participated in the SBREFA process had few comments 
about the proposed PELs (OSHA, 2008b). The major concerns about a 
reduced TWA PEL were economic impact and belief that beryllium-related 
health effects did not frequently occur in their industries (OSHA, 
2008b). The Panel recommended that OSHA consider to what extent a very 
low PEL may result in increased costs to small entities. In section V 
of the Preliminary Economic Analysis (OSHA, 2014), OSHA considers the 
costs of the proposed PEL and ancillary provisions triggered by the PEL 
to all affected entities. In addition, the Agency is considering an 
alternative PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ (see Regulatory Alternative 5 below). 
The Agency seeks comment on whether different PELs should be considered 
and the justification for the PELs.
    STEL. OSHA is also proposing a STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, as 
determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes. Where a significant 
risk of material impairment of health remains at the TWA PEL, OSHA has 
the authority to impose a STEL if doing so would further reduce risk 
and is feasible to implement. Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. 
Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1505 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Ethylene Oxide).
    As discussed in section VIII of this preamble, Significance of 
Risk, significant risk of CBD remains at the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ and the proposed alternative TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. OSHA 
believes the proposed STEL would further reduce this risk. The goal of 
a STEL is to protect employees from the risk of harm that can occur as 
a result of brief exposures that exceed the TWA PEL. Without a STEL, 
the only protection workers would have from high short-duration

[[Page 47781]]

exposures is that, when those exposures are factored in, they cannot 
exceed the cumulative 8-hour exposure at the proposed 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ 
TWA PEL (i.e., 1.6 [mu]g/m\3\). Since there are 32 15-minute periods in 
an 8-hour work shift, exposures could be as high as 6.4 [mu]g/m\3\ (32 
x 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\) for 15 minutes under the proposed TWA PEL without a 
STEL, if exposures during the remainder of the 8-hour work shift are 
non-detectable. A STEL serves to minimize high task-based exposures by 
requiring feasible controls in these situations, and has the added 
effect of further reducing the TWA exposure.
    OSHA believes a STEL for beryllium will help reduce the risk of 
sensitization and CBD in beryllium-exposed employees. As discussed in 
this preamble at section V, Health Effects, beryllium sensitization is 
the initial step in the development of CBD. Sensitization has been 
observed in some workers that were only exposed to beryllium for a few 
months (see section V.D.1 of this preamble), and tends to be more 
strongly associated with `peak' and highest-job-worked exposure metrics 
than cumulative exposure (see section V.D.5 of this preamble). Short-
term exposures to beryllium have been shown to contribute to the 
development of lung disease in experimental animals. Beagle dogs that 
were administered a single short-term perinasal exposure to aerosolized 
beryllium oxide developed a granulomatous lung inflammation similar to 
CBD, accompanied by an abnormal BeLPT response (Haley et al., 1989). 
These study findings indicate that adverse effects to the lung may 
occur from beryllium exposures of relatively short duration. OSHA 
believes that a STEL in combination with a TWA PEL adds further 
protection from risk of harm than that afforded by the proposed 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ TWA PEL alone.
    STEL exposures are typically associated with, and need to be 
measured during, the highest-exposure operations that an employee 
performs (see proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii)). OSHA has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ can be measured for 
this brief period of time using OSHA's available sampling and 
analytical methodology, and feasible means exist to maintain 15-minute 
short-term exposures at or below the proposed STEL (see section IX.D of 
this preamble, Technological Feasibility).
    The current entry for beryllium and beryllium compounds (as Be) in 
29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-1 directs the reader to the entry for 
beryllium and beryllium compounds in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-2. Table 
Z-2's entry for beryllium and beryllium compounds includes the current 
TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\, an acceptable ceiling concentration of 5 
[mu]g/m\3\, and an acceptable maximum peak above the acceptable ceiling 
concentration of 25 [mu]g/m\3\, allowable for 30 minutes in an 8-hour 
shift. Table Z in 29 CFR 1915.1000, and 29 CFR 1926.55 Appendix A each 
include the current TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ beryllium and beryllium 
compounds for construction and maritime industries, but no ceiling or 
peak exposure limit.
    As discussed in this Summary and Explanation section of the 
preamble regarding paragraph (a), the scope of the proposed rule is 
limited to general industry. In addition, it provides an exemption for 
those working with materials that contain beryllium only as a trace 
contaminant (less than 0.1 percent composition by weight). The proposal 
would amend the entry for beryllium and beryllium compounds (as Be) in 
29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-1, to add a cross reference to the new 
standard for operations or sectors that fall within the scope of the 
proposed standard, and note that industries not covered under the 
proposed standard would continue to be covered by the entry in 29 CFR 
1910.1000 Table Z-2. The TWA, ceiling, and maximum peak exposure limits 
in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-2 would still apply to general industry 
applications and sectors exempted from the proposed standard. Under the 
proposed standard, the exposure limits in the current 29 CFR 1915.1000 
Table Z and 29 CFR 1926.55 Appendix A would continue to apply in 
construction and maritime industries. As discussed previously in this 
preamble at Section I, Issues and Alternatives, and Section XVIII, 
paragraph (a), OSHA is considering Regulatory Alternative #2b, which 
would update 29 CFR 1915.1000 Tables Z-1 and Z-2, 29 CFR 1915.1000 
Table Z, and 29 CFR 1926.55 Appendix A to the PEL and STEL adopted 
through this rulemaking to the general industry, construction, and 
maritime sectors and applications that do not fall within the scope of 
the proposed rule. Note that OSHA is proposing a TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ and a STEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\, and OSHA is also considering 
alternative TWA PELs of .1 [mu]g/m\3\ and .5 [mu]g/m\3\, and 
alternative STELs of .5 [mu]g/m\3\, 1 [mu]g/m\3\, and 2.5 [mu]g/m\3\.
    OSHA invites comment on the proposed TWA PEL and STEL and on 
Regulatory Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 below, which specify a lower STEL, 
a lower TWA PEL, and a higher TWA PEL than those proposed, 
respectively. OSHA also requests comments and data on the range of TWA 
and short-term exposures in covered industries and the types of 
operations and engineering or work practice controls in place where 
these exposures are occurring.
Regulatory Alternative 3
    This alternative would modify the proposed STEL to be five times 
the TWA PEL, rather than ten times the TWA PEL. Thus, if OSHA 
promulgates the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, the STEL would be 1 
[mu]g/m\3\; if OSHA promulgates the alternative TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\, the STEL would be 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\; and if OSHA promulgates the 
alternative TWA PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\; the STEL would be 2.5 [mu]g/
m\3\.
    As discussed above, OSHA has preliminarily determined that short-
term exposures to beryllium can cause beryllium sensitization, and that 
therefore a STEL in combination with a TWA PEL adds further protection 
from risk of harm than that afforded by the proposed 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ TWA 
PEL alone.
    When OSHA regulations in the past have included a STEL, it is 
typically five times the PEL. For example, OSHA's standard for 
methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052) specifies an 8-hour TWA PEL of 25 
ppm, and a short-term limit of 125 ppm averaged over 15 minutes. The 
standard for acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045) sets an 8-hour TWA PEL of 
2 ppm, and a short-term limit of 10 ppm averaged over 15 minutes. The 
final standards for benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), for ethylene oxide (29 
CFR 1910.1047) and for 1,3-Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051) specify an 8-
hour time-weighted average TWA PEL of 1 ppm and short-term limits of 5 
ppm averaged over 15 minutes. OSHA has occasionally deviated from its 
usual practice of setting a STEL at five times the TWA PEL, as in the 
cases of formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048) (TWA PEL 0.75 ppm, STEL 2 ppm) 
and methylenedianiline (29 CFR 1910.1050) (TWA PEL 10 ppb, STEL 100 
ppb). OSHA requests comment on whether the beryllium standard should 
set a STEL at ten times the TWA PEL, as suggested by the Materion-USW 
joint proposed rule and specified in this proposal, or should it 
maintain its more usual practice of setting a STEL at five times the 
PEL.
Regulatory Alternative 4
    This alternative would modify the proposed TWA PEL to be 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\. As discussed above, OSHA believes a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ would 
better protect workers from significant risk of CBD and lung cancer 
than the proposed TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. OSHA's preliminary risk 
assessment indicates that the risk of CBD and lung cancer remaining at 
the proposed TWA PEL are significant, and

[[Page 47782]]

that an alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ would reduce these risks to 
workers further than the proposed PEL would. However, compared with the 
proposed PEL, OSHA has less confidence in the feasibility of a PEL of 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (see section IX.D of this preamble, Technological 
Feasibility). This alternative would also lower the action level from 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ to .05 [mu]g/m\3\.
Regulatory Alternative 5
    This alternative would modify the proposed TWA PEL to be 0.5 [mu]g/
m\3\. This alternative would also raise the proposed action level to 
2.5 [mu]g/m\3\. As discussed above, the SBREFA Panel recommended that 
OSHA consider the economic impact of a reduced PEL and consider 
regulatory alternatives that would ease cost burden for small entities. 
The economic impact of a reduced PEL is considered in section VIII of 
the Preliminary Economic Analysis (OSHA, 2014). However, OSHA's 
preliminary risk assessment indicates significant risk to workers 
exposed at a PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, and OSHA's preliminary feasibility 
analysis indicates that a lower PEL is feasible. Unless OSHA receives 
new evidence showing that a PEL lower than 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ is not 
feasible or not needed to reduce significant risk, OSHA cannot adopt 
this alternative PEL due to its statutory obligation to set the PEL at 
the lowest feasible level to reduce or eliminate significant risk.
(d) Exposure Monitoring
    Paragraph (d) of the proposed standard imposes monitoring 
requirements pursuant to section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(7)), which mandates that any standard promulgated under section 
6(b) shall, where appropriate, ``provide for monitoring or measuring 
employee exposure at such locations and intervals, and in such manner 
as may be necessary for the protection of employees.''
    The purposes of requiring assessment of employee exposures to 
beryllium include determination of the extent and degree of exposure at 
the worksite; identification and prevention of employee overexposure; 
identification of the sources of exposure to beryllium; collection of 
exposure data so that the employer can select the proper control 
methods to be used; and evaluation of the effectiveness of those 
selected methods. Exposure assessment enables employers to meet their 
legal obligation to ensure that their employees are not exposed to 
beryllium in excess of the permissible exposure limits and to notify 
employees of their exposure levels, including any overexposures as 
required by section 8(c)(3) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(3)). In 
addition, the availability of exposure data enables PLHCPs performing 
medical examinations to be informed of the extent of an employee's 
occupational exposures.
    Paragraph (d)(1) contains proposed general requirements for 
exposure monitoring. Under paragraph (d)(1)(i), the monitoring 
requirements apply whenever there is actual exposure to airborne 
beryllium at any level, or a reasonable expectation of such exposure. 
As reflected in the definition of ``exposure'' in paragraph (b) of this 
standard, exposure monitoring results must reflect the amount of 
beryllium an employee would be exposed to without the use of a 
respirator.
    Under paragraph (d)(1)(ii), monitoring to determine employee time-
weighted average exposures must represent the employee's average 
exposure to airborne beryllium over an eight-hour workday. Under 
paragraph (d)(1)(iii), short term exposures must be characterized by 
sampling periods of 15 minutes for each operation likely to produce 
exposures above the STEL.\46\ Samples taken pursuant to paragraphs 
(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(1)(iii) must reflect the exposure of employees on 
each work shift, for each job classification, in each beryllium work 
area. Samples must be taken within an employee's breathing zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Although OSHA has used the phrase ``most likely to produce 
exposures'' in other standards in the past (e.g., Ethylene Oxide (29 
CFR 1910.1047)), OSHA's intended meaning for previous standards and 
for the proposed standard is that employers must characterize 
exposures for all operations likely to produce exposures above the 
STEL. Accordingly, OSHA is using the phrase ``likely to produce 
exposures'' rather than ``most likely to produce exposures'' in this 
proposed standard to clarify this longstanding intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Employers must accurately characterize the exposure of each 
employee. In some cases, this will entail monitoring all exposed 
employees. In other cases, monitoring of ``representative'' employees 
is sufficient. Under paragraph (d)(1)(iv), representative exposure 
sampling is permitted when a number of employees perform essentially 
the same job under the same conditions. For such situations, it may be 
sufficient to monitor a fraction of these employees in order to obtain 
data that are representative of the remaining employees. Representative 
personal sampling for employees engaged in similar work with beryllium 
exposure of similar frequency and duration can be achieved by 
monitoring the employee(s) reasonably expected to have the highest 
exposures. For example, this may involve monitoring the beryllium 
exposure of the employee closest to an exposure source. This exposure 
result may then be attributed to the remaining employees in the group.
    Representative exposure monitoring must at a minimum include one 
full-shift sample taken for each job classification, in each beryllium 
work area, for each shift. These samples must consist of at least one 
sample characteristic of the entire shift or consecutive representative 
samples taken over the length of the shift. Where employees are not 
performing the same job tasks under the same conditions, representative 
sampling will not adequately characterize actual exposures, and 
employers must monitor each employee individually.
    Under paragraph (d)(1)(v), the employer would be required to use 
monitoring and analytical methods that can measure airborne levels of 
beryllium to an accuracy of plus or minus 25 percent (+/-25 percent and 
can produce accurate measurements at a statistical confidence level of 
95 percent for airborne concentrations at or above the action level. 
OSHA believes the following methods could meet these criteria: NIOSH 
7704 (also ASTM D7202), ASTM D7439, OSHA 206, OSHA 125G, and OSHA 125G 
using ICP-MS. All of these methods are available to commercial 
laboratories analyzing beryllium samples. It should be noted that most 
of these analytical methods were validated using soluble beryllium 
compounds and hence the efficacy of the sample preparation 
(specifically digestion of particulate beryllium in mineral acids) step 
must be verified prior to use (Stefaniak et al., 2008). Verification 
can be aided, in part, through use of an appropriate reference 
material. However, not all of these methods are appropriate for 
measuring beryllium oxide, so employers must verify that the analytical 
methods they use are appropriate for measuring the form(s) of beryllium 
present in the workplace. A certified reference material consisting of 
high-fired beryllium oxide is available from the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology as Standard Reference Material 1877: Beryllium 
oxide powder. This reference material carries a certified value for 
beryllium content and was developed to meet the need to demonstrate 
analytical method efficacy for poorly soluble forms of beryllium 
(Winchester et al., 2009). OSHA requests comment on whether these 
methods would satisfy the requirements of proposed paragraph (d)(1)(v), 
and whether other methods would also meet these criteria.

[[Page 47783]]

    Rather than specifying a particular method that must be used, OSHA 
proposes to take a performance-oriented approach and instead allow the 
employer to use the method of its choosing as long as that method meets 
the accuracy specifications in paragraph (d)(1)(v), and the reported 
results represent the total airborne concentration of beryllium for the 
operation and worker being characterized. For example, a respirable 
fraction sample or size selective sample would not be directly 
comparable to either PEL, and therefore would not be considered valid.
    Paragraph (d)(2) contains proposed requirements for initial 
monitoring. OSHA proposes that employers characterize the 8-hour TWA 
exposure and 15-minute short-term exposure for each employee who is 
known to be exposed to airborne beryllium at any level or whose 
exposure is reasonably expected. Further obligations under the standard 
would be based on the results of this assessment. These obligations may 
include periodic monitoring, establishment of regulated areas, and 
implementation of control measures.
    Initial monitoring need not be conducted in two circumstances. 
First, under paragraph (d)(2)(i), initial monitoring is not required 
where the employer has previously monitored for beryllium exposure and 
the data were obtained during work operations and under workplace 
conditions closely resembling the processes, types of material, control 
methods, work practices, and environmental conditions used and 
prevailing in the employer's current operations. In addition, the 
characteristics of the beryllium-containing material being handled when 
the employer previously monitored must closely resemble the 
characteristics of the beryllium-containing material used in the 
employer's current operations. Such historical monitoring must satisfy 
all other requirements of this section, including the accuracy and 
confidence requirements in paragraph (d)(1)(v). If these requirements 
are satisfied, the employer may rely on such earlier monitoring results 
to satisfy the initial monitoring requirements of this section. This 
provision is designed to make it clear that OSHA does not intend to 
require employers who have recently performed appropriate employee 
monitoring to conduct initial monitoring. For historical data to 
satisfy the employer's obligation to monitor for 8-hour TWA exposures 
under paragraph (d)(1)(ii), these data must characterize 8-hour TWA 
exposures that satisfy the requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(i). For 
historical monitoring to satisfy an employer's obligation to monitor 
for 15-minute short-term exposures under paragraph (d)(1)(iii), these 
data must reflect 15-minute short-term exposures. OSHA anticipates that 
paragraph (d)(2)(i) will reduce the compliance burden on employers, 
since redundant monitoring would not be required.
    Second, under paragraph (d)(2)(ii), where the employer has 
objective data demonstrating that a particular product or material 
containing beryllium or a specific process, operation, or activity 
involving beryllium cannot release dust, fumes, or mist in 
concentrations at or above the action level or STEL under any 
reasonably expected conditions of use, the employer may rely upon such 
data to satisfy initial monitoring requirements. The data must reflect 
workplace conditions closely resembling the processes, types of 
material, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditions 
in the employer's current operations.
    Objective data used in place of initial monitoring under paragraph 
(d)(2) must demonstrate that the work operation or the product cannot 
reasonably be foreseen to release beryllium in airborne concentrations 
at or above the action level or above the STEL under the expected 
conditions of use that will cause the greatest possible release. The 
data must demonstrate that exposures cannot meet or exceed the action 
level and that exposures cannot exceed the STEL; if the data do not 
satisfy both of these requirements, they do not meet the criteria of 
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and would not exempt the employer from conducting 
initial monitoring. When using the term ``objective data,'' OSHA is 
referring to manufacturers' case studies, laboratory studies, and other 
research that demonstrates, usually by means of exposure data, that 
exposures above the action level or STEL cannot occur. The objective 
data may include monitoring data, or mathematical modeling or 
calculations based on the chemical and physical properties of a 
material. For example, data collected by a trade association from its 
members that reflect workplace conditions closely resembling the 
processes, material, control methods, work practices, and environmental 
conditions in the employer's current operations may be used. OSHA has 
allowed employers to use objective data in lieu of initial monitoring 
in other standards, such as those for formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048) 
and asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001).
    Paragraph (d)(3) contains requirements for periodic monitoring. The 
requirement for this continued monitoring depends on the results of 
initial monitoring. If the initial monitoring indicates that employee 
exposures are below the action level, no further monitoring would be 
required unless, under paragraph (d)(4), changes in the workplace could 
result in new or additional exposures. If the initial determination 
reveals employee exposures to be at or above the action level and at or 
below the TWA PEL, the employer must perform periodic monitoring at 
least annually. In stating ``at least annually,'' OSHA intends that 
employers must monitor at least once during the 12-month period after 
initial monitoring is performed, and then at least once in every 
subsequent 12-month period. Of course, the proposed requirement for 
annual monitoring does not preclude employers from monitoring more 
frequently.
    OSHA recognizes that exposures in the workplace can vary from day 
to day, between shifts, and even within the same operation. Beryllium 
exposures for many operations have been shown to be highly variable, 
with some exposures exceeding the current TWA PEL. When airborne 
concentrations fluctuate in this way, the probability of exceeding the 
PELs increases. Periodic monitoring provides the employer with 
additional and up-to-date information to use to make informed decisions 
on whether additional control measures are necessary.
    Periodic monitoring provides the employer with exposure information 
for additional use beyond that of determining compliance with the PELs. 
Periodic monitoring will provide data to determine whether or not 
engineering controls are working properly and work practices are 
effective in preventing exposure. Selection of appropriate respiratory 
protection also depends on adequate knowledge of employee exposures 
obtained through periodic monitoring.
    This proposal does not require periodic monitoring where exposures 
are above the TWA PEL, which represents a departure from past OSHA 
standards such as Chromium (29 CFR 1910.1026) and Cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027). OSHA has eliminated the requirement for periodic monitoring 
where exposures are above the PEL in response to a multi-stakeholder 
proposal to this effect (Materion and Steelworkers, 2012). OSHA 
anticipates this could be an appropriate way to reduce costs for 
employers where exposures are above the TWA PEL after the employer has 
implemented all feasible engineering and work practice controls. 
However, the employer must continue to assess the status of available

[[Page 47784]]

feasible engineering and work practice controls to ensure that the 
employer has reduced exposures to the lowest level feasible. And even 
where this standard does not explicitly require periodic monitoring, 
employers may need to conduct periodic monitoring to ensure that 
controls are working properly, and that employees are adequately 
protected and are receiving the services and benefits to which they are 
entitled under this standard such as medical surveillance and medical 
removal. OSHA requests comment on whether the proposed annual periodic 
monitoring for exposures at or above the action level but below the TWA 
PEL is sufficiently protective for employees, or whether annual 
periodic monitoring should be required when exposures exceed the TWA 
PEL (see Section I of this preamble, Issues and Alternatives).
    Under paragraph (d)(4), employers are to perform additional 
monitoring when there is a change in production processes, materials, 
equipment, personnel, work practices, or control methods, that may 
result in new or additional exposures to beryllium. In addition, there 
may be other situations that can result in new or additional exposures 
that are unique to an employer's work situation. In order to cover 
those special situations, OSHA requires the employer to perform 
additional monitoring whenever the employer has any reason to believe 
that a change has occurred that may result in new or additional 
exposures. For example, an employer would be required to perform 
additional monitoring when an employee has a confirmed positive result 
for beryllium sensitization, exhibits signs or symptoms of CBD, or is 
diagnosed with CBD. These conditions necessitate additional monitoring 
to ascertain if airborne exposures contributed to the positive results 
of the medical testing. Another example of a situation requiring 
additional monitoring would be a process modification that would 
increase the amount of beryllium-containing material used thereby 
possibly increasing employee exposure. Once additional monitoring has 
been performed and exposures characterized, the employer can take 
appropriate action to protect exposed employees.
    Under paragraph (d)(5) employers must notify each employee of his 
or her monitoring results within 15 working days after receiving the 
results. Employees who must be notified include both the employees 
whose exposures were monitored directly and those whose exposures are 
represented by the monitoring. The employer must either notify each 
employee individually in writing, or post the monitoring results in an 
appropriate location accessible to all employees required to be 
notified. This proposed requirement is consistent with other OSHA 
standards, such as those for methylenedianiline (29 CFR 1910.1050), 
1,3-butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), and methylene chloride (29 CFR 
1910.1052). In addition, whenever the TWA PEL or STEL has been 
exceeded, the written notification required by paragraph (d)(5)(i) must 
contain a description of the suspected or known sources of exposure as 
well as the corrective action(s) being taken by the employer to reduce 
the employee's exposure to or below the applicable PEL. This 
requirement is necessary to assure employees that the employer is 
making efforts to furnish them with a safe and healthful work 
environment, and is required under section 8(c)(3) of the Act (29 
U.S.C. 657(c)(3)).
    Paragraph (d)(6) requires the employer to provide employees and 
their designated representatives an opportunity to observe any 
monitoring of employee exposure to beryllium. Employees who must be 
allowed to observe monitoring include both the employees whose 
exposures are being monitored and those whose exposures are represented 
by the monitoring. When observation of monitoring requires entry into 
an area where the use of protective clothing or equipment is required, 
the employer must provide the observer with that protective clothing or 
equipment, at no cost. The employer must also assure that the observer 
uses such clothing or equipment appropriately and complies with all 
other applicable safety and health requirements and procedures.
    The requirement for employers to provide employees and their 
representatives the opportunity to observe monitoring is consistent 
with the OSH Act. Section 8(c)(3) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(3)) 
mandates that regulations requiring employers to keep records of 
employee exposures to toxic materials or harmful physical agents 
provide employees or their representatives with the opportunity to 
observe monitoring or measurements. Also, Section 6(b)(7) of the Act 
(29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)) states that, where appropriate, OSHA standards 
are to prescribe suitable protective equipment to be used in dealing 
with hazards. The provision for observation of monitoring and 
protection of the observers is also consistent with OSHA's other 
substance-specific health standards, such as those for cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027) and methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).
    After reviewing commenter responses to the SBREFA inquiry and the 
Agency's RFI on beryllium, OSHA has learned that the amount of employer 
effort and diligence in assessing exposure levels is proportional to 
the presumed degree of exposure (OSHA, 2008b). Commenters whose 
companies make products with high-content beryllium are much more 
likely to have incorporated considerable sampling into their exposure 
assessment protocol. (Brush Wellman, 2003, Honeywell, 2003). In other 
instances, where manufacturers use less beryllium or low-content 
beryllium alloys, such as in specialty or precision products, sampling 
occurs less frequently. (OSHA, 2007a).
    Representatives of various stamping firms who are currently 
experiencing low levels of exposure felt that their industry as a whole 
should be exempt from the initial exposure assessment provision of this 
standard and any additional requirements related to exposure 
monitoring. (OSHA, 2007a). However, available information demonstrates 
that initial exposure assessment needs to be applied to all industries 
where beryllium is processed or otherwise handled (see this preamble at 
section V, Health Effects). For example, OSHA's technological 
feasibility analysis for fabrication of beryllium alloy products 
summarizes exposures for workers in the stamped and formed metal 
products sector (see this preamble at Section IX.D, Technological 
Feasibility). Exposure monitoring data indicate that while for most 
production tasks, the median baseline exposure is less than the 
proposed action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, some tasks have the potential 
to generate exposures greater than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. Initial exposure 
monitoring will help identify the areas and job tasks needing 
additional controls, or demonstrate that no additional controls are 
needed. Initial monitoring also aids the employer in determining 
whether controls currently in use to prevent or reduce beryllium 
exposure are effective.
    To address many of these comments, OSHA has established 
performance-oriented language for the exposure assessment provisions of 
this standard, allowing employers to choose any method of exposure 
monitoring that meets the accuracy specifications in paragraph 
(d)(1)(v) of this standard, and that measures the total airborne 
concentration of beryllium for the operation and worker exposures being 
characterized. In addition, employers may use historical or objective 
data in accordance with proposed paragraph (d)(2) of this standard to 
satisfy their initial monitoring obligations. OSHA

[[Page 47785]]

believes this flexibility in the proposal accommodates commenters' 
concerns without jeopardizing beryllium-exposed workers' health.
    SERs also commented that exposure monitoring is costly and that 
OSHA should consider alternatives that allow employers with very low 
exposures to be exempt from monitoring. As a possible means of 
alleviating costs, the Panel recommended that OSHA encourage the use of 
objective data and explain more clearly the requirements for its use. 
(OSHA, 2008b). OSHA has clarified in this preamble the circumstances 
under which an employer may use historical and objective data in lieu 
of initial monitoring. OSHA is also considering whether to create a 
guidance product on the use of objective data. The Agency requests 
comments on whether a guidance product on the use of objective data 
would be helpful to businesses seeking to comply with the beryllium 
standard, and what questions or areas of information it should address.
    In addition, OSHA has reduced to annually the frequency of periodic 
monitoring where exposures are at or above the action level and at or 
below the TWA PEL, rather than the six-month frequency proposed during 
the SBREFA process. OSHA has also removed the requirement for periodic 
monitoring every three months where exposures exceed the PEL. The new 
provisions were suggested in the Materion-USW recommended standard 
submitted to OSHA in 2012 (Materion and USW, 2012). While these changes 
to the proposed standard reduce the cost burden of exposure monitoring 
for employers, they also may reduce employees' protection from 
overexposure to beryllium.
    OSHA notes that the frequency and performance of exposure 
monitoring in the draft proposal presented to the SBREFA Panel are 
similar to OSHA's typical approach to periodic exposure monitoring. 
Most OSHA standards require monitoring at least every six months where 
exposure levels meet or exceed the action level, and every three months 
where exposures are above the TWA PEL. For example, the standards for 
vinyl chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017), inorganic arsenic (29 CFR 
1910.1018), lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027), 
methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), acrylonitrile (29 CFR 
1910.1045), ethylene oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047), formaldehyde (29 CFR 
1910.1048), all specify periodic monitoring at least every six months 
where exposures are above the action level. Periodic exposure 
monitoring is also required where exposures exceed the PEL in most 
health standards issued since OSHA began specifying frequency for 
periodic monitoring. In many cases monitoring is required every three 
months where exposures exceed the PEL (methylene chloride (29 CFR 
1910.1052), ethylene oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047), acrylonitrile (29 CFR 
1910.1045), inorganic arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018), lead (29 CFR 
1910.1025), and vinyl chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017)); in other cases, it 
is required at least every six months (cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027), 1,3-
Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048), benzene 
(29 CFR 1910.1028) and asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001)). Thus, the periodic 
monitoring requirements outlined in this proposal and in the Materion-
USW recommended standard depart significantly from OSHA's usual 
requirements.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed schedule for periodic 
monitoring. Are the proposed requirements both practical for employers 
and protective for employees? OSHA also requests comment on Regulatory 
Alternatives 9, 10, and 11 below, which would modify the frequency and 
performance of exposure monitoring to be more similar to previous 
standards and to the draft proposal presented to the SBREFA Panel.
Regulatory Alternative 9
    This alternative would require employers to perform exposure 
monitoring at least every 180 days where exposures are at or above the 
action level or above the STEL, and at or below the TWA PEL. If the 
initial monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section reveals 
employee 8-hour TWA exposure at or above the action level, the employer 
shall repeat such monitoring for each such employee at least every 180 
days to evaluate the employee's TWA exposures. If the initial 15-minute 
short-term exposure monitoring reveals employee exposure above the 
STEL, the employer shall repeat such monitoring for each such employee 
at least every 180 days to evaluate the employee's 15-minute short-term 
exposures. Where 8-hour TWA exposures are above the TWA PEL, no 
monitoring would be required.
Regulatory Alternative 10
    This alternative would require employers to perform monitoring at 
least every 180 days where exposures are at or above the action level 
or above the STEL. Unlike the periodic monitoring requirement in the 
current proposal, this alternative would include periodic monitoring 
where exposures are above the TWA PEL. If the initial 8-hour TWA 
exposure monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section 
reveals employee exposure at or above the action level, the employer 
shall repeat such monitoring for each such employee at least every 180 
days to evaluate the employee's TWA exposures. If the initial 15-minute 
short-term exposure monitoring reveals employee exposure above the 
STEL, the employer shall repeat such monitoring for each such employee 
at least every 180 days to evaluate the employee's short-term 
exposures.
Regulatory Alternative 11
    This alternative would require employers to perform monitoring at 
least every 180 days where exposures are at or above the action level 
and at or below the TWA PEL. It would require employers to perform 
monitoring at least every 90 days where exposures are above the TWA PEL 
or STEL.
    If the initial 8-hour TWA exposure monitoring required by paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section reveals employee TWA exposure at or above the 
action level and at or below the TWA PEL, the employer shall repeat 
such monitoring for each such employee at least every 180 days to 
evaluate the employee's TWA exposures. If this initial monitoring 
reveals employee exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer shall 
repeat such monitoring for each such employee at least every 90 days to 
evaluate the employee's 8-hour TWA and 15-minute short-term exposures.
 (e) Beryllium Work Areas and Regulated Areas
    Proposed paragraph (e) requires employers to establish and maintain 
beryllium work areas wherever employees are, or can reasonably be 
expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium, regardless of the level 
of exposure, and regulated areas wherever employees are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne concentrations of 
beryllium in excess of the TWA PEL or STEL. Paragraph (e) would also 
require employers to demarcate beryllium work areas and regulated 
areas, and limit access to regulated areas to authorized persons.
    The proposed requirements for these areas serve several important 
purposes. First, requiring employers to establish and demarcate 
beryllium work areas and regulated areas ensures that workers and other 
persons are aware of the potential presence of airborne beryllium. 
Second, the demarcation of regulated areas must include warning signs 
describing the dangers of

[[Page 47786]]

beryllium exposure in accordance with paragraph (m) of this standard, 
which ensures that persons entering regulated areas will be aware of 
these dangers. Third, limiting access to regulated areas restricts the 
number of people potentially exposed to beryllium at levels above the 
TWA PEL or STEL, and the serious health effects associated with such 
exposure. Limiting access to regulated areas has the added benefit of 
reducing the employer's obligation to implement certain provisions of 
the proposed rule triggered by employee exposure in a regulated area.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) would require employers to establish 
beryllium work areas where employees are, or can reasonably be expected 
to be, exposed to airborne beryllium. OSHA intends this provision to 
apply to all areas and situations where employees are actually exposed 
to airborne beryllium and to areas and situations where the employer 
has reason to anticipate or believe that airborne exposures may occur. 
The requirements for beryllium work areas under proposed paragraph 
(e)(1)(i) are not tied to a particular level of exposure, but rather 
are triggered by the presence of airborne beryllium at any exposure 
level.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require employers to establish 
regulated areas wherever employees are actually exposed to airborne 
beryllium above either the TWA PEL or STEL, and wherever such exposure 
can reasonably be expected. This requirement would apply if any 
exposure monitoring or historical or objective data indicate that 
airborne exposures are in excess of either the TWA PEL or STEL, or if 
the employer has reason to anticipate or believe that airborne 
exposures may be above the TWA PEL or STEL, even if the employer has 
not yet characterized or monitored those exposures. For example, if 
newly introduced processes involving beryllium appear to be creating 
dust and have not yet been monitored, the employer should reasonably 
anticipate that airborne exposures could exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. In 
this situation the employer must designate and demarcate the area as a 
regulated area to protect workers and other persons until monitoring 
results establish that exposures are at or below the TWA PEL and STEL. 
The employer may then remove the regulated area designation.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) requires employers to demarcate each 
beryllium work area to distinguish it from the rest of the workplace. 
The proposal specifies that employers must identify beryllium work 
areas ``through signs or any other methods that adequately establish 
and inform each employee of the boundaries of each beryllium work 
area.'' This means that the demarcation must effectively alert workers 
and other persons that airborne beryllium may be present. Proposed 
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires employers to identify regulated areas and 
post warning signs at each approach to the regulated area in accordance 
with proposed paragraph (m)(2) of this standard.
    This proposed rule gives employers flexibility in determining the 
best means to demarcate beryllium work areas and regulated areas (with 
the exception of paragraph (m), which sets forth specific requirements 
for warning signs at entry points to regulated areas). OSHA is aware 
that employers use various methods to demarcate certain areas in the 
workplace, including barricades, textured flooring, roped-off areas, 
``No entry''/``No access'' signs, and painted boundary lines (AIA, 
2003, Honeywell, 2003, DOD, 2003). Allowing employers to choose the 
methods that best demarcate beryllium work areas and regulated areas is 
consistent with OSHA's belief that employers are in the best position 
to make such determinations, based on the specific conditions in their 
workplaces. Whatever demarcation methods the employer selects must be 
clear and understandable enough to alert workers to the boundaries of 
the beryllium work area or regulated area. This may mean, for example, 
including more than one language on a sign, if the inclusion of a 
second language would make the sign understandable to workers with 
limited English reading skills.
    In determining what demarcation might be necessary and effective, 
employers should consider factors including:
     The configuration of the beryllium work area or regulated 
area;
     Whether the beryllium work area or regulated area is 
permanent or temporary;
     The airborne concentrations of beryllium in the beryllium 
work area or regulated area;
     The number of employees working in areas adjacent to any 
beryllium work area or regulated area; and
     The period of time the beryllium work area or regulated 
area is expected to have hazardous exposures.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirement to demarcate 
beryllium work areas and regulated areas. OSHA also requests comment on 
whether the standard should allow the performance-based approach 
indicated in the proposal or whether the rule should specify what types 
of demarcation employers must use.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3) requires employers to limit access to 
regulated areas. Because of the potentially serious health effects of 
exposure to beryllium and the need for persons entering the regulated 
area to be properly protected, OSHA believes that the number of persons 
allowed to access regulated areas should be limited to those 
individuals listed in proposed paragraph (e)(3). Specifically, this 
provision would require employers to limit access to regulated areas 
to: (i) persons the employer authorizes or requires to be in a 
regulated area to perform work duties; (ii) persons entering a 
regulated area as designated representatives of employees for the 
purposes of exercising the right to observe exposure monitoring 
procedures under paragraph (d)(6) of this standard; and (iii) persons 
authorized by law to be in a regulated area.
    The first group, persons the employer authorizes or requires to be 
in a regulated area to perform work duties, may include workers and 
other persons whose jobs involve operating machinery, equipment, and 
processes located in regulated areas; performing maintenance and repair 
operations on machinery, equipment, and processes in those areas; 
conducting inspections or quality control tasks; and supervising those 
who work in regulated areas.
    The second group is made up of persons entering a regulated area as 
designated representatives of employees for the purpose of exercising 
the right to observe exposure monitoring under paragraph (d)(6). As 
explained in this section of the preamble regarding paragraph (d), 
providing employees and their representatives with the opportunity to 
observe monitoring is consistent with the OSH Act and OSHA's other 
substance-specific health standards, such as those for cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027) and methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).
    The third consists of persons authorized by law to be in a 
regulated area. This category includes persons authorized to enter 
regulated areas by the OSH Act, OSHA regulations, or any other 
applicable law. OSHA compliance officers would fall into this group.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(4) requires employers to provide and ensure 
that each employee entering a regulated area uses personal protective 
clothing and equipment, including respirators, in accordance with 
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this standard.
    In general, commenters did not oppose the concept of regulated 
areas. Stakeholders responding to the RFI supported the need for 
regulated areas

[[Page 47787]]

(ASAS, 2002; AFL-CIO, 2003; Honeywell, 2003). For example, the 
Department of Defense thought the use of regulated areas was a good way 
to limit the number of workers potentially exposed to beryllium (DOD, 
2003).
    Most small entity representatives (SERs) who participated in the 
SBREFA process were not concerned about the impact of tying the 
regulated area requirements to one of the PEL options presented in the 
SBREFA draft proposed standard (OSHA, 2007b). Only one of the SERs 
indicated that it may have a process where typical or average exposures 
are above the lowest PEL option of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (OSHA, 2007a), which 
is one half the currently proposed TWA PEL.
    SERs were divided on the issue of whether it was possible to 
isolate or segregate operations to meet the conditions of a regulated 
area. Most of the SERs did not currently isolate or segregate their 
beryllium processes, and several expressed concern about the difficulty 
and costs associated with isolating or segregating their beryllium 
processes (OSHA, 2008b). Some SERs said they have large, open plant 
floors making it difficult to isolated specific beryllium operations 
(OSHA, 2008b). Other SERs said the proposed requirement for a regulated 
area would be difficult and costly because they move machinery and 
equipment for production purposes. They said that segregating or 
restricting processes or machines and equipment to certain areas would 
affect productivity to some extent (OSHA, 2008b). SERs who use 
beryllium-containing materials only occasionally, frequently as part of 
a larger order, said that it would be impractical to isolate specific 
areas or machines for beryllium work (OSHA, 2008b). SERs in the 
precision metal products industry indicated their beryllium operations 
already were well controlled with machine enclosures (e.g., lathes and 
forming machines) and therefore would not need to segregate these 
operations (OSHA, 2008b). The Panel recommended that OSHA revisit the 
cost analysis of regulated areas if the lowest PEL option (0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\) is proposed (OSHA, 2008b). The Panel also recommended that OSHA 
consider dropping or limiting the provision for regulated areas (OSHA, 
2008b). In response to this recommendation, OSHA analyzed Regulatory 
Alternative #12, which would not require employers to establish 
regulated areas.
    The proposed rule presented during the SBREFA process did not 
contain any requirements for beryllium work areas. These requirements 
were added by OSHA after the SBREFA process in response to a proposal 
OSHA received from a stakeholder group (Materion and USW, 2012). 
However, because the proposal presented during the SBREFA process 
included a range of proposed TWA PELs down to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, SERs had 
the opportunity to comment on the requirements for regulated areas at 
very low exposure levels. OSHA believes that SER comments about 
regulated areas should reflect SER concerns about beryllium work areas 
as well. OSHA has also made the establishment and demarcation 
requirements for beryllium work areas flexible and performance-based to 
address SER concerns. OSHA invites comment on the proposed requirements 
for beryllium work areas and regulated areas, and on Regulatory 
Alternative 12 below. OSHA also requests comments and information on 
work settings where establishing regulated areas could be problematic 
or infeasible and what other approaches might be used to warn employees 
in such work settings of high risk areas.
Regulatory Alternative 12
    This alternative would eliminate the requirement to establish and 
demarcate regulated areas within facilities where there is beryllium 
exposure. It does not eliminate the proposal's requirement to establish 
and demarcate beryllium work areas.
    OSHA is aware that eliminating the requirement for regulated areas 
may ease the costs and burdens of compliance for some employers. 
However, this potential benefit of Alternative #12 must be considered 
in light of the reasons regulated areas were included in the proposal, 
and are a feature of most OSHA health regulations. As discussed 
previously, the proposed requirements for regulated areas serve to 
ensure that access to areas where beryllium exposures exceed the TWA 
PEL or STEL is restricted, reducing the number of people exposed to 
beryllium at levels that create a high risk of adverse health effects. 
Second, the requirement for warning signs ensures that persons who 
enter areas where exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL will be aware of 
the hazards present and take appropriate precautions such as the proper 
use of personal protective equipment.
    OSHA believes the proposed requirements for beryllium work areas 
and regulated areas balance commenters' concerns with the need to 
reduce the number of employees exposed to beryllium and notify those 
exposed of the risks involved. The proposed standard does not require 
employers to establish and demarcate beryllium work areas or regulated 
areas by permanently segregating and isolating processes generating 
airborne beryllium. Instead, the standard allows employers to use 
temporary or flexible methods to demarcate beryllium work areas and 
regulated areas.
    OSHA believes that these flexible, performance-based requirements 
could accommodate open work spaces, changeable plant layouts, and 
sporadic or occasional beryllium use without imposing undue costs or 
burdens. For example, the standard does not prohibit employers from 
moving machinery or equipment for production purposes as occurs in the 
beryllium-copper alloy industry (OSHA, 2008b). Where employers need to 
move machinery and equipment, the proposed rule allows employers to use 
methods such as temporary designations and flexible demarcations. OSHA 
also notes that some employers have enclosed machines (e.g., lathes) to 
prevent the release of airborne beryllium into the workplace, thereby 
potentially eliminating the need for the machine to be in a regulated 
area (OSHA, 2008b).
(f) Methods of Compliance
    Paragraph (f) of the proposed rule establishes methods for reducing 
employee exposure to beryllium through the use of a written exposure 
control plan and engineering and work practice controls.
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i), employers must establish, 
implement, and maintain a written exposure control plan for beryllium 
work areas. OSHA believes that adherence to the written exposure 
control plan will help reduce skin contact with beryllium, which can 
lead to beryllium sensitization, and airborne exposure, which can lead 
to beryllium sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer. Because skin contact 
and airborne exposure can occur in any workplace within the scope of 
the standard, OSHA has made the preliminary determination to require a 
written exposure control plan for all employers within the scope of the 
standard. In addition, requiring employers to establish and maintain a 
written exposure control plan is consistent with other OSHA health 
standards, including 1,3 butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051) and bloodborne 
pathogens (29 CFR 1910.1030).
    OSHA's proposal to require a written exposure control plan is based 
in part on the recommendation of two stakeholders, Materion Corporation 
and the Steelworkers Union. Materion and the Steelworkers submitted a 
joint proposal for a standard to the Agency (Materion and Steelworkers, 
2012) that includes a requirement for a written

[[Page 47788]]

exposure control plan. In the stakeholders' joint proposal, the written 
exposure control plan included requiring documentation of operations 
and jobs likely to have exposure to beryllium at various levels; 
procedures for minimizing the migration of beryllium; procedures for 
keeping work surfaces clean; and documentation of engineering and work 
practice controls. OSHA's proposed requirements for maintaining and 
implementing a written exposure control plan follow the example of the 
stakeholders' proposal in most respects.
    Under proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (C), the written 
exposure control plan must contain inventories of operations and job 
titles reasonably expected to have any exposure to airborne beryllium, 
exposure at or above the action level, and exposure above the TWA PEL 
or STEL. And, under proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(G), the plan must 
include an inventory of engineering and work practice controls required 
by paragraph (f)(2) of this standard.
    A record of which operations and job titles are likely to have 
exposures at certain levels and which engineering and work practice 
controls the company has selected to control exposures will make it 
easier for employers to implement monitoring, hygiene practices, 
housekeeping, engineering and work practice controls, and other 
measures. These inventories will also help to assure employees' 
awareness of the exposures associated with their jobs, their 
eligibility for medical surveillance, and the controls that should be 
in use throughout the workplace. This will enable employees to work 
together with employers to ensure that the appropriate engineering 
controls and work practices are in use and functioning and that 
provisions such as medical surveillance, housekeeping, and PPE are 
properly implemented. In addition, these inventories, like all of the 
items required to be included in the written exposure control plan, 
will help safety and health personnel, including OSHA Compliance 
Officers, carry out their duties. A written plan provides detailed 
information to interested parties including employees, employee 
representatives, supervisors, and safety consultants of the employer's 
determination of the jobs and operations that may place employees at 
risk of exposure and the measures the employer has selected to control 
exposure.
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(1)(D) through (F) and (H), the 
exposure control plan must contain procedures for: minimizing cross-
contamination, including preventing the transfer of beryllium between 
surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, and articles within beryllium 
work areas; keeping surfaces in the beryllium work area as free as 
practicable of beryllium; minimizing the migration of beryllium from 
beryllium work areas to other locations within or outside the 
workplace; and removal, laundering, storage, cleaning, repairing, and 
disposal of beryllium-contaminated personal protective clothing and 
equipment, including respirators. Each of these procedures serves to 
minimize the spread of beryllium throughout and outside the workplace. 
They also work to reduce the likelihood of skin contact and re-
entrainment of beryllium particulate into the workplace atmosphere. 
Additional discussion of some of these requirements may be found in 
this section of the preamble, Summary and Explanation, at paragraph 
(h), Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment; paragraph (i), Hygiene 
Areas and Practices; and paragraph (j), Housekeeping.
    The requirement to document these procedures in writing, as part of 
the exposure control plan, will help to ensure that employees are 
advised of their responsibilities and can easily review the procedures 
if they have questions. Because employees play an important part in 
exposure control through compliance with the rules regarding hygiene 
practices, housekeeping, and other measures, employees should have easy 
access to documentation detailing the procedures in place in their 
workplace. A review of the written exposure control plan should be part 
of the hazard communication training for employees as required by 
1910.1200 and proposed paragraph (m). Additionally, the documentation 
of the procedures will help OSHA Compliance Officers assess employers' 
procedures.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) requires that employers update their 
exposure control plans whenever any change in production processes, 
materials, equipment, personnel, work practices, or control methods 
results or can reasonably be expected to result in new or additional 
exposures to beryllium. Paragraph (f)(1)(ii) also requires employers to 
update their plans when an employee is confirmed positive for beryllium 
sensitization, is diagnosed with CBD, or shows other signs and symptoms 
related to beryllium exposure. In addition, the paragraph requires 
employers to update their plans if the employer has any reason to 
believe that new or additional exposures are occurring or will occur.
    The requirements to update the exposure control plan if changes in 
the workplace result in or can be expected to result in new or 
additional exposures, or where the employer has any reason to believe 
that such exposures are occurring or will occur, ensure that an 
employer's plan reflects the current conditions in the workplace. If an 
employee becomes sensitized or develops CBD, the employer should 
investigate the source(s) of exposure responsible, and must make any 
necessary changes to address the source(s) of exposure, and update the 
written exposure control plan as necessary to reflect any new 
information or corrective action resulting from the employer's 
investigation. For example, the employer may find that housekeeping 
procedures in the employee's area need improvement, or that more 
appropriate PPE could be used. In some cases, the employer may find 
that additional engineering or work practice controls are appropriate 
to the processes in use. When the employer discovers new sources of 
exposure or makes changes in its control strategy, the employer must 
update its written exposure control plan to reflect current conditions 
in the workplace. Employers such as Materion and Axsys Technologies, 
who have worked to identify and document the exposure sources 
associated with cases of sensitization and CBD in their facilities, 
have used this information to develop and update beryllium exposure 
control plans (Bailey et al., 2010; Schuler et al., 2012; Madl et al., 
2007). OSHA believes this proposed process, whereby an employer uses 
employee health outcome data to check and improve the effectiveness of 
the employer's exposure control plan, is consistent with other 
performance-oriented aspects of this proposed standard.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii) requires employers to make a copy of 
the exposure control plan accessible to each employee who is or can 
reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne beryllium in 
accordance with OSHA's Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records 
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1020). As mentioned above, access to the exposure 
control plan will enable employees to partner with their employers in 
keeping the workplace safe.
    Paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed rule contains requirements for the 
implementation of engineering and work practice controls to minimize 
beryllium exposures in beryllium work areas. The proposed rule relies 
on engineering and work practice controls as the primary means to 
reduce

[[Page 47789]]

exposures. Where, after the implementation of feasible engineering and 
work practice controls, exposures exceed or can reasonably be expected 
to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL, employers are required to supplement 
these controls with respiratory protection, according to the 
requirements of paragraph (g) of the proposed rule. OSHA proposes to 
require primary reliance on engineering and work practice controls 
because reliance on these methods is consistent with good industrial 
hygiene practice, with the Agency's experience in ensuring that workers 
have a healthy workplace, and with OSHA's traditional adherence to a 
hierarchy of controls.
    OSHA requires adherence to this hierarchy of controls in a number 
of standards, including the Air Contaminants (29 CFR 1910.1000) and 
Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134) standards, as well as other 
substance-specific standards. The Agency's adherence to the hierarchy 
of controls has been successfully upheld by the courts (see AFL-CIO v. 
Marshall, 617 F.2d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (cotton dust standard); United 
Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 
453 U.S. 913 (1981) (lead standard); ASARCO v. OSHA, 746 F.2d 483 (9th 
Cir. 1984) (arsenic standard); Am. Iron & Steel v. OSHA, 182 F.3d 1261 
(11th Cir. 1999) (respiratory protection standard); Pub. Citizen v. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, 557 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2009) (hexavalent chromium 
standard)).
    The Agency understands that engineering controls are reliable, 
provide consistent levels of protection to a large number of workers, 
can be monitored continually and inexpensively, allow for predictable 
performance levels, and can efficiently remove toxic substances from 
the workplace. Once removed, the toxic substances no longer pose a 
threat to employees. The effectiveness of engineering controls does not 
generally depend to any substantial degree on human behavior, and the 
operation of control equipment is not as vulnerable to human error as 
is personal protective equipment. For these reasons, engineering 
controls are preferred by OSHA and the safety and health professional 
community in general.
    The provisions related to engineering and work practice controls 
begin in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A). For each operation in a beryllium work 
area, employers must ensure that at least one of the following 
engineering and work practice controls is in place to minimize employee 
exposure:
    (1) Material and/or process substitution;
    (2) Ventilated partial or full enclosures;
    (3) Local exhaust ventilation at the points of operation, material 
handling, and transfer; or
    (4) Process control, such as wet methods and automation. OSHA has 
included a non-mandatory appendix presenting a non-exhaustive list of 
engineering controls employers may use to comply with paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) (Appendix B).
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) offers two exemptions from the 
engineering and work practice controls requirements. First, under 
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B)(1), an employer is exempt from using engineering 
and work practice controls where the employer can establish that the 
controls are not feasible.
    Second, under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B)(2), an employer is exempt from 
using the controls where the employer can demonstrate that exposures 
are below the action level, using no fewer than two representative 
personal breathing zone samples taken 7 days apart, for each affected 
operation.
    The engineering work practice control requirement in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i)(A), like the written exposure control plan requirement, was 
proposed by the United Steelworkers and Materion as part of their joint 
submission to OSHA (Materion and United Steelworkers, 2012). The 
inclusion of the engineering work practice control provision in 
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) addresses a concern regarding the proposed PEL. 
OSHA expects that day-to-day changes in workplace conditions may cause 
frequent excursions above the PEL in workplaces where periodic sampling 
indicates exposures are between the action level and the PEL. Normal 
variability in the workplace and work processes, such as workers' 
positioning or patterns of airflow, can lead to excursions above the 
PEL. OSHA believes that substitution or engineering controls such as 
those outlined in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) provide the most reliable 
means to control variability in exposure levels. OSHA therefore 
included this requirement in the proposal. The Agency included the 
exemption in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B)(2) to reduce the cost burden to 
employers with operations where measured exposures are below the action 
level, and therefore less likely to exceed the PEL in the course of 
typical exposure fluctuations. This exemption is similar to a provision 
in 1,3 Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), which requires an exposure goal 
program where exposures exceed the action level.
    OSHA recognizes that the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(i) are 
not typical of OSHA standards, which usually require engineering 
controls only where exposures exceed the PEL(s). The Agency is 
therefore considering Regulatory Alternative #6, which would drop the 
provisions of paragraph (f)(2)(i) from the proposed standard. OSHA 
requests comments on the potential benefits of including such a 
provision in the beryllium standard, the potential costs and burdens 
associated with it, and whether OSHA should include or exclude this 
provision in the final standard.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) applies when exposures exceed the TWA 
PEL or STEL after employers have implemented the control(s) required by 
paragraph (f)(2)(i). It requires employers to implement additional or 
enhanced engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposures to 
or below the PELs. For example, an enhanced engineering control may 
entail a redesigned hood on a local ventilation system to more 
effectively capture airborne beryllium at the source.
    However, under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii), wherever the 
employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to reduce exposures to or 
below the PELs by the engineering and work practice controls required 
by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii), the employer shall implement 
and maintain engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposures 
to the lowest levels feasible and supplement these controls by using 
respiratory protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this 
standard.
    Paragraph (f)(3) of the proposed rule would prohibit the employer 
from rotating workers to different jobs to achieve compliance with the 
PELs. Worker rotation can potentially reduce exposures to individual 
employees, but increases the number of employees exposed. Because OSHA 
has made a preliminary determination that exposure to beryllium can 
result in sensitization, CBD, and cancer, the Agency considers it 
inappropriate to place more workers at risk. Since no absolute 
threshold has been established for sensitization or resulting CBD or 
the carcinogenic effects of beryllium, it is prudent to limit the 
number of workers exposed at any concentration.
    This provision is not a general prohibition of worker rotation 
wherever workers are exposed to beryllium. It is only intended to 
restrict its use as a compliance method for the proposed PEL; worker 
rotation may be used as deemed appropriate by the employer in

[[Page 47790]]

activities such as to provide cross-training or to allow workers to 
alternate physically demanding tasks with less strenuous activities. 
This same provision was used for the asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 
CFR 1926.1101), chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026), 1,3 butadiene (29 CFR 
1910.1051), methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027 and 29 CFR 1926.1127), and methylenedianiline (29 CFR 
1926.60) OSHA standards.
    The SERs who participated in the SBREFA process did not voice 
opposition to a requirement for a written exposure control program or 
challenge the utility of a written program in helping to control 
exposures (OSHA, 2008b). Several indicated that they already had a 
beryllium exposure control program in place. Some SERs suggested that 
OSHA should tie the written exposure control program requirement to 
exposures exceeding a revised PEL (OSHA, 2008b). The SERs' request to 
tie the written exposure control program requirement to the PEL appears 
to emerge from their belief that employees exposed below the proposed 
PEL are not at risk from beryllium exposure (OSHA, 2008b).
    As stated earlier, OSHA's proposed standard would require a written 
exposure control plan for all beryllium work areas; i.e., wherever 
airborne beryllium is found in the workplace. OSHA believes a written 
exposure control plan is needed to reduce employees' risks in low-
exposure areas, where the proposed standard does not require employers 
to install engineering controls, as well as in high-risk areas. The 
Agency's preliminary risk assessment shows that adverse health effects 
from beryllium exposure occur at levels below the proposed PEL, and 
even below the proposed action level (see this preamble at Section 
VIII, Significance of Risk). In addition, dermal contact with beryllium 
can occur in jobs where exposures are below the PEL or the action 
level. Dermal exposure to beryllium can cause beryllium sensitization, 
a necessary first step in the development of CBD (see this preamble at 
Section V, Health Effects, and Section VIII, Significance of Risk). 
However, in response to the SERs' comments on the written exposure 
control plan and other requirements that may affect workplaces with 
exposure levels below the proposed PEL, OSHA is considering Regulatory 
Alternative #8 (see chapter VIII of the PEA). Where the proposed 
standard requires written exposure control plans to be maintained in 
any facility covered by the standard, Regulatory Alternative #8 would 
require only facilities with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL to 
maintain a plan. OSHA requests comment on the proposed written exposure 
control plan requirement and on Regulatory Alternative #8.
    Several SERs expressed doubt that material substitution could be an 
effective means of reducing beryllium exposures in their facilities. 
One SER stated that substitutes for beryllium alloys are not presently 
viable for industrial uses that require certain high-performance 
electrical characteristics, or wear resistance (OSHA, 2007a). Another 
SER commented that substitutes for beryllium alloys in the dental 
appliance industry have also been associated with occupational disease 
(OSHA, 2007a).
    OSHA recognizes that the use of substitutes for beryllium may not 
be feasible or appropriate for some employers. The Agency's intent is 
to offer material substitution as one possible means of compliance with 
the proposed standard. Employers must determine whether material 
substitution is an effective and appropriate means of exposure control 
for their facilities. In addition, it is employers' responsibility to 
check the toxicity of any material they may use in their facilities, 
including potential substitutes for beryllium.
    OSHA anticipates that most small businesses will be able to comply 
with the proposed standard regardless of whether they choose to 
substitute other materials for beryllium in their facilities.
(g) Respiratory Protection
    Paragraph (g) of the proposed standard lays out the situations in 
which employers are required to protect employees' health through the 
use of respiratory protection. Specifically, this paragraph would 
require that employers provide respiratory protection at no cost and 
ensure that employees utilize the protection during the situations 
listed in paragraph (g)(1). As detailed in proposed paragraph (g)(2), 
the required respiratory protection must comply with the Respiratory 
Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134).
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1) requires employers to ensure that each 
employee required to use a respirator does so. Accordingly, simply 
providing respirators to employees will not satisfy an employer's 
obligations under proposed paragraph (g)(1) unless the employer also 
ensures that its employees wear the respirators when required. Proposed 
paragraph (g)(1) would also require employers to provide required 
respirators at no cost to employees. This requirement is consistent 
with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard, which also requires 
employers to provide required respiratory protection to employees at no 
cost (29 CFR 1910.134(c)(4)).
    Paragraph (g)(1) requires appropriate respiratory protection during 
certain enumerated situations. Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) requires 
respiratory protection during the installation and implementation of 
engineering and/or work practice controls where exposures exceed or can 
reasonably be expected to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. The Agency 
realizes that changing workplace conditions may require employers to 
install new engineering controls, modify existing controls, or make 
other workplace changes to reduce employee exposure to beryllium to at 
or below the TWA PEL and STEL. In these cases, the proposed standard 
recognizes that installing appropriate engineering controls and 
implementing proper work practices may take time. During this time, 
employers must demonstrate that they are making prompt, good faith 
efforts to purchase and install appropriate engineering controls and 
implement effective work practices, and to evaluate their effectiveness 
for reducing exposure to beryllium to at or below the TWA PEL and STEL.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(ii) requires the provision of respiratory 
protection during any operations, including maintenance and repair 
operations and other non-routine tasks, when engineering and work 
practice controls are not feasible and exposures exceed or can 
reasonably be expected to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. OSHA included 
this provision because the Agency realizes that certain operations may 
take place when engineering and work practice controls are not 
operational or capable of controlling exposures to at or below the TWA 
PEL and STEL. For example, during maintenance and repair operations, 
engineering controls may lose their full effectiveness or require 
partial or total breach, bypass, or shutdown. Under these 
circumstances, if exposures exceed or can reasonably be expected to 
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer must provide and ensure the 
use of respiratory protection.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(iii) requires the provision of 
respiratory protection where beryllium exposures exceed the TWA PEL or 
STEL even after the employer has installed and implemented all feasible 
engineering and work practice controls. OSHA anticipates that there 
will be very few situations where feasible engineering and work 
practice controls are incapable of lowering employee exposure to 
beryllium to at or below the TWA PEL

[[Page 47791]]

or STEL (see this preamble at section IX.D, Technological Feasibility). 
In such cases, the proposed standard requires that employers install 
and implement all feasible engineering and work practice controls and 
supplement those controls by providing respiratory protection (proposed 
paragraph (f)(2)(iii)). OSHA reiterates that paragraph (f)(2)(iii) 
would also require employers to demonstrate that engineering and work 
practice controls are not feasible or sufficient to reduce exposure to 
levels at or below the TWA PEL and STEL. OSHA requests comment about 
the proposed situations during which employers should be required to 
provide and ensure the use of respiratory protection.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(iv) requires the provision of respiratory 
protection in emergencies. At such times, engineering controls may not 
be functioning fully or may be overwhelmed or rendered inoperable. 
Also, emergencies may occur in areas where there are no engineering 
controls. The proposed standard recognizes that the provision of 
respiratory protection is critical in emergencies, as beryllium 
exposures may be very high and engineering controls may not be adequate 
to control an unexpected release of beryllium.
    The situations in which respiratory protection is required are 
generally consistent with the requirements in other OSHA health 
standards, such as those for chromium (VI)(29 CFR 1910.1026), butadiene 
(29 CFR 1910.1051), and methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). Those 
standards and this proposed standard also reflect the Agency's 
traditional adherence to a hierarchy of controls in which engineering 
and work practice controls are preferred to respiratory protection (see 
the discussion of proposed paragraph (f) earlier in this section of the 
preamble).
    Whenever respirators are used to comply with the requirements of 
this proposed standard, paragraph (g)(2) requires that the employer 
implement a comprehensive written respiratory protection program in 
accordance with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 
1910.134). The Respiratory Protection standard is designed to ensure 
that employers properly select and use respiratory protection in a 
manner that effectively protects exposed workers. Under 29 CFR 
1910.134(c)(1), the employer's respiratory protection program must 
include:
     Procedures for selecting appropriate respirators for use 
in the workplace;
     Medical evaluations of employees required to use 
respirators;
     Respirator fit testing procedures;
     Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and 
reasonably foreseeable emergency situations;
     Procedures and schedules for maintaining respirators;
     Procedures to ensure adequate quality, quantity, and flow 
of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators;
     Training of employees in the respiratory hazards to which 
they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency situations, 
and in the proper use of respirators; and
     Procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the 
program.
    In accordance with the Agency's policy to avoid duplication and to 
establish regulatory consistency, proposed paragraph (g)(2) 
incorporates by reference the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134 rather 
than reprinting those requirements in this proposed standard. OSHA 
notes that the respirator selection provisions in 1910.134 include 
requirements for Assigned Protection Factors (APFs) and Maximum Use 
Concentrations (MUCs) that OSHA adopted in 2006 (71 FR 50122-50192, 
August 24, 2006). The APFs and MUCs provide employers with critical 
information for the selection of respirators to protect workers from 
exposure to atmospheric workplace contaminants.
    OSHA believes that the proposed respiratory protection requirements 
are feasible even for small employers. Although none of the SERs who 
participated in the SBREFA process made specific recommendations about 
respiratory protection, some said that they currently have existing 
respiratory protection programs in place as supplemental support to 
engineering and work practice controls (OSHA, 2008b).
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirement to establish and 
maintain a respiratory protection program that complies with 29 CFR 
1910.134. OSHA would like to hear from companies of all sizes regarding 
whether they have respiratory protection programs to protect employees 
from beryllium exposures. If so, please explain the parameters of your 
program including types of respirators used, when and where respirators 
are required, program evaluation, and annual costs.
(h) Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
    Paragraph (h) of the proposed standard requires employers to 
provide employees with personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE) 
where employee exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed 
the TWA PEL or STEL; where work clothing or skin may become visibly 
contaminated with beryllium, including during maintenance and repair 
activities or during non-routine tasks; and where employees are exposed 
to soluble beryllium compounds. These PPE requirements are intended to 
prevent adverse health effects associated with dermal exposure to 
beryllium, and accumulation of beryllium on clothing, shoes, and 
equipment that can result in additional inhalation exposure. The 
requirements also protect employees in other work areas from exposures 
that could occur if contaminated clothing carried beryllium to those 
areas, as well as employees and other individuals outside the 
workplace. The proposed standard requires the employer to provide PPE 
at no cost to employees, and to ensure that employees use the provided 
PPE in accordance with the written exposure control plan as described 
in paragraph (f)(1) of this proposed standard and OSHA'S Personal 
Protective Equipment standards (29 CFR part 1910 subpart I).
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1)(i) requires the provision and use of PPE 
for employees exposed to airborne beryllium in any form exceeding the 
TWA PEL or STEL because such exposure would likely result in skin 
contact by means of deposits on employees' skin or clothes or on 
surfaces touched by employees. And, OSHA believes that regardless of 
the level of exposure, the use of PPE further reduces exposure where 
employees' clothing or skin could become visibly contaminated with 
beryllium (paragraph (h)(1)(ii)).
    The term ``visibly contaminated with beryllium'' means visibly 
contaminated with any material that contains beryllium. The proposed 
standard does not specify criteria for determining whether work 
clothing or skin may become visibly contaminated with beryllium. When 
evaluating whether this definition is satisfied, OSHA expects that the 
employer will assess the workplace in a manner consistent with the 
Agency's general requirements for the use of personal protective 
equipment in general industry (29 CFR part 1910 subpart I). These 
standards require the employer to assess the workplace to determine if 
hazards associated with dermal or inhalation exposure to a substance 
such as beryllium are, or are likely to be, present.
    The proposed standard also requires the provision and use of PPE 
where employees are exposed to soluble

[[Page 47792]]

beryllium compounds, regardless of the level of airborne exposure 
(paragraph (h)(1)(iii)). Solubility is a concern because dermal 
absorption may occur at a greater rate for soluble beryllium than for 
insoluble beryllium. Once absorbed through the skin, beryllium can 
induce a sensitization response that is a necessary first step toward 
CBD (See the Health Effects section of this preamble, section V.A.2). 
However, there is also evidence that beryllium in other forms can be 
absorbed through the skin and cause sensitization (see this preamble at 
section V.B.2, Health Effects). OSHA requests comment on this 
provision, and whether employers should also be required to provide PPE 
to limit dermal contact with insoluble forms of beryllium as specified 
in Regulatory Alternative #13 below.
    Requiring PPE is consistent with section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act 
which states that, where appropriate, standards shall prescribe 
suitable protective equipment to be used in connection with hazards. 
The proposed requirements for PPE are based upon widely accepted 
principles and conventional practices of industrial hygiene, and in 
some respects are similar to other OSHA health standards such as those 
for chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026), lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), cadmium 
(29 CFR 1910.1027), and methylenedianiline (MDA; 29 CFR 1910.1050). 
However, the requirement to use PPE where work clothing or skin may 
become ``visibly contaminated'' with beryllium differs from prior 
health standards, which do not require contamination to be visible in 
order for PPE to be required. For example, the standard for chromium 
(VI) requires the employer to provide appropriate PPE where a hazard is 
present or is likely to be present from skin or eye contact with 
chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026). The lead (29 CFR 1910.1025) and 
cadmium (29 CFR 1910.127) standards require PPE where employees are 
exposed above the PEL or where there is potential for skin or eye 
irritation, regardless of airborne exposure level. In the case of MDA, 
PPE must be provided where employees are subject to dermal exposure to 
MDA, where liquids containing MDA can be splashed into the eyes, or 
where airborne concentrations of MDA are in excess of the PEL (29 CFR 
1910.1050). While OSHA's language regarding PPE requirements varies 
somewhat from standard to standard, previous standards tend to 
emphasize potential for contact with a substance that can trigger 
health effects via dermal exposure, rather than ``visible 
contamination'' with the substance.
    The employer must exercise reasonable judgment in selecting 
appropriate PPE. This requirement is consistent with OSHA's current 
standards for provision of personal protective equipment for general 
industry (29 CFR part 1910 subpart I). As described in the non-
mandatory appendix providing guidance on conducting a hazard assessment 
for OSHA general industry standards (29 CFR 1910 subpart I appendix B), 
the employer should ``exercise common sense and appropriate expertise'' 
in assessing hazards. By ``appropriate expertise,'' OSHA expects 
individuals conducting hazard assessments to be familiar the employer's 
work processes, materials, and work environment. A thorough hazard 
assessment should include a walk-through survey to identify sources of 
hazards to employees, wipe sampling to detect beryllium contamination 
on surfaces, review of injury and illness data, and employee input on 
the hazards to which they are exposed. Information obtained in this 
manner provides a basis for the identification and evaluation of 
potential hazards. OSHA believes that the implementation of a 
comprehensive and thorough program to determine areas of potential 
exposure, consistent with the employer's written exposure control plan, 
is a sound safety and health practice and a necessary element of 
ensuring overall worker protection.
    Based on the hazard assessment results, the employer must determine 
what PPE is necessary to protect employees. The proposed requirement is 
performance-oriented, and is designed to allow the employer flexibility 
in selecting the PPE most suitable for each particular workplace. The 
type of PPE needed will depend on the potential for exposure, the 
physical properties of the beryllium-containing material used, and the 
conditions of use in the workplace. For example, shipping and receiving 
activities may necessitate only work uniforms and gloves. In other 
situations such as when a worker is performing facility maintenance, 
gloves, work uniforms, coveralls, and respiratory protection may be 
appropriate. Beryllium compounds can exist in acidic or alkaline form, 
and these characteristics may influence the choice of PPE. Face shields 
may be appropriate in situations where there is a danger of being 
splashed in the face with soluble beryllium or a liquid containing 
beryllium. Coveralls with a head covering may be appropriate when a 
sudden release of airborne beryllium could result in beryllium 
contamination of clothing, hair, or skin. Respirators are addressed 
separately in the explanation of proposed paragraph (g) earlier in this 
section of the preamble.
    Note that paragraph (i)(2) of this proposed standard requires 
change rooms only where employees are required to remove their personal 
clothing. Although some personal protective clothing may be worn over 
street clothing, it is not appropriate for workers to wear protective 
clothing over street clothing if doing so could reasonably result in 
contamination of the workers' street clothes. In situations in which it 
is not appropriate for workers to wear protective clothing over their 
street clothes, the employer must select and ensure the use of 
protective clothing that is worn in lieu of (rather than over) street 
clothing.
    Paragraph (h)(2) contains proposed requirements for removal and 
storage of PPE. This provision is intended to reduce beryllium 
contamination in the workplace and limit beryllium exposure outside the 
workplace. Wearing contaminated clothing outside the beryllium work 
area could lengthen the duration of exposure and carry beryllium from 
beryllium work areas to other areas of the workplace. In addition, 
contamination of personal clothing could result in beryllium being 
carried to employees' cars and homes, increasing employees' exposure as 
well as exposing others to beryllium hazards. A National Jewish Medical 
and Research Center collaborative study with NIOSH documented 
inadvertent transfer of beryllium from the workplace to workers' 
automobiles, and stressed the need for separating clean and 
contaminated (``dirty'') PPE (Sanderson, 1999). Toxic metals brought by 
workers into the home via contaminated clothing and vehicles continue 
to result in exposure to children and other household members. A recent 
study of battery recycling workers found that lead surface 
contamination above the Environmental Protection Agency level of 
concern ( 40 [mu]g/ft\2\) was common in the workers' homes 
and vehicles (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012).
    Under proposed paragraph (h)(2)(i)(A), beryllium-contaminated PPE 
must be removed at the end of the work shift or at the completion of 
tasks involving beryllium exposure, whichever comes first. This 
language is intended to convey that PPE contaminated with beryllium 
should not be worn when tasks involving beryllium exposure have been 
completed for the day. For example, if employees perform work tasks 
involving beryllium exposure for the first two hours of a

[[Page 47793]]

work shift, and then perform tasks that do not involve exposure, they 
should remove their PPE after the exposure period to avoid the 
possibility of increasing the duration of exposure and contamination of 
the work area from beryllium residues on the PPE (i.e., re-entrainment 
of beryllium particulate). If, however, employees are performing tasks 
involving exposure intermittently throughout the day, or if employees 
are exposed to other contaminants where PPE is needed, this provision 
is not intended to prevent them from wearing the PPE until the 
completion of their shift, unless it has become visibly contaminated 
with beryllium (paragraph (h)(2)(i)(B)).
    Paragraph (h)(2)(i)(B) would require employers to ensure that 
employees remove PPE that has become visibly contaminated with 
beryllium. This language is intended to convey that PPE that is visibly 
contaminated with beryllium should be changed at the earliest 
reasonable opportunity, for example, at the end of the task during 
which it became visibly contaminated. This language is intended to 
protect employees working with beryllium and their co-workers from 
exposure due to accumulation of beryllium on PPE, and reduces the 
likelihood of cross-contamination from beryllium-contaminated PPE.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2)(ii) requires employees to remove PPE 
consistent with the written exposure control plan required by proposed 
paragraph (f)(1). Paragraph (f)(1) specifies that the employer's 
written exposure control plan must contain procedures for minimizing 
cross-contamination, and procedures for the storage of beryllium-
contaminated PPE, among other provisions (see (f)(1)(i)(D) & (H)). 
Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) would require employers to ensure that protective 
clothing is stored separately from employees' street clothing. OSHA 
believes these provisions are necessary to prevent the spread of 
beryllium throughout and outside the workplace.
    To further limit exposures outside the workplace, OSHA proposes in 
paragraph (h)(2)(iv) that the employer ensure that beryllium-
contaminated PPE is only removed by employees who are authorized to do 
so for the purpose of laundering, cleaning, maintaining, or disposing 
of such PPE. These items must be brought to an appropriate location 
away from the workplace. To be an appropriate location for purposes of 
paragraph (h)(2)(iv), the facility must be equipped to handle 
beryllium-contaminated items in accordance with this proposed standard. 
The standard would further require in paragraph (h)(2)(v) that PPE 
removed from the workplace for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or 
discarding be placed in closed, impermeable bags or containers. These 
requirements are intended to minimize cross-contamination and migration 
of beryllium, and to protect employees or other individuals who later 
handle beryllium-contaminated items. Required warning labels would 
alert those handling the contaminated PPE of the potential hazards of 
exposure to beryllium. Such labels must conform with the HCS (29 CFR 
1910.1200) and paragraph (m)(3) of this proposed standard. These 
warning requirements are meant to reduce confusion and ambiguity 
regarding critical information communicated in the workplace by 
requiring that this information be presented in a clear and uniform 
manner.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(i) would require the employer to ensure 
that reusable PPE is cleaned, laundered, repaired, and replaced as 
needed to maintain its effectiveness. These requirements must be 
completed at a frequency, and in a manner, necessary to ensure that PPE 
continues to serve its intended purpose of protecting workers from 
beryllium exposure.
    In keeping with the performance-orientation of the proposed 
standard, OSHA does not specify how often PPE should be cleaned, 
repaired or replaced. The Agency believes that appropriate time 
intervals may vary widely based on the types of PPE used, the nature of 
the beryllium exposures, and other circumstances in the workplace. 
However, even in the absence of a mandated schedule, the employer is 
still obligated to keep the PPE in the condition necessary to perform 
its protective function. A number of Small Entity Representatives 
(SERS) from OSHA's SBREFA panel noted they now use low maintenance 
Tyvek disposable protective suits for some high exposure areas to 
address potential contamination situations (OSHA, 2007a).
    Under paragraph (h)(3)(ii), removal of beryllium from PPE by 
blowing, shaking, or any other means which disperses beryllium in the 
air would be prohibited as this practice could result in unnecessary 
exposure to airborne beryllium.
    Paragraph (h)(3)(iii) would require the employer to inform in 
writing any person or business entity who launders, cleans, or repairs 
PPE required by this standard of the potentially harmful effects of 
exposure to airborne beryllium and dermal contact with soluble 
beryllium compounds, and of the need to handle the PPE in accordance 
with this standard. This provision is intended to limit dermal or 
inhalation exposure to beryllium, and to emphasize the need for hazard 
awareness and protective measures consistent with the proposed standard 
among persons who clean, launder, or repair beryllium-contaminated 
items.
    Comments from SERs indicate that a number of beryllium-related 
businesses already have comprehensive protocols in place for the use 
and maintenance of PPE (OSHA, 2007a). One commenter indicated that it 
has effectively reduced sensitization and CBD through the use of 
respirators, other PPE, and engineering controls (OSHA, 2007a). Another 
commenter stated that it utilizes PPE to reduce skin exposure (OSHA, 
2007a). These existing PPE programs achieve many of the Agency's goals 
and incorporate many of the requirements of this proposed standard.
    The primary objections from SERs came from companies that raised 
concerns regarding the ``trigger'' (e.g., exposure level or surface 
contamination) for PPE in the draft standard, and particularly the use 
of such terms as ``anticipated,'' ``routine,'' and ``contaminated 
surface area'' in connection with the requirements to protect against 
dermal exposure to beryllium (OSHA, 2007a). They also contend that for 
certain processes such as stamping, change rooms, PPE, and other 
hygiene practices are not necessary (OSHA, 2007a). Much of this 
criticism was based on early pre-proposal drafts in circulation to the 
SBREFA Panel (OSHA, 2007b). Since that time, OSHA has endeavored to 
refine the regulatory text to reflect the concerns and comments 
submitted on this topic. ``Contaminated surface area'' is no longer a 
trigger for PPE; however, employers must provide PPE if a contaminated 
surface presents the potential for workers' skin or clothing to become 
visibly contaminated with beryllium (paragraph (h)(1)(ii)). The term 
``routine'' has been removed as a trigger, and paragraph (h)(1)(ii) 
makes clear that protections are required where skin or clothing may 
become visibly contaminated whether during routine or non-routine 
tasks. OSHA clarified that dermal protections are required only where 
the skin may become visibly contaminated with beryllium. OSHA believes 
that this proposed standard addresses commenters' objections with 
textual changes and this explanation of the text, which together 
provide further guidance to those who would be covered by the standard.
    However, OSHA is concerned that the requirement to use PPE where 
work clothing or skin may become ``visibly contaminated'' with 
beryllium or where

[[Page 47794]]

soluble forms of beryllium are used may not be sufficiently protective 
of beryllium-exposed workers. OSHA has preliminarily concluded that 
sensitization can occur through dermal exposure. And although 
solubility may play a role in the level of sensitization risk, the 
available evidence suggests that contact with insoluble as well as 
soluble beryllium can cause sensitization via dermal contact (see this 
preamble at section V, Health Effects). Furthermore, at exposure levels 
below the current or proposed PEL, beryllium surface contamination is 
unlikely to be visible yet may still cause sensitization. The 
specification of ``visible contamination'' is a departure from most 
OSHA standards, which do not specify that contamination must be visible 
in order for PPE to be required. OSHA is therefore considering 
Regulatory Alternative #13, which would require appropriate PPE 
wherever there is potential for skin contact with beryllium or 
beryllium-contaminated surfaces. Please provide comments on this 
alternative, including the benefits and drawbacks of a comprehensive 
PPE requirement, and any relevant data or studies the Agency should 
consider.
(i) Hygiene Areas and Practices
    Paragraph (i) of the proposed standard requires that, when certain 
conditions are met, employers must provide employees with readily 
accessible washing facilities, change rooms, and showers. Proposed 
paragraph (i) also requires employers to take certain steps to minimize 
exposure in eating and drinking areas, and prohibits certain practices 
that may contribute to beryllium exposure. OSHA believes that strict 
compliance with these provisions would substantially reduce employee 
exposure to beryllium.
    The proposed standard requires certain hygiene facilities and 
procedures in beryllium work areas, and additional hygiene facilities 
and procedures when airborne exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. OSHA 
believes that skin contact with beryllium can occur even at low 
airborne exposures. Skin wipe sample analysis of dental laboratory 
technicians performing grinding operations demonstrated that beryllium 
was present on the hands of workers even when airborne exposures were 
well below the PEL (ERG, 2006).
    As discussed in the Health Effects section of this preamble, 
section V, respiratory tract, skin, eye, or mucosal contact with 
beryllium can result in sensitization, which is a necessary first step 
toward the development of CBD. Also, beryllium can contaminate 
employees' clothing, shoes, skin, and hair, prolonging workers' 
beryllium exposure and exposing others such as family members if proper 
hygiene practices are not observed. A study by the National Jewish 
Medical and Research Center of Denver, Colorado, measured the levels of 
beryllium on workers' skin and vehicle surfaces at a machining plant 
where many workers did not change out of their clothes and shoes at the 
end of their shifts. The study showed elevated surface levels of 
beryllium were present on workers' skin and in their vehicles, 
demonstrating that workers carried residual beryllium on their hands 
and shoes when leaving work (Sanderson et al., 1999). Paragraph (i) of 
the proposed standard would reduce employees' skin contact with 
beryllium, the possibility of accidental ingestion and inhalation of 
beryllium, and the spread of beryllium within and outside the 
workplace.
    Paragraph (i)(1) would require the employer to provide readily 
accessible washing facilities capable of removing beryllium from the 
hands, face, and neck, and to ensure that employees working in 
beryllium work areas use these facilities when necessary. This 
requirement is performance-oriented, and does not specify any 
particular frequency. At a minimum, employees working in a beryllium 
work area must wash their hands, faces, and necks at the end of the 
shift to remove any residual beryllium. Likewise, washing prior to 
eating, drinking, smoking, chewing tobacco or gum, applying cosmetics, 
or using the toilet would also protect employees against beryllium 
ingestion and inhalation.
    Typically, washing facilities would consist of one or more sinks, 
soap or another cleaning agent, and a means for employees to dry 
themselves after washing. OSHA does not intend to require the use of 
any particular soap or cleaning agent. Employers can provide whatever 
washing materials and equipment they choose, as long as those materials 
and equipment are effective in removing beryllium from the skin and do 
not themselves cause skin or eye problems.
    Washing reduces exposure by limiting the period of time that 
beryllium is in contact with the skin, and helps prevent accidental 
ingestion. Although engineering and work practice controls and 
protective clothing and equipment are designed to prevent hazardous 
skin and eye contact, OSHA realizes that in some circumstances exposure 
will nevertheless occur. For example, an employee who wears gloves to 
protect against hand contact with beryllium may inadvertently touch his 
or her face with the contaminated glove during the course of the day. 
The purpose of requiring washing facilities is to mitigate adverse 
health effects when skin or eye contact with beryllium occurs.
    Under proposed paragraph (i)(2), where employees are required to 
remove their personal clothing in order to use personal protective 
clothing, the employer must provide designated change rooms with 
separate storage facilities for street and work clothing to prevent 
cross contamination. Change rooms must be in accordance with the 
Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141). OSHA intends the change rooms 
requirement to apply to all covered workplaces where employees must 
change their clothing (i.e., take off their street clothes) to use 
protective clothing. In situations where removal of street clothes is 
not necessary (e.g., in a workplace where only gloves are used as 
protective clothing), change rooms are not required. Note that 
paragraph (h) of this proposed standard requires employers to provide 
``appropriate'' personal protective clothing. It is not appropriate for 
employees to wear protective clothing over street clothing if doing so 
results in contamination of the employee's street clothes. In such 
situations, the employer must ensure that employees wear protective 
clothing in lieu of (rather than over) street clothing, and provide 
change rooms.
    Change rooms must be designed in accordance with the written 
exposure control plan required by paragraph (f)(1) of this proposed 
standard, and with the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141). These 
provisions require change rooms to be equipped with storage facilities 
(e.g., lockers) for protective clothing, and separate storage 
facilities for street clothes, to prevent cross-contamination. 
Minimizing contamination of employees' personal clothes will also 
reduce the likelihood that beryllium will contaminate employees' cars 
and homes, and other areas outside the workplace.
    Because of the risk of beryllium sensitization via the skin as 
described in section V of this preamble, Health Effects, OSHA has 
determined that employers must provide showers if their employees could 
reasonably be expected to be exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL 
(paragraph (i)(3)(i)(A)), and if employees' hair or body parts other 
than hands, face, and neck could reasonably be expected to be 
contaminated with beryllium (paragraph (i)(3)(i)(B)). Employers are 
only required to provide showers if paragraphs (i)(3)(i)(A) and (B) 
both apply. Other OSHA health standards, such as the standards for 
cadmium (29 CFR

[[Page 47795]]

1910.1027) and lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), also require showers when 
exposures exceed the PEL. OSHA's standard for coke oven emissions (29 
CFR 1910.1029) requires employers to provide showers and ensure that 
employees working in a regulated area shower at the end of the work 
shift. The standard for methylenedianiline (MDA) (29 CFR 1910.1050) 
requires employers to ensure that employees who may potentially be 
exposed to MDA above the action level shower at the end of the work 
shift.
    Paragraph (i)(3)(ii) requires employers to ensure that employees 
use the showers at the end of the work activity or shift involving 
beryllium if the employees reasonably could have been exposed above the 
TWA PEL or STEL, and if beryllium could reasonably have contaminated 
the employees' body parts other than hands, face, and neck. This 
language is intended to convey that showers are required for employees 
who satisfy both paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) when work activities 
involving beryllium exposure have been completed for the day. For 
example, if employees perform work activities involving beryllium 
exposure for the first two hours of a work shift, and then perform 
activities that do not involve exposure, they should shower after the 
exposure period to avoid increasing the duration of exposure, potential 
of accidental ingestion, and contamination of the work area from 
beryllium residue on their hair and body parts other than hands, face, 
and neck. If, however, employees are performing tasks involving 
exposure intermittently throughout the day, this provision is not 
intended to require them to shower before the completion of the last 
task involving exposure.
    To minimize the possibility of food contamination and the 
likelihood of additional exposure to beryllium through inhalation or 
ingestion, paragraph (i)(4) would require that employers provide 
employees with a place to eat and drink where beryllium exposure is 
below the action level, and where the surfaces are maintained as free 
as practicable of beryllium. Eating and drinking areas must further 
comply with the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141(g)), which 
prohibits consuming food or beverages in a toilet area or in any area 
with exposures above an OSHA PEL.
    The requirement to maintain surfaces as free as practicable of 
beryllium is included in other OSHA health standards such as those for 
lead in general industry (29 CFR 1910.1025), lead in construction (29 
CFR 1926.62), chromium (IV) (29 CFR 1910.1026), and asbestos (29 CFR 
1910.1001). As OSHA explained in a January 13, 2003, letter of 
interpretation concerning the meaning of ``as free as practicable'' in 
OSHA's Lead in Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.62), OSHA evaluates 
whether a surface is ``as free as practicable'' of a contaminant by the 
rigor of the employer's program to keep surfaces clean (OSHA, 2003). A 
sufficient housekeeping program may be indicated by a routine cleaning 
schedule and the use of effective cleaning methods to minimize the 
possibility of exposure from accumulation of beryllium on surfaces. 
OSHA's compliance directive on Inspection Procedures for Chromium (IV) 
Standards provides additional detail on how OSHA interprets ``as free 
as practicable'' for enforcement purposes (OSHA, 2008a). As explained 
in the directive, if a wipe sample reveals a toxic substance on a 
surface, and the employer has not taken practicable measures to keep 
the surface clean, the employer has not kept the surface as free as 
practicable of the toxic substance.
    The proposed standard does not require the employer to provide 
separate eating and drinking areas to employees at the worksite. 
Employees may consume food or beverages offsite. However, where the 
employer chooses to allow employees to consume food or beverages at a 
worksite where beryllium is present, the employer would be required to 
maintain the area in accordance with paragraph (i)(4) of this proposed 
standard.
    Paragraph (i)(5)(i) would prohibit eating, drinking, smoking, 
chewing tobacco or gum, or applying cosmetics in regulated areas. Where 
exposures can reasonably be expected at levels above the proposed TWA 
PEL or STEL, there is a greater risk of beryllium contaminating the 
food, drink, tobacco, gum, or cosmetics. Prohibiting these activities 
would reduce the potential for this manner of exposure.
    Under paragraph (i)(5)(ii), employers would also be required to 
ensure that employees do not enter eating or drinking areas wearing 
contaminated protective clothing or equipment. This is to further 
minimize the likelihood that employees will be exposed to beryllium in 
eating and drinking areas through inhalation, dermal contact, and 
ingestion.
    The draft regulatory text presented during the SBREFA process would 
have required handwashing facilities and certain other hygiene 
provisions when exposures exceeded the TWA PEL, or when there was 
``anticipated skin exposure.'' Small Entity Representatives (SERs) from 
OSHA's SBREFA panel expressed concern that the phrase ``anticipated 
skin exposure'' was vague and lacked definition (OSHA, 2007a). 
Commenters suggested that this could require employers at workplaces 
with low exposures to make significant modifications to the workplace, 
such as installing showers and change rooms. OSHA has evaluated the 
hygiene triggers and clarified that change rooms are only required when 
employees must remove their street clothes in order to wear protective 
clothing. Showers are only required when exposures exceed the TWA PEL 
or STEL, and beryllium could reasonably contaminate employees' hair or 
body parts other than hands, face, and neck. OSHA has removed the 
phrase ``anticipated skin exposure'' from the proposed standard. OSHA 
believes these changes address the commenters' concerns.
(j) Housekeeping
    Paragraph (j) of the proposed standard requires employers to 
maintain surfaces in beryllium work areas as free as practicable of 
accumulations of beryllium; promptly clean spills and emergency 
releases; use appropriate cleaning methods; and properly dispose of 
beryllium-contaminated waste, debris, and materials. These provisions 
are especially important because they minimize additional sources of 
exposure that engineering controls are not designed to address. Good 
housekeeping measures are a cost-effective way to control employee 
exposures by removing settled beryllium that could otherwise become re-
entrained into the surrounding atmosphere by physical disturbances or 
air currents and could enter an employee's breathing zone. Contact with 
contaminated surfaces may also result in dermal exposure to beryllium. 
As discussed in this preamble at section V, Health Effects, researchers 
have identified skin exposure to beryllium as a pathway to 
sensitization. The proposed provisions in this paragraph are consistent 
with housekeeping requirements in other OSHA standards for toxic metals 
including cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027), chromium (VI)(29 CFR 1910.1026), 
and lead (29 CFR 1910.1025).
    Paragraph (j)(1) requires the employer to ensure that all surfaces 
in beryllium work areas are maintained as free as practicable of 
accumulations of beryllium, and that spills and emergency releases are 
cleaned up promptly. Employers must follow the procedures that they 
have listed under their exposure control plan required by paragraph 
(f)(1) to clean beryllium-

[[Page 47796]]

contaminated surfaces, and use the cleaning methods required by 
paragraph (j)(2). Good housekeeping practices are essential in 
controlling beryllium exposure. Beryllium-containing material deposited 
on ledges, equipment, floors, and other surfaces must be promptly 
removed to prevent these deposits from becoming airborne and to 
minimize the likelihood of skin contact with beryllium.
    Paragraph (j)(1) directs the employer to maintain surfaces where 
beryllium may accumulate ``as free as practicable'' of beryllium. In 
this context, the phrase ``as free as practicable'' sets forth the 
baseline goal in the development of an employer's housekeeping program 
to keep work areas free from surface contamination. For a detailed 
discussion of the meaning of the phrase ``as free as practicable,'' see 
the discussion of proposed paragraph (i) earlier in this section of the 
preamble.
    Employers must regularly clean surfaces in beryllium work areas to 
minimize re-entrainment of dust into the work environment, and to 
ensure that accumulations of beryllium do not become sources of 
exposure. Although OSHA does not define ``surface'' in the proposed 
standard, the term would include surfaces workers come into contact 
with such as working surfaces, floors, and storage facilities, as well 
as surfaces workers do not directly contact such as rafters. Because 
all surfaces in beryllium work areas could potentially accumulate 
beryllium that workers could later inhale, touch, or ingest, all 
surfaces in beryllium works areas must be kept as free as practicable 
of beryllium.
    OSHA has preliminarily decided not to require employers to measure 
beryllium contamination on surfaces, because the Agency does not have 
the necessary data to understand the relationship between surface level 
of beryllium and risk of absorption through the skin. The use of wipe 
samples, however, remains a useful qualitative tool to detect the 
presence of beryllium on surfaces.
    As mentioned above, when beryllium is released into the workplace 
as a result of a spill or emergency release, paragraph (j)(1)(ii) would 
require the employer to ensure prompt and proper cleanup in accordance 
with the written exposure control plan required by paragraph (f)(1) and 
to use the cleaning methods required by paragraph (j)(2) of this 
proposed standard. Spills or emergency releases not attended to 
promptly are likely to result in additional employee exposure or skin 
contact.
    Paragraph (j)(2) provides that clean-up procedures for beryllium-
containing material must minimize employee exposure. OSHA recognizes 
that each work environment is unique, so OSHA has established 
performance-oriented requirements for housekeeping to allow employers 
to determine how best to clean beryllium work areas while minimizing 
employee exposure. Paragraph (j)(2)(i) of the proposed standard would 
require that surfaces contaminated with beryllium be cleaned by high 
efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA) vacuuming or other methods 
that minimize the likelihood of beryllium exposure. OSHA believes HEPA 
vacuuming is a highly effective method of cleaning beryllium-
contaminated surfaces. However, other cleaning methods equally 
effective at minimizing the likelihood of beryllium exposure may be 
used.
    Paragraph (j)(2)(ii) would permit dry sweeping or brushing in 
certain cases only. The employer must demonstrate that it has tried 
cleaning with a HEPA-filter vacuum or another method that minimizes the 
likelihood of exposure, and that those methods were not effective under 
the particular circumstances found in the workplace. OSHA has included 
this provision in an attempt to provide employers flexibility when 
exposure-minimizing cleaning methods would not be effective, but OSHA 
is not aware of any circumstances in which dry sweeping or brushing 
would be necessary. OSHA requests comment on whether dry sweeping or 
brushing would ever be necessary, and if so, under what circumstances 
(see section I of this preamble, Issues and Alternatives).
    Paragraph (j)(2)(iii) would prohibit the use of compressed air in 
cleaning beryllium-contaminated surfaces unless it is used in 
conjunction with a ventilation system designed to capture any resulting 
airborne beryllium. This provision is also intended to prevent the 
dispersal of beryllium into the air.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iv) details further protections for those 
employees who are using certain cleaning methods. Under this provision, 
where employees use dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air to clean 
beryllium-contaminated surfaces, the employer must provide respiratory 
protection and protective clothing and equipment and ensure that each 
employee uses this protection in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) 
of this standard. The failure to provide proper and adequate protection 
to those employees performing cleanup activities would defeat the 
purpose of the housekeeping practices required to control beryllium 
exposure.
    Paragraph (j)(2)(v) would require employers to ensure that 
equipment used to clean beryllium from surfaces is handled in a manner 
that minimizes employee exposure and the re-entrainment of beryllium 
into the workplace environment. For example, cleaning and maintenance 
of HEPA-filtered vacuum equipment must be done carefully to avoid 
exposure to beryllium. Similarly, filter changes and bag and waste 
disposal must be performed in a manner that minimizes the risk of 
employee exposure to airborne beryllium. This provision is consistent 
with the requirement in proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F) for the written 
exposure control plan, under which employers must establish and 
implement procedures for minimizing the migration of beryllium. And of 
course, employees handling and maintaining cleaning equipment must be 
protected in accordance with the other paragraphs of this proposed 
standard as well, including the requirements for respiratory protection 
and PPE in paragraphs (g) and (h).
    Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) would require that items visibly 
contaminated with beryllium and consigned for disposal be disposed of 
in sealed, impermeable bags or other closed impermeable containers. 
Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(ii) requires these containers to be marked 
with warning labels to inform individuals who handle these items of the 
potential hazards associated with beryllium exposure, and the labels 
must contain specific language in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of 
the proposed standard. Alerting employers and employees who are 
involved in disposal to the potential hazards of beryllium exposure 
will better enable them to implement protective measures.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(iii) gives employers two options for 
materials designated for recycling that are visibly contaminated with 
beryllium: Sealing them in impermeable enclosures and labeling them in 
accordance with proposed paragraph (m)(3), or cleaning them to remove 
visible particulate. Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(iii) allows employers 
this flexibility to facilitate the recycling process, and ensures that 
employees handling these items for recycling purposes will not be 
exposed to visible particulate if the items are not sealed in 
impermeable enclosures and labeled with warnings about the dangers of 
beryllium exposure.
    OSHA believes that the concept and importance of housekeeping 
programs in protecting workers from beryllium

[[Page 47797]]

exposure are generally well understood and acknowledged by the affected 
employer community. Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on the SBREFA 
Advisory Panel indicated that most of the responding small business 
entities engaged in regular and routine housekeeping activities in 
areas where beryllium-containing material has been used or processed 
(OSHA, 2008b). Housekeeping activities included wet mopping, vacuuming, 
and sweeping in and around machinery and other surfaces. In performing 
these tasks, respirator and PPE usage varied. In some cases, employers 
provided the protection, but did not require its usage. In other 
instances, no protection was available to workers performing 
housekeeping duties. (OSHA, 2007a).
    Those companies that did have comprehensive housekeeping policies 
provided the Agency with a number of useful practices and examples in 
response to the RFI as well as during the SBREFA process. One company 
offered its 8-step housekeeping and control strategy into the record as 
a comprehensive model (Brush Wellman, 2003). Another company presented 
its facility housekeeping program specifying a number of containment 
measures such as tack mats, absorbent carpet, and damp disposable 
towels to collect any contamination from beryllium operations. Certain 
practices were expressly prohibited such as dry sweeping, brushing, 
wiping, and the use of compressed air systems to clean machinery 
(Honeywell, 2003). Researchers with the National Jewish Hospital and 
Research Center found that most of the beryllium facilities that they 
visited prohibited the use of compressed air in beryllium areas (NJMRC, 
2003).
    Several commenters also questioned the vagueness of the term 
``contaminated surfaces'' (OSHA, 2008b). The proposed standard no 
longer uses this term. Rather, proposed paragraph (j) would require 
employers to maintain surfaces in beryllium work areas ``as free as 
practicable of accumulations of beryllium,'' which is explained earlier 
in this section.
 (k) Medical Surveillance
    Under paragraph (k)(1) of the proposed standard, OSHA would require 
employers to make medical surveillance available at no cost, and at a 
reasonable time and place, for all employees who have worked in a 
regulated area for more than 30 days in the past 12 months; show signs 
and symptoms of CBD; are exposed to beryllium during an emergency; or 
were exposed to beryllium in concentrations above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for 
more than 30 days in a 12-month period for 5 years or more.
    Under paragraph (k)(1)(ii), the required medical surveillance must 
be performed by or under the direction of a licensed physician. OSHA 
chose to require licensed physicians, as opposed to PLHCPs, to oversee 
medical surveillance in this standard, and to provide certain services 
required by this standard (see, e.g., paragraphs (k)(1)(ii) and 
(k)(5)). OSHA has in the past allowed a PLHCP to perform all aspects of 
medical surveillance, regardless of whether the PLHCP is a licensed 
physician (see OSHA's standards regulating chromium (VI) (29 CFR 
1910.1026) and methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052)). OSHA has 
proposed that a licensed physician perform some of the requirements of 
paragraph (k) in response to a multi-stakeholder coalition proposal to 
this effect. OSHA believes this requirement strikes an appropriate 
balance between ensuring that a licensed physician supervises the 
overall care of the employee, while giving the employer the flexibility 
to retain the services of a variety of qualified licensed health care 
professionals to perform certain other services required by paragraph 
(k). However, OSHA also believes it may be appropriate to allow a PLHCP 
who is not a licensed physician to perform all of the services required 
by proposed paragraph (k) (see also section I of this preamble, Issues 
and Alternatives). OSHA requests comment on this proposed requirement.
    The purpose of medical surveillance for beryllium is, where 
reasonably possible, to identify beryllium-related adverse health 
effects so that appropriate intervention measures can be taken, and to 
determine the employee's fitness to use personal protective equipment 
such as respirators. The proposed standard is consistent with Section 
6(b)(7) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)), which requires that, 
where appropriate, medical surveillance programs be included in OSHA 
health standards to aid in determining whether the health of employees 
is adversely affected by exposure to toxic substances. Other OSHA 
health standards, such as Chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026), Methylene 
Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), and Cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027), also 
include medical surveillance requirements.
    The proposed standard is intended to encourage participation in 
medical surveillance by requiring at paragraph (k)(1)(i) that the 
employer provide medical examinations without cost to employees (also 
required by section 6(b)(7) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)), and at a 
reasonable time and place. If participation requires travel away from 
the worksite, the employer would be required to bear all travel costs. 
Employees must be paid for time away from work spent attending medical 
examinations, including travel time.
    Paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) proposes to require employers to make 
medical surveillance available to all employees who worked in a 
regulated area for more than 30 days in the past 12 months. This 
requirement attempts to ensure that those employees who are at most 
risk for developing beryllium-related adverse health effects have 
access to medical services so that such adverse health effects can be 
detected early.
    In addition, paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B) would require that employers 
provide medical surveillance to any employee who shows signs or 
symptoms of CBD. It is expected that employees experiencing signs and 
symptoms of exposure will report them to their employers. If an 
employer becomes aware that an employee shows signs and symptoms of CBD 
either through employee self-reporting or from observation of the 
employee, the employer is required to provide medical surveillance to 
the employee. However, this provision is not intended to force 
employers to survey their workforce, make diagnoses, or determine 
causality.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B) recognizes that some employees may 
exhibit signs and symptoms of the adverse health effects associated 
with beryllium exposure even when not exposed above the TWA PEL or the 
STEL for more than 30 days per year. OSHA's preliminary risk assessment 
concludes that there is significant risk of adverse health effects from 
beryllium exposure below the proposed PEL (see this preamble at section 
VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment). In addition, beryllium sensitization 
and CBD could develop in employees who are especially sensitive to 
beryllium, may have been unknowingly exposed, or may have been exposed 
to greater amounts than the exposure assessment suggests.
    Self-reporting by employees will be supported by the training 
required under proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii) on the health hazards of 
beryllium exposure and the signs and symptoms of CBD, and the medical 
surveillance and medical removal requirements of the proposed standard 
in paragraphs (k) and (l). Employees have a right under section 11(c) 
of the OSH Act to report suspected work-related health effects to their 
employers without retaliation. Any employer program or practice that

[[Page 47798]]

discourages employees from reporting or penalizes workers who report 
work-related health effects would violate section 11(c). See Memorandum 
from Richard E. Fairfax to Regional Administrators (March 12, 2012), 
available at http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/whistleblowermemo.html.
    As discussed in this preamble at section V, Health Effects, CBD 
causes fatigue, weakness, difficulty breathing, and a persistent dry 
cough, among other symptoms. In more advanced cases, CBD may also 
result in anorexia and weight loss, as well as right side heart 
enlargement (cor pulmonale) and heart disease. By requiring covered 
employers to make a medical exam available when an employee exhibits 
these types of symptoms, the proposed standard would protect all 
employees who may have developed CBD, whether or not these employees 
have been exposed to beryllium in an emergency or for more than 30 days 
in a regulated area.
    Paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C) would require that appropriate surveillance 
also be made available for employees exposed to beryllium during an 
emergency, regardless of the airborne concentrations of beryllium to 
which these employees are routinely exposed in the workplace. Emergency 
situations involve uncontrolled releases of airborne beryllium, and the 
significant exposures that can occur in these situations justify a 
requirement for medical surveillance. The proposed requirement for 
medical examinations after exposure in an emergency is consistent with 
several other OSHA health standards, including the standards for 
chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026), methylenedianiline (29 CFR 
1910.1050), butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), and methylene chloride (29 
CFR 1910.1052).
    Paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) would require medical surveillance to be 
provided to employees who have been exposed to beryllium above 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-month period for 5 years or 
more. The five-years of exposure would not need to be consecutive to 
satisfy this provision. OSHA included this provision to ensure that 
these employees receive the low-dose helical tomography (CT scan, low-
dose computed tomography (LDCT), or CT screening) required by paragraph 
(k)(3)(ii)(F) of the proposed standard, even if these employees have 
not been exposed above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ in the previous 12-month period, 
are not exhibiting signs and symptoms of CBD, and have not been exposed 
in an emergency. The CT scan is a method of detecting tumors, and is 
commonly used to diagnose lung cancer.
    Paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed standard specifies how frequently 
medical examinations are to be offered to those employees covered by 
the medical surveillance program. Under paragraph (k)(2)(i)(A), 
employers would be required to provide each employee with a medical 
examination within 30 days after the employee has worked in a regulated 
area for more than 30 days in the past 12 months, unless the employee 
has received a medical examination provided in accordance with this 
standard within the previous 12 months. Paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B) requires 
employers to provide medical examinations to employees exposed to 
beryllium during an emergency, and to those who are showing signs or 
symptoms of CBD, within 30 days of the employer becoming aware that 
these employees meet the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B) or (C). 
Paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B) requires an examination without regard to 
whether these employees received an exam in the previous 12 months.
    Paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed standard requires that 
employers provide an examination annually (after the first examination 
is made available) to employees who continue to meet the criteria of 
paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) or (B). This includes employees who have worked 
in a regulated area for more than 30 days in the past 12 months and 
employees who continue to exhibit signs and symptoms of CBD. The 
requirement for annual examinations in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) means that 
an examination must be made available at least once every 12 months.
    Employees exposed in an emergency, who are covered by paragraph 
(k)(1)(i)(C), are not included in the annual examination requirement 
unless they also meet the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) or (B), 
because OSHA expects that most effects of exposure will be detected 
during the medical examination provided within 30 days of the 
emergency, pursuant to paragraph (k)(2)(i)(A). An exception to this is 
beryllium sensitization, which OSHA believes may result from exposure 
in an emergency, but may not be detected within 30 days of the 
emergency. Thus, proposed paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E) requires biennial 
testing for beryllium sensitization for employees exposed in 
emergencies. This paragraph is discussed in more detail later in this 
section of the preamble. Employees covered by paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) 
are also not required to receive exams annually unless they also meet 
the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) or (B).
    OSHA believes that the annual provision of medical surveillance, 
and the biennial provision of beryllium sensitization testing and CT 
scans for certain employees, are appropriate frequencies for screening 
employees for beryllium-related diseases. The main goals of medical 
surveillance for employees are to detect beryllium sensitization before 
employees develop CBD, and to detect CBD, lung cancer, and other 
adverse health effects at an early stage. The proposed requirement for 
annual examinations is consistent with other OSHA health standards, 
including those for chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026) and formaldehyde 
(29 CFR 1910.1048). Based on the Agency's experience, OSHA believes 
that annual surveillance and biennial tests for beryllium sensitization 
and CT scans would strike a reasonable balance between the need to 
diagnose health effects at an early stage, while being sufficiently 
affordable for employers.
    Finally, proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iii) would require the employer 
to offer a medical examination at the termination of employment, if the 
departing employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), (B), 
or (C) at the time the employee's employment is terminated. This would 
apply to employees who worked in a regulated area for more than 30 days 
during the previous 12 months, employees showing signs or symptoms of 
CBD, and employees who were exposed to beryllium in an emergency at any 
time during their employment. This proposed requirement is waived if 
the employer provided the departing employee with an exam during the 
six months prior to the date of termination. The provision of an exam 
at termination is intended to ensure that no employee terminates 
employment while carrying a detectable, but undiagnosed, health 
condition related to beryllium exposure.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(3) details the contents of the examination. 
Paragraph (k)(3)(i) would require the employer to ensure that the PLHCP 
advises the employee of the risks and benefits of participating in the 
medical surveillance program and the employee's right to opt out of any 
or all parts of the medical examination. Benefits of participating in 
medical surveillance may include early detection of adverse health 
effects, and aiding intervention efforts to prevent or treat disease. 
However, there may also be risks associated with medical testing for 
some conditions, which the PLHCP should communicate to the employee.
    Paragraph (k)(3)(ii) then specifies that the medical examination 
must consist of a medical and work history; a physical examination with 
emphasis on the respiratory tract, skin breaks, and wounds; and 
pulmonary function tests.

[[Page 47799]]

Special emphasis is placed on the portions of the medical and work 
history focusing on beryllium exposure, health effects associated with 
beryllium exposure, and smoking.
    The physical exam focuses on organs and systems known to be 
susceptible to beryllium toxicity. For example, proposed paragraph 
(k)(3)(ii)(C) focuses on the skin, and paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(D) focuses 
on the lungs. The information obtained will allow the PLHCP and 
supervising physician to assess the employee's health status, identify 
adverse health effects related to beryllium exposure, and determine if 
limitations should be placed on the employee's exposure to beryllium. 
The proposed standard does not include a comprehensive list of specific 
tests that must be part of the medical examination. OSHA does not 
believe that any particular test--beyond those listed in paragraph 
(k)(3)(ii)(D)-(F)--is necessarily applicable to all employees covered 
by the medical surveillance requirements. The Agency proposes to give 
the PLCHP the flexibility to determine any other appropriate tests to 
be selected for a given employee, as provided in paragraph 
(k)(3)(ii)(G).
    Under paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E), an employee must be offered a BeLPT 
(or a more reliable and accurate test for identifying beryllium 
sensitization) at the employee's first examination, and then every two 
years after the first examination unless the employee is confirmed 
positive. The requirement to test for beryllium sensitization applies 
whether or not an employee is otherwise entitled to a medical 
examination in a given year. For example, for an employee exposed 
during an emergency who would normally be entitled to 1 exam within 30 
days of the emergency but not annual exams thereafter, the employer 
must still provide this employee with a test for beryllium 
sensitization every 2 years. This biennial requirement applies until 
the employee is confirmed positive. OSHA believes that the biennial 
testing required under paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E) is adequate to monitor 
employees that have the potential to develop sensitization while being 
sufficiently affordable for employers.
    OSHA considers the BeLPT to be a reliable medical surveillance tool 
for the purposes of a medical surveillance program. However, OSHA 
considers two abnormal test results necessary to confirm a finding of 
beryllium sensitization when using the BeLPT (``confirmed positive''). 
Therefore, a BeLPT must also be offered within one month of an employee 
receiving a single abnormal result. However, this requirement is waived 
if a more reliable and accurate test becomes available that could 
confirm beryllium sensitization based on one test result. OSHA requests 
comment on how to determine whether a test is more reliable and 
accurate than the BeLPT for identifying beryllium sensitization. OSHA 
has included a non-mandatory appendix that describes the BeLPT, 
discusses several studies of the BeLPT's validity and reliability, and 
states criteria OSHA believes are important to judge a new test's 
validity and reliability (Appendix A).
    Under paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(F), a CT scan must be offered to 
employees who have been exposed to beryllium at concentrations above 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-month period for 5 years 
or more. The five years of exposure do not need to be consecutive. As 
with the requirement for sensitization testing explained above, the CT 
scan must be offered to an employee who meets the criteria of paragraph 
(k)(1)(i)(D) without regard to whether the employee is otherwise 
required to receive a medical exam in a given year. The CT scan must be 
offered to employees who meet the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) 
for the first time beginning on the start-up date of this standard, or 
15 years after the employee's first exposure to beryllium above 0.2 
[mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-month period, whichever is 
later. OSHA proposed the requirement for CT screening based in part on 
the Agency's consideration of the draft recommended standard submitted 
by industry and union stakeholders (Materion and USW, 2012).
    The CT scan requirement may be triggered by exposures that occurred 
before or after the effective date of this standard, or a combination 
of exposures before and after the effective date. This requirement may 
also be triggered by exposures that occurred when the employee was 
working for a different employer. An employer is required to offer a CT 
scan to employees who meet the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) if 
the employer has exposure records demonstrating that the employee meets 
the criteria, regardless of whether the exposure records were generated 
by the employer or given to the employer by the employee or a third 
party.
    In a recent systematic review of CT screening trials for lung 
cancer, Bach et al. found a significant (20 percent) mortality 
reduction in the population studied (26,309 men and women between ages 
55 and 74, with at least 30 pack-years of smoking history) (National 
Lung Screening Trial, 2011). The benefits of screening for other 
populations are less clear at this time. CT screening was not shown to 
offer significant reduction in mortality in two other, smaller trial 
populations with at least 20 pack-years of smoking history (DANTE, 
2009; DLCST, 2012). In addition, there is yet to be agreement on how to 
properly compute and set the radiation dose for LDCT. Clarification on 
such procedural issues will help inform analyses of LDCT-associated 
radiation exposure and its risks as part of a screening protocol for 
employees exposed to occupational carcinogens (Christensen, 2014).
    OSHA seeks comment on the proposed requirement and whether it is 
likely to benefit the beryllium-exposed employee population. As 
appropriate, please submit information, studies and data to support 
your comments.
    OSHA notes that another form of CT scanning, High Resolution 
Computed Tomography (HRCT), is available and may be useful in screening 
for CBD. In patients with CBD, HRCT scanning of the chest is more 
sensitive than plain chest radiography in identifying abnormalities 
(NAS, 2008). However, HRCT scans showing no signs consistent with CBD 
have been reported in 25 percent of patients with biopsy-proven 
noncaseating granulomas (Newman et al., 1994). OSHA seeks comment on 
whether HRCT should be included in the list of diagnostic procedures a 
CBD Diagnostic Center should be able to provide (see this Preamble at 
Section XVIII, paragraph (b), Definitions).
    Other types of tests and examinations not mentioned in this 
standard, including X-ray, arterial blood gas, diffusing capacity, and 
oxygen desaturation during exercise, may also be useful in evaluating 
the effects of beryllium exposure. In addition, medical examinations 
that include more invasive testing, such as bronchoscopy, alveolar 
lavage, and transbronchial biopsy, have been demonstrated to provide 
additional valuable medical information. OSHA believes that the PLHCP 
is in the best position to decide which medical tests are necessary for 
each individual examined. Where specific tests are deemed appropriate 
by the PLHCP, the proposed standard, at paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(G), would 
require that they be provided.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(4) details which information must be 
provided to the PHLCP. Specifically, the proposed standard would 
require the employer to ensure the examining PLHCP has a copy of the 
standard and all the appendices, and to provide to the examining PLHCP 
the following information, if known or reasonably available to the 
employer: a

[[Page 47800]]

description of the employee's former and current duties as they relate 
to beryllium exposure ((k)(4)(i)); the employee's former and current 
exposure levels ((k)(4)(ii)); a description of any personal protective 
clothing and equipment, including respirators, used or to be used by 
the employee, including when and for how long the employee has used 
that clothing and equipment ((k)(4)(iii)); and information the employer 
has obtained from previous medical examinations provided to the 
employee, that is currently within the employer's control ((k)(4)(iv)). 
OSHA believes making this information available to the PLHCP will aid 
in the PLHCP's evaluation of the employee's health as it relates to the 
employee's assigned duties and fitness to use personal protective 
equipment, including respirators, when necessary. In order to protect 
the employee's privacy, employee medical information may only be 
provided to the PLHCP by the employer after the employee has signed a 
medical release.
    Providing the PLHCP with exposure monitoring results, as required 
under paragraph (k)(4)(ii), will assist the physician completing the 
written medical opinion in determining if an employee is likely to be 
at risk of adverse effects from beryllium exposure at work. A well-
documented exposure history would also assist the PLCHP in determining 
if a condition (e.g., dermatitis, decrease in diffusing capacity, or 
gradual changes in arterial blood gases) may be related to beryllium 
exposure. See this preamble at section V, Health Effects, for a more 
detailed discussion of the health effects associated with beryllium 
exposure.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(5) would require employers to obtain a 
written medical opinion from the licensed physician who performed or 
directed the exam within 30 days of the examination. The purpose of 
requiring the physician to supply a written opinion to the employer is 
to provide the employer with a documented medical basis for the 
employee's eligibility for medical removal, and to assess the 
employee's ability to use protective clothing and equipment, including 
respirators. In addition, provision of the written opinion to the 
employer may alert the employer to sources of beryllium exposure or 
problems with exposure controls at its worksite. OSHA believes the 30-
day period will allow the licensed physician sufficient time to receive 
and consider the results of any tests included in the examination, and 
allow the employer to take any necessary protective measures in a 
timely manner. The proposed requirement that the opinion be in written 
form is intended to ensure that employers and employees have the 
benefit of the same information and that no information gets lost in 
oral communications. OSHA requests comment on the relative merits of 
the proposed standard's requirement that employers obtain the PLHCP's 
written opinion or an alternative that would provide employees with 
greater discretion over the information that goes to employers (see 
this preamble at Section 1, Issues and Alternatives, Issue #26).
    Paragraphs (k)(5)(i)(A)-(C) of the proposed standard specify what 
must be included in the licensed physician's written opinion. The first 
item for inclusion is the licensed physician's opinion as to whether 
the employee has any detected medical condition that would place the 
employee at increased risk of CBD from further exposure. The standard 
also proposes that the medical opinion include any recommended 
limitations on the employee's exposure, including recommended use of, 
and limitations on the use of, personal protective clothing or 
equipment such as respirators.
    The licensed physician would also need to state in the written 
opinion that the PLHCP has explained the results of the medical 
examination to the employee, including the results of any tests 
conducted, any medical conditions related to exposure that require 
further evaluation or treatment, and any special provisions for use of 
protective clothing or equipment, including respirators. Under proposed 
paragraph (k)(5)(i)(C), OSHA anticipates that the employee will be 
informed directly by the PLCHP of all results of his or her medical 
examination, including conditions of non-occupational origin. Direct 
consultation between the PLHCP and employee ensures that the employee 
will receive all information about the employee's health status, 
including non-occupationally related conditions that are not 
communicated to the employer.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(5)(ii) would require the employer to ensure 
that neither the licensed physician nor any other PLHCP reveals to the 
employer findings or diagnoses which are unrelated to beryllium 
exposure. OSHA has proposed this provision to reassure employees 
participating in medical surveillance that they will not be penalized 
or embarrassed as a result of the employer obtaining information about 
them not directly pertinent to beryllium exposure. Paragraph 
(k)(5)(iii) would also require the employer to provide a copy of the 
licensed physician's written opinion to the employee within two weeks 
after receiving it to ensure that the employee has been informed of the 
results of the examination in a timely manner.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(6)(i) provides for the referral to a CBD 
diagnostic center of any employee who is confirmed positive for 
beryllium sensitization. Within 30 days after the employer learns of 
the confirmed positive result, the employer must ensure that a licensed 
physician designated by the employer consults with the employee about 
referral to a CBD diagnostic center for further testing, to determine 
whether a sensitized employee has CBD. If the employee chooses to 
obtain a clinical evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, the diagnostic 
center must be agreed upon by the employer and the employee. The 
employer and employee must make a good faith effort to agree on a CBD 
diagnostic center that is acceptable to them both. Under paragraph 
(k)(6)(ii), the employer is responsible for all costs associated with 
testing performed at the center. The term CBD diagnostic center is 
defined in proposed paragraph (b), and discussed in this section of the 
preamble regarding proposed paragraph (b).
    Finally, under paragraph (k)(7), the employer would be required to 
convey the results of the medical tests to OSHA for evaluation and 
analysis at the request of the Assistant Secretary. The results of the 
tests may be used to evaluate the nature, variability, reliability, and 
relevance of the beryllium sensitization test results, to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the beryllium standard in reducing beryllium-related 
occupational disease, or for other scientific purposes. Results 
conveyed to OSHA must first be stripped of employees' names, social 
security numbers, and other identifying information.
    Employees of beryllium vendors who qualify for benefits under the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 
(EEOICPA) (42 U.S.C. 7384-7385s-15) and its implementing regulations 
(20 CFR part 30) may also qualify for medical surveillance benefits 
under this proposed standard. Covered medical surveillance provided to 
eligible persons under the EEOICPA program is paid for by the federal 
government.
    Employees covered by both the EEOICPA program and this proposed 
standard would not be required to attend separate medical examinations 
for the separate programs. Rather, these dual-coverage employees could 
attend consolidated medical examinations at which they would receive 
the services

[[Page 47801]]

required under both programs. These examinations would be paid for by 
the federal government under the EEOICPA program to the extent that the 
services provided are covered under the EEOICPA program. If this 
proposed standard requires services that are not covered by the EEOICPA 
program, the employer would be required to pay for these additional 
services.
    As stated in the SBREFA Report, the medical surveillance section 
``was the most controversial part of the draft standard for most SERs 
and received the most comment'' (OSHA, 2008b). SERs generally were 
concerned about the cost of medical surveillance, commenting that 
surveillance is unnecessary for employees with low beryllium exposures 
(OSHA, 2008b). The requirement of dermal triggers for medical 
surveillance was confusing for SERs and led to a number of comments 
(OSHA, 2008b). One SER suggested that the medical surveillance 
requirements should be performance-based, which would allow employers 
to determine which tests were appropriate for their employees (OSHA, 
2008b). Use of the BeLPT was also controversial, given SERs' concerns 
about its accuracy and costs (OSHA, 2008b). OSHA requests comment on 
the proposed requirements for beryllium sensitization testing, 
including issues raised in this preamble at section I, Issues and 
Alternatives, and on the regulatory alternatives presented later in 
this section.
    In response to these concerns, OSHA notes several changes made to 
the regulatory text since the SBREFA panel was convened. In the 
proposed standard, medical surveillance is limited to those employees 
who have worked in a regulated area for more than 30 days per year in 
the previous 12-month period, employees showing signs and symptoms of 
CBD, employees exposed during emergencies, and employees who have been 
exposed above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-month period 
for five years or more. Requiring medical surveillance for employees 
with exposures in a regulated area (i.e., with exposures above the TWA 
PEL or STEL for more than 30 days in a year) should alleviate some 
SERs' concerns that surveillance is not necessary for employees with 
low exposures. Employees with exposures at or above the action level 
but below the PEL are no longer included in medical surveillance, 
unless they show signs or symptoms of CBD or were exposed during an 
emergency. Since the SBREFA panel was held, OSHA has also removed the 
requirement for medical surveillance based only on dermal exposure to 
beryllium, eliminating the confusion caused by the dermal exposure 
provision.
    These changes will result in fewer employees being eligible for 
medical surveillance than were covered in the draft standard presented 
to the SBREFA panel. The changes will thereby reduce costs to 
employers. However, OSHA has preliminarily determined that a 
significant risk of beryllium sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer exist 
at exposure levels below the proposed PEL, and there is evidence that 
beryllium sensitization can occur from short-term exposures (see this 
preamble at Section V, Health Effects, and Section VIII, Significance 
of Risk). The Agency therefore anticipates that some employees will 
develop adverse health effects and may not receive the benefits of 
early intervention in the disease process because they are not eligible 
for medical surveillance (see this preamble at Section V, Health 
Effects). Thus, OSHA is considering three regulatory alternatives that 
would expand eligibility for medical surveillance to a broader group of 
employees than those eligible in the proposed standard. Under 
Regulatory Alternative #14, medical surveillance would be available to 
employees who are exposed to beryllium above the proposed PEL, 
including employees exposed for fewer than 30 days per year. Regulatory 
Alternative #15 would expand eligibility for medical surveillance to 
employees who are exposed to beryllium above the proposed action level, 
including employees exposed for fewer than 30 days per year. Regulatory 
Alternative #21 would extend eligibility for medical surveillance as 
set forth in proposed paragraph (k) to all employees in shipyards, 
construction, and general industry who meet the criteria of proposed 
paragraph (k)(1). However, all other provisions of the standard would 
be in effect only for employers and employees that fall within the 
scope of the proposed rule. Most of these alternatives would provide 
surveillance to fewer employees (and cost less to employers) than the 
draft regulation presented to the SBREFA Panel, but would provide more 
surveillance (and cost more to employers) than the medical surveillance 
requirements in the current proposal.
    The SER who suggested allowing performance-based surveillance 
stated that this would permit employers ``to design and determine what 
tests were appropriate'' (OSHA, 2008b). OSHA is considering two 
regulatory alternatives that would provide greater flexibility in the 
program of tests provided as part of an employer's medical surveillance 
program. Under Regulatory Alternative #16, employers would not be 
required to offer employees testing for beryllium sensitization. 
Regulatory Alternative #18 would eliminate the CT scan requirement from 
the proposed rule.
    OSHA is evaluating these alternatives and has also included some 
performance-based elements in its medical surveillance requirements 
(e.g., (k)(3)(G)). However, the Agency has preliminarily determined 
that the testing required by the proposed standard is necessary and 
appropriate for the employees who must be offered medical surveillance. 
OSHA believes it is important to detect cases of sensitization, CBD and 
other beryllium-related health effects early so that employees can 
quickly be removed from exposure, be provided appropriate protective 
clothing and equipment, benefit from medical removal, and receive 
treatment, as applicable. As discussed in this preamble at section 
VIII, Significance of Risk, early intervention in the disease process 
may slow or prevent progression to more advanced disease. Further, this 
surveillance is particularly necessary in a standard such as this one, 
where OSHA has preliminarily found a significant risk of material 
impairment of health at the proposed PEL. OSHA requests comments on the 
proposed requirements for sensitization testing, CT scans, and medical 
examinations, and on Regulatory Alternatives #14 and #15 discussed 
above.
    Finally, at least one SER commented that providing annual BeLPTs 
would result in high costs with no added benefit to employees (OSHA, 
2008b). As discussed previously, OSHA would also allow substitution of 
a more accurate and reliable test for the BeLPT should such a test 
become available. When this occurs, employers can choose to use 
whichever test is less expensive. OSHA has also, in its proposed 
standard, reduced the frequency of required BeLPTs (or other test 
substituted for the BeLPT) to every two years, with follow-up tests for 
employees who receive abnormal test results. This change would 
significantly reduce the cost of testing, but would also delay early 
detection of beryllium-related health effects and intervention to 
prevent disease progression among employees in medical surveillance. In 
addition, the longer the time interval between when an employee becomes 
sensitized and when the employee's case is identified in the 
surveillance program, the more difficult it will be to identify and 
address the exposure conditions that led to the employee's 
sensitization. Therefore, lengthening the time between

[[Page 47802]]

sensitization tests will diminish the usefulness of the surveillance 
information in identifying and correcting problem areas and reducing 
risks to other employees.
    The benefits of regular medical surveillance for beryllium-related 
health effects and the costs of surveillance to employers are important 
and complex factors in the proposed standard, and OSHA requests 
feedback from the regulated and medical communities to help determine 
the most appropriate schedule for periodic testing. In particular, the 
Agency requests comments on several alternatives to the proposed 
frequency of sensitization testing, CT scans, and general medical 
examinations. Regulatory alternative #17 would require employers to 
offer annual testing for beryllium sensitization to eligible employees, 
as in the draft proposal presented to the SBREFA panel. Regulatory 
Alternative #19 would similarly increase the frequency of periodic CT 
scans from biennial to annual scans. Finally, under Regulatory 
Alternative #20, all periodic components of the medical surveillance 
exams would be available biennially to eligible employees. Instead of 
requiring employers to offer eligible employees a medical examination 
every year, employers would be required to offer eligible employees a 
medical examination every other year. The frequency of testing for 
beryllium sensitization and CT scans would also be biennial for 
eligible employees, as in the proposed standard. For all comments on 
the medical surveillance provisions of the proposed standard, please 
provide an explanation of your position, and supporting data or studies 
as appropriate.
(l) Medical Removal Protection
    Paragraph (l) of the proposed rule contains the provisions related 
to medical removal protection (MRP). Proposed paragraph (l)(1) explains 
that employees in jobs with exposure at or above the action level 
become eligible for medical removal when they are diagnosed with CBD or 
confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization. These medical findings 
may be made pursuant to the surveillance requirements of proposed 
paragraph (k). The terms ``CBD'' and ``confirmed positive'' are defined 
in proposed paragraph (b).
    Proposed paragraph (l)(1) is in keeping with OSHA's provisions for 
MRP in past standards, where the Agency has specified objective removal 
criteria. For example, the Lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025) requires 
that an employee be removed from exposure at or above the action level 
when an employee's blood lead concentration exceeds a certain value. 
Similarly, the Cadmium standard (29 CFR 1910.1027) includes objective 
biological monitoring criteria that trigger removal.
    Paragraph (l)(2) lays out the options for employees who are 
eligible for MRP. Specifically, paragraph (l)(2)(i) would permit 
eligible employees to choose removal as described under proposed 
paragraph (l)(3), and proposed paragraph (l)(2)(ii) would permit them 
to remain in a job with exposure at or above the action level and wear 
a respirator in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard (29 
CFR 1910.134). Eligible employees must choose one of these two options. 
OSHA requests comment on whether the standard should establish a 
timeframe in which eligible employees must choose one of the options in 
paragraph (l)(3) (such as within 7 days, 14 days, or 30 days), and 
whether the standard should require the employee to wear a respirator 
if the employee fails to choose one of the options within the specified 
timeframe.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(3) describes eligible employees' removal 
options. When an employee chooses removal, the employer is required to 
remove the employee to comparable work if such work is available. 
Comparable work is a position for which the employee is already 
qualified or can be trained within one month, in an environment where 
beryllium exposure is below the action level. Comparable work would not 
require the employee to use a respirator, although the employee may 
choose to use a respirator to minimize beryllium exposure. An employer 
is not required to place an employee on paid leave if the employee 
refuses comparable work offered under paragraph (l)(3)(i). An employee 
must be transferred to comparable work, trained for comparable work, or 
placed on paid leave immediately after choosing removal.
    If comparable work is not immediately available, paragraph 
(l)(3)(ii) would require the employer to place the employee on paid 
leave for six months or until comparable work becomes available, 
whichever occurs first. If comparable work becomes available before the 
end of the six month paid leave period, the employer is obligated to 
offer the open position to the employee. Should the employee decline, 
the employer has no further obligation to continue the paid leave.
    Proposed paragraph (l)(3)(iii) would continue a removed employee's 
rights and benefits for six months, regardless of whether the employee 
is removed to comparable work or placed on paid leave. The six month 
period would begin when the employee is removed, which means either the 
day the employer transfers the employee to comparable work, or the day 
the employer places the employee on paid leave. For this period, the 
provision would require the employer to maintain the employee's base 
earnings, seniority, and other rights and benefits of employment as 
they existed at the time of removal. This provision is typical of 
medical removal provisions in other OSHA standards, such as Cadmium (29 
CFR 1910.1027) and Benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028).
    Paragraph (l)(4) would reduce an employer's obligation to provide 
MRP benefits to a removed employee if, and to the extent that, the 
employee receives compensation from a publicly or employer-funded 
compensation program for earnings lost during the removal period, or 
receives income from another employer made possible by virtue of the 
employee's removal. Benefits received under the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) do not 
constitute wage replacement, and therefore would not offset the 
employee's medical removal benefits under this proposed standard.
    By protecting an employee's rights and benefits during the first 
six months of removal, and by reducing in certain circumstances an 
employer's obligation to compensate employees for earnings lost, OSHA 
emphasizes that MRP is not intended to serve as a workers' compensation 
system. The primary reason MRP has been included in this standard is to 
provide eligible employees a six-month period to adjust to the 
comparable work arrangement or seek alternative employment, without any 
further exposure at or above the action level.
    The prospect of a medical removal provision concerned some SERS. 
Some stated that there is no evidence that removing sensitized 
employees will change their health outcomes (OSHA 2008b). Others 
commented that they did not believe medical removal was appropriate 
because neither sensitization nor CBD is reversible (OSHA 2008b).
    OSHA believes that medical removal is an important means of 
protecting employees who have become sensitized or developed CBD, and 
is an appropriate means to enable them to avoid further exposure. The 
scientific information on effects of exposure cessation is limited at 
this time, but the available evidence suggests that removal from 
exposure can be beneficial for individuals who are

[[Page 47803]]

sensitized or have early-stage CBD (see this preamble at section VIII, 
Significance of Risk). As discussed in the Health Effects section of 
this preamble, section V, only those who are sensitized can develop 
CBD. As CBD progresses, symptoms become serious and debilitating. 
Steroid treatment is less effective at later stages, once fibrosis has 
developed (see this preamble at section VIII, Significance of Risk). 
Given the progressive nature of the disease, OSHA believes it is 
reasonable to conclude that removal from exposure to beryllium will 
benefit sensitized employees and those with CBD.
    There is widespread support for removal of individuals with 
sensitization or CBD from further beryllium exposure in the medical 
community and among other experts in beryllium disease prevention and 
treatment. Physicians at National Jewish, one of the main CBD research 
and treatment sites in the US, ``consider it important and prudent for 
individuals with beryllium sensitization and CBD to minimize their 
exposure to airborne beryllium,'' and ``recommend individuals diagnosed 
with beryllium sensitization and CBD who continue to work in a 
beryllium industry to have exposure of no more than 0.01 micrograms per 
cubic meter of beryllium as an 8-hour time-weighted average'' (National 
Jewish site on Chronic Beryllium Disease: Work Environment Management, 
accessed May 2013). The Department of Energy included MRP in its 
Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (10 CFR part 850), stating 
that without MRP, employers would be ``free to maintain high-risk 
workers in their current jobs, which would not be sufficiently 
protective of their health'' (64 FR 68894, December 8, 1999). MRP is 
included in the recommended beryllium standard that beryllium industry 
and union stakeholders submitted to OSHA in 2012 (Materion and United 
Steelworkers, 2012).
    OSHA believes that MRP also improves the medical surveillance 
program described in proposed paragraph (k). Paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B) 
requires medical examinations for employees showing signs or symptoms 
of CBD. The success of that program will depend in part on employees' 
willingness to report their symptoms, submit to examinations, respond 
to questions, and comply with instructions. Guaranteeing paid leave or 
comparable work can help allay an employee's fear that a CBD diagnosis 
will negatively affect earnings or career prospects. MRP encourages 
employees to report their symptoms and seek treatment, as OSHA has 
previously recognized when including medical removal in regulations 
governing the exposure to lead (43 FR 52973, November 14, 1978), 
benzene (52 FR 34557, September 11, 1987), and cadmium (57 FR 42367-68, 
September 14, 1992). This reasoning was also cited by the Department of 
Energy in support of the medical removal provisions of its Chronic 
Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, stating that the availability of 
medical removal benefits encourages worker participation and 
cooperation in medical surveillance (64 FR 68893, December 8, 1999).
    MRP also provides an incentive for employers to keep employee 
exposures low. The risk of developing CBD or beryllium sensitization 
decreases at lower exposures (see this preamble at section VI, 
Preliminary Risk Assessment), meaning that employers can improve their 
chances of avoiding MRP costs by lowering employee exposure levels. 
OSHA previously noted this incentive when describing MRP provisions in 
the Lead standard (43 FR 52973, November 14, 1978) and the Cadmium 
standard (57 FR 42368, September 14, 1992).
    Finally, OSHA's preliminary risk assessment indicates that 
significant risk remains at the proposed TWA PEL (see this preamble at 
section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment). MRP offers additional 
protection for situations in which workers develop CBD or beryllium 
sensitization despite exposures at or below the PEL. As discussed above 
regarding the definition of ``action level'' in paragraph (b), if OSHA 
finds a continuing exposure risk at the PEL, it has the authority to 
impose additional feasible requirements on employers to further reduce 
risk when those requirements will result in a greater than minimal 
incremental benefit to workers' health (Asbestos II, 838 F.2d at 1274).
    During the SBREFA process, SERs commented that small entities may 
lack the flexibility and resources to provide comparable positions for 
MRP-eligible employees (OSHA 2008b). The SBREFA Panel recommended that 
OSHA give careful consideration to the impacts that an MRP requirement 
could have on small businesses (OSHA, 2008b). In response to this 
recommendation, the Agency has provided flexibility in how employers 
may comply with MRP requirements. Where employers have no comparable 
positions in environments with exposures below the action level, the 
proposed standard permits an employer to place eligible employees on 
paid leave for six months, or until comparable work becomes available. 
Under proposed paragraph (l)(4), if an employee is placed on paid leave 
and receives government or employer-provided compensation, or such paid 
leave allows the employee to secure other work, the original employer's 
compensation obligations would be offset. Also in response to the 
Panel's recommendations, OSHA analyzed Regulatory Alternative #22, 
which would eliminate the proposed requirement to offer MRP to 
employees with beryllium sensitization or CBD.
    Finally, OSHA notes that there is considerable scientific 
uncertainty about the effects of exposure cessation on the development 
of CBD among sensitized individuals and the progression from early-
stage to late-stage CBD. Members of the medical community support 
removal from beryllium exposure as a prudent step in the management of 
beryllium sensitization and disease. For example, physicians at 
National Jewish Medical Center, a leading organization in CBD research 
and treatment, recommend individuals diagnosed with beryllium 
sensitization and CBD who continue to work in a beryllium industry to 
have exposure of no more than 0.01 micrograms per cubic meter of 
beryllium as an 8-hour TWA (http://www.nationaljewish.org/healthinfo/conditions/beryllium-disease/environment-management/). However, the 
scientific literature on the effects of exposure cessation is limited. 
It suggests that removal from exposure can have beneficial effects for 
some individuals, but provides no conclusive evidence on whether 
exposure cessation will prevent CBD or CBD progression for most people 
(see this preamble at Section V, Health Effects, and Section VIII, 
Significance of Risk).
    OSHA proposes to include MRP in the beryllium standard, providing 
workers with sensitization or CBD the opportunity and means to minimize 
their further exposure to beryllium via MRP in keeping with the 
recommendation of beryllium specialists in the medical community and 
with the draft recommended standard provided by union and industry 
stakeholders (Materion and Steelworkers, 2012).
    OSHA solicits comments on the health effects of MRP and the 
proposed provisions for MRP. Is MRP an appropriate means of 
intervention in the disease process for workers with beryllium 
sensitization or CBD? Do the proposed MRP provisions appropriately 
balance SBREFA commenters' concerns with the need to reduce beryllium 
exposure for employees with

[[Page 47804]]

sensitization or CBD? Please comment on whether MRP should be included 
in the standard (Regulatory Alternative #22). Please explain your 
positions on these issues and provide any relevant data or studies.
(m) Communication of Hazards to Employees
    Paragraph (m) of this proposal sets forth the employer's 
obligations to comply with OSHA's Hazard Communication standard 
(HCS)(29 CFR 1910.1200), and to take additional steps to warn and train 
employees about the hazards of beryllium.
    Paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this proposal requires chemical 
manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers to comply with 
all applicable requirements of the HCS for beryllium. As described in 
this preamble at section V, Health Effects, and section VI, Preliminary 
Beryllium Risk Assessment, OSHA considers beryllium a hazardous 
chemical.
    In classifying the hazards of beryllium, the employer must address 
at least the following: Cancer; lung effects (chronic beryllium disease 
and acute beryllium disease); beryllium sensitization; skin 
sensitization; and skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation 
(paragraph (m)(1)(ii)). According to the HCS, employers must classify 
hazards if they do not rely on the classifications of chemical 
manufacturers, importers, and distributors (see 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(1)).
    Paragraph (m)(1)(iii) requires that employers include beryllium in 
the hazard communication program established to comply with the HCS, 
and ensure that each employee has access to labels on containers and 
safety data sheets for beryllium and is trained in accordance with the 
HCS and paragraph (m)(4) of this proposal.
    According to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this proposal, employers must 
establish and maintain regulated areas wherever employees are or can 
reasonably be expected to be exposed to beryllium at levels above the 
TWA PEL or STEL, and each employee entering a regulated area must wear 
a respirator and protective clothing and equipment in accordance with 
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this standard. Under paragraph (m)(2) of this 
proposal, employers must provide and display warning signs at each 
approach to a regulated area so that each employee is able to read and 
understand the signs and take necessary protective steps before 
entering the area. Employers must ensure that warning signs required by 
paragraph (m)(2) are legible and readily visible, and that they bear 
the following legend:

    Danger; Beryllium; May Cause Cancer; Causes Damage to Lungs; 
Authorized Personnel Only; Wear respiratory protection and 
protective clothing and equipment in this area.

    Some SERs objected to having cancer warnings displayed on the 
legends for warning signs and labels. They expressed the opinion that 
cancer warnings would unnecessarily scare customers and employees. 
Further, they alleged evidence for beryllium causation of cancer was 
not sufficient (OSHA, 2008b). OSHA disagrees with these comments. OSHA 
has thoroughly reviewed the literature for beryllium carcinogenicity, 
and has preliminarily concluded that beryllium is carcinogenic. OSHA's 
finding that inhaled beryllium causes lung cancer is based on the best 
available epidemiological data, reflects evidence from animal and 
mechanistic research, and is consistent with the conclusions of other 
government and public health organizations (see this preamble at 
section V, Health Effects). For example, the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer (IARC), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have 
all classified beryllium as a known human carcinogen (IARC, 2009). OSHA 
believes that the weight of evidence is sufficient to support the 
requirement for cancer warnings on signs and labels.
    The signs required by paragraph (m)(2) of this proposal are 
intended to serve as a warning to employees and others who may not be 
aware that they are entering a regulated area, and to remind them of 
the hazards of beryllium so that they take necessary protective steps 
before entering the area. These signs are also intended to supplement 
the training that employees must receive regarding the hazards of 
beryllium, since even trained employees need to be reminded of the 
locations of regulated areas and of the precautions necessary before 
entering these dangerous areas (see paragraph (m)(4) of this proposal 
and 29 CFR 1910.1200(h) for training requirements).
    The use of warning signs is important to make employees who are 
regularly scheduled to work at these sites aware of beryllium hazards, 
to alert employees who have limited access to these sites of beryllium 
hazards, and to warn those who do not have access to regulated areas to 
avoid the area. Access must be limited to authorized personnel to 
ensure that those entering the area are adequately trained and 
equipped, and to limit exposure to those whose presence is absolutely 
necessary. By limiting access to authorized persons, employers can 
minimize employee exposure to beryllium in regulated areas and thereby 
minimize the number of employees that may require medical surveillance 
or be subject to the other requirements in this proposal associated 
with working in a regulated area.
    Paragraph (m)(2) specifies the wording of the warning signs for 
regulated areas in order to ensure that the proper warning is 
consistently given to employees, and to notify employees that 
respirators and personal protective clothing and equipment are required 
in the regulated area. OSHA believes that the use of the word 
``Danger'' is appropriate, based on the evidence of the toxicity of 
beryllium. ``Danger'' is used to attract the attention of employees to 
alert them to the fact that they are entering an area where the TWA PEL 
or STEL may be exceeded, and to emphasize the importance of the message 
that follows. The use of the word ``Danger'' is also consistent with 
other OSHA health standards dealing with toxins such as cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027), methylenedianiline (29 CFR 1910.1050), asbestos (29 CFR 
1910.1001), and benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028). In addition, use of the 
word ``Danger'' for this chemical is consistent with the Globally 
Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemical guidelines 
(GHS) (77 FR 17740-48, March 26, 2012). In the Federal Register notice 
for the revised HCS, which incorporates the GHS, OSHA explains that for 
substance-specific standards, warning signs must be as consistent as 
possible with label information for that substance (Id.).
    Paragraph (m)(3) requires that labels be affixed to all bags and 
containers of clothing, equipment, and materials visibly contaminated 
with beryllium. The term ``materials'' includes waste, scrap, debris, 
and any other items visibly contaminated with beryllium that are 
consigned for disposal or recycling (see paragraphs (h)(2)(iv) and (v) 
and (j)(3)(i) through (iii)). The labels must state:

    Danger; Contains Beryllium; May Cause Cancer; Causes Damage to 
Lungs; Avoid Creating Dust; Do Not Get on Skin.

    The purpose of this labeling requirement is to ensure that all 
affected employees, not only the employees of a particular employer, 
are apprised of the presence of beryllium-containing materials and the 
hazardous nature of beryllium exposure. With this knowledge, employees 
can take steps to protect themselves through proper work practices 
established by their employers. Employees are also better able to alert 
their employers if they

[[Page 47805]]

believe exposures or skin contamination can occur.
    As discussed previously, these labeling requirements are consistent 
with the HCS, which requires classification of hazardous chemicals and 
labeling appropriate for the classification (see 77 FR 17740-48, March 
26, 2012). In addition, these requirements for labeling are consistent 
with the mandate of section (6)(b)(7) of the OSH Act, which requires 
that OSHA health standards prescribe the use of labels or other 
appropriate forms of warning to apprise employees of the hazards to 
which they are exposed.
    Paragraph (m)(4) contains requirements for employee information and 
training, and applies to all employees who are or can reasonably be 
expected to be exposed to airborne beryllium. Employers must ensure 
that employees receive information and training in accordance with the 
requirements of the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)), including specific 
information on beryllium as well as any other hazards addressed in the 
workplace hazard communication program. Under the HCS, employers must 
provide their employees with information such as the location and 
availability of the written hazard communication program, including 
lists of hazardous chemicals and safety data sheets, and the location 
of operations in their work areas where hazardous chemicals are 
present. The HCS also requires employers to train their employees on 
ways to detect the presence or release of hazardous chemicals in the 
work area such as any monitoring conducted, the physical and health 
hazards of the chemicals in the work area, measures employees can take 
to protect themselves, and the details of the employer's hazard 
communication program (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)).
    Under paragraph (m)(4)(i)(B), training must be provided to each 
employee by the time of initial assignment, which means before the 
employee's first day of work in a job that could reasonably be expected 
to involve exposure to airborne beryllium. This training must be 
repeated at least annually thereafter ((m)(4)(i)(C)). OSHA believes 
that annual retraining is necessary due to the hazards of beryllium 
exposure, and for reinforcement of employees' knowledge of those 
hazards. The annual training requirement is consistent with other OSHA 
standards such as those for lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), cadmium (29 CFR 
1910.1027), benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), coke oven emissions (29 CFR 
1910.1029), cotton dust (29 CFR 1910.1043), and butadiene (29 CFR 
1910.1051).
    Paragraph (m)(4)(ii) requires the employer to ensure that each 
employee who is or can reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne 
beryllium can demonstrate knowledge of nine enumerated categories of 
information (see paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A)--(I)). Providing information 
and training on these topics is essential to informing employees of 
current hazards and explaining how to minimize potential health hazards 
associated with beryllium exposure. As part of an overall hazard 
communication program, training serves to explain and reinforce the 
information presented on labels and safety data sheets. These written 
forms of communication will be most effective when employees understand 
the information presented and are aware of how to avoid or minimize 
exposures, thereby reducing the possibility of experiencing adverse 
health effects. Training should lead to better work practices and 
hazard avoidance.
    The training requirements in paragraph (m)(4)(ii) are performance-
oriented. This paragraph lists the topics that training must address, 
but does not prescribe specific training methods. OSHA believes that 
the employer is in the best position to determine how to conduct 
training that imparts knowledge and promotes retention. Appropriate 
training may include video, DVD or slide presentations; classroom 
instruction; hands-on training; informal discussions during safety 
meetings; written materials; or a combination of these methods. This 
performance-oriented approach is intended to encourage employers to 
tailor training to the needs of their workplaces, thereby resulting in 
the most effective training program in each individual workplace.
    For training to be effective, the employer must ensure that it is 
provided in a manner that each employee is able to understand. OSHA 
recognizes that employees have varying education levels, literacy 
levels, and language skills, and is requiring that they receive 
training in a language and at a level of complexity that accounts for 
these differences. This may require, for example, providing materials, 
instruction, or assistance in Spanish rather than English if the 
employees being trained are Spanish-speaking and do not understand 
English well. The employer would not be required to provide training in 
the employee's preferred language if the employee understands both 
languages; as long as the employee is able to understand the language 
used, the intent of the proposed standard would be met.
    To ensure that employees comprehend the material presented during 
training, it is critical that trainees have the opportunity to ask 
questions and receive answers if they do not fully understand the 
material that is presented to them. When video presentations or 
computer-based programs are used, employers may meet this requirement 
by having a qualified trainer available to address questions after the 
presentation, or providing a telephone hotline so that trainees will 
have direct access to a qualified trainer.
    In addition to being performance-oriented, these training 
requirements are also results-oriented. Paragraph (m)(4)(ii) requires 
employers to ensure that affected employees can demonstrate knowledge 
of the nine topics enumerated in paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I). 
Accordingly, employers must ensure that employees participate in and 
comprehend the training, and are able to demonstrate knowledge of the 
specified topics. Some examples of methods to ensure knowledge are 
discussions of the required training subjects, written tests, or oral 
quizzes. Although the standard only requires annual retraining, 
employers must ensure that employees can demonstrate up-to-date 
knowledge of the listed topics at all times.
    Paragraph (m)(4)(iii) requires employers to provide additional 
training, even if a year has not passed since the previous training, 
when workplace changes (such as modification of equipment, tasks, or 
procedures) result in new or increased employee exposure that exceeds 
or can reasonably be expected to exceed either the TWA PEL or the STEL. 
Some examples of changes in work conditions triggering the requirement 
for additional training include changes in work production operations 
or personnel that affect the way employees operate equipment. 
Additional training would also be required if employers introduce new 
production or personal protective equipment where employees do not yet 
know how to properly use the new equipment. Misuse of either the new 
production equipment or PPE could result in new exposures above the TWA 
PEL or STEL. As another example, employers must provide additional 
training before employees repair or upgrade engineering controls if 
exposures during these activities will exceed or can reasonably be 
expected to exceed either the TWA PEL or the STEL. OSHA believes the 
additional training requirement in this proposal is essential because 
it ensures that employees are able to actively participate in 
protecting themselves under the conditions found in the workplace, even 
if those conditions change.

[[Page 47806]]

    Paragraph (m)(5) requires that employers make copies of the 
standard and its appendices readily available at no cost to each 
employee and designated employee representative. This requirement 
ensures that employees and their representatives have direct access to 
regulations affecting them, and knowledge of the protective measures 
employers must take on employees' behalf.
    Commenters to both the RFI and SBREFA recognized the importance of 
educating and training their employees about the hazards of beryllium 
exposure. In commenting on an earlier OSHA draft standard for beryllium 
during the SBREFA process, several companies (e.g., Morgan Bronze 
Products, Precision Stamping, and Mid Atlantic Coatings) supported 
training that was understandable to the employee. They agreed that 
employees should be able to demonstrate knowledge of health hazards 
associated with beryllium exposure, and the medical surveillance 
program as described in paragraph (k) of this section. They also 
supported additional training when exposures exceed the PEL (OSHA 
2008b). Most SERs reported already training their employees about 
beryllium risks and how employees can protect themselves (OSHA, 2008b). 
OSHA agrees with comments supporting the necessity of training, and in 
order to assist in the development of training programs, intends to 
develop outreach materials and other guidance materials.
(n) Recordkeeping
    Paragraph (n) of the proposed standard requires employers to 
maintain records of exposure measurements, historical monitoring data, 
objective data, medical surveillance, and training. The recordkeeping 
requirements are proposed in accordance with section 8(c) of the OSH 
Act (29 U.S.C. 657(c)), which authorizes OSHA to require employers to 
keep and make available records as necessary or appropriate for the 
enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the 
causes and prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses. The 
proposed recordkeeping provisions are also consistent with OSHA's 
standard addressing access to employee exposure and medical records (29 
CFR 1910.1020).
    Proposed paragraph (n)(1)(i) requires employers to keep records of 
all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to beryllium as 
required by paragraph (d) of this standard. Paragraph (n)(1)(ii) would 
require that such records include the following information: The date 
of measurement for each sample taken; the operation involving exposure 
to beryllium that was monitored; the sampling and analytical methods 
used and evidence of their accuracy; the number, duration, and results 
of samples taken; the types of respiratory protection and other 
personal protective equipment used; and the name, social security 
number, and job classification of each employee represented by the 
monitoring, indicating which employees were actually monitored.
    These requirements are consistent with those found in other OSHA 
standards, such as those for methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052) and 
chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026). These standards, like most of OSHA's 
substance-specific standards, require that exposure monitoring and 
medical surveillance records include the employee's social security 
number. OSHA has included this requirement in the past because social 
security numbers are particularly useful in identifying employees, 
since each number is unique to an individual for a lifetime and does 
not change when an employee changes employers. When employees have 
identical or similar names, identifying employees solely by name makes 
it difficult to determine to which employee a particular record 
pertains. However, based on privacy concerns, OSHA examined 
alternatives to requiring social security numbers for employee 
identification as part of its Standards Improvement Project-Phase II 
(``SIPs'') Final Rule. The Agency analyzed public comment on the 
necessity, usefulness, and effectiveness of social security numbers as 
a means of identifying employee records. OSHA also analyzed comments 
regarding privacy concerns raised by this requirement, as well as the 
availability of other effective methods of identifying employees for 
OSHA recordkeeping purposes. Comments were divided regarding whether 
social security information should be retained for exposure and medical 
records. The Agency examined the comments and decided not to take any 
action in the SIPs final rule regarding the use of social security 
numbers because the conflicting comments all raised significant 
concerns, and OSHA wished to study the issue further. (See 70 FR 1112, 
1126-27, March 7, 2005).
    In this rulemaking, OSHA proposes to continue to require the use of 
social security numbers. OSHA emphatically recommends against 
distributing or posting employees' social security numbers with 
monitoring results. OSHA welcomes comment on this issue.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(2) addresses historical monitoring data. 
Paragraph (n)(2)(i) would require employers to establish and maintain 
an accurate record of any historical monitoring data used to satisfy 
the initial monitoring requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of this 
standard. As explained earlier in this preamble, paragraph (d)(2) 
permits employers to substitute beryllium monitoring results obtained 
at an earlier time for the initial monitoring requirements, as long as 
employers abide by the criteria specified. Paragraph (n)(2)(ii) 
requires the employer to establish and maintain records or documents 
showing that the criteria discussed in paragraph (d)(2) are met. This 
would mean documenting the workplace conditions present when the 
historical data were collected, for purposes of showing that those 
conditions closely resemble the conditions present in the employer's 
current operations. Employers should also document the dates of 
reliance on the historical data as well as the dates on which the 
historical data were collected.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(3) addresses objective data. Proposed 
paragraph (n)(3)(i) requires employers to establish and maintain 
accurate records of the objective data relied upon to satisfy the 
requirement for initial monitoring in proposed paragraph (d)(2). Under 
proposed paragraph (n)(3)(ii), the record must contain the following 
information: The data relied upon; the beryllium-containing material in 
question; the source of the data; a description of the operation 
exempted from initial monitoring and how the data support the 
exemption; and other information demonstrating that the data meet the 
requirements for objective data in accordance with paragraph (d)(2). 
Such other information may include reports of engineering controls, 
work area layout and dimensions, and natural air movements pertaining 
to the data and current conditions.
    Since historical and objective data may be used to exempt the 
employer from certain types of monitoring, as specified in paragraph 
(d), it is critical that the use of these types of data be carefully 
documented. Historical and objective data are intended to provide the 
same degree of assurance that employee exposures have been correctly 
characterized as would exposure monitoring. The records must 
demonstrate a reasonable basis for conclusions drawn from the data.
    Under proposed paragraph (n)(4)(i) employers must establish and 
maintain accurate medical surveillance records for each employee 
covered by the

[[Page 47807]]

medical surveillance requirements of the standard in paragraph (k). 
Paragraph (n)(4)(ii) lists the categories of information that an 
employer would be required to record: the employee's name, social 
security number, and job classification; a copy of all physicians' 
written opinions; and a copy of the information provided to the PLHCP 
as required by paragraph (k)(4) of this standard.
    OSHA believes that medical records, like exposure records, are 
necessary and appropriate. Medical records document the results of 
medical surveillance and the screening of employees. Employers can use 
the information contained in the records to identify and adjust 
hazardous workplace conditions and mitigate exposures. Employees can 
use these records to make informed decisions regarding medical 
surveillance and medical removal. PLHCPs would have the records to use 
in any further employee consultations or in making recommendations at a 
later time. In sum, medical records play an important part in properly 
evaluating the effects of beryllium exposure on employees' health.
    Paragraph (n)(5)(i) would require that employers prepare and 
maintain records of any training required by this standard. At the 
completion of training, the employer would be required to prepare a 
record that indicates the name, social security number, and job 
classification of each employee trained; the date the training was 
completed; and the topic of the training. This record maintenance 
requirement would also apply to records of annual retraining or 
additional training as described in paragraph (m)(4).
    Proposed paragraphs (n)(1) through (4) require employers to 
maintain exposure measurements, historical monitoring data, and medical 
surveillance records, respectively, in accordance with OSHA's Records 
Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020). That standard, specifically 29 CFR 
1910.1020(d), requires employers to ensure the preservation and 
retention of exposure and medical records. Exposure measurements and 
historical monitoring data are considered employee exposure records 
that must be maintained for at least 30 years in accordance with 29 CFR 
1910.1020(d)(1)(ii). Medical surveillance records must be maintained 
for at least the duration of employment plus 30 years in accordance 
with 29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(1)(i).
    Proposed paragraph (n)(5)(ii) requires employers to retain training 
records, including records of annual retraining or additional training 
required under this standard, for a period of three years after the 
completion of the training. OSHA believes that the retention period for 
training records is reasonable for documentation purposes. The three 
year period for the maintenance of training records is consistent with 
the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030). Other OSHA 
standards require training records to be kept for one year beyond the 
last date of employment (e.g., Asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001), 
Methylenedianiline in construction (29 CFR 1926.60), and Asbestos in 
construction (29 CFR 1926.1101)).
    These maintenance provisions, as well as the access requirements 
discussed below, ensure that records are available to employees so that 
they may examine the employer's exposure measurements, historical 
monitoring data, and objective data, as well as medical surveillance 
and training records, and evaluate whether employees are being 
adequately protected. Moreover, compliance with the requirement to 
maintain records of exposure data will enable the employer to show, at 
least for the duration of the retention-of-records period, that the 
requirements of this standard were carried out appropriately. For 
example, maintenance of these types of data could protect employers 
from allegations of violating paragraph (d)(2). The lengthy record 
retention period is necessitated by the long latency period commonly 
associated with diseases such as chronic beryllium disease and cancer 
(see this preamble at section V, Health Effects).
    Paragraph (n)(6) requires that all records mandated by this 
standard must be made available for examination and copying to the 
Assistant Secretary, the Director of NIOSH, each employee, and each 
employee's designated representative as stipulated by OSHA's Records 
Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    Paragraph (n)(7) requires that employers comply with the Records 
Access standard regarding the transfer of records. Specifically, the 
requirements for the transfer of records are explained in 29 CFR 
1910.1020(h), which instructs employers either to transfer records to 
successor employers or, if there is no successor employer, to inform 
employees of their access rights at least three months before the 
cessation of the employer's business.
    Commenters to the RFI fully endorsed the need for the collection 
and maintenance of health-related records dealing with beryllium 
exposure, as well as those for employee hazard training (Brush Wellman, 
2003). No comments were received in opposition to the need for such 
recordkeeping. However, one commenter suggested that most dental labs 
will not have any incentive to comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements because they have fewer than ten employees and therefore 
would not be subject to OSHA audits of their records. The commenter 
noted that OSHA will have difficulty measuring the effectiveness of the 
standard if small businesses do not keep accurate records (OSHA, 
2007a). OSHA does not intend to exempt small businesses from the 
recordkeeping requirements in this proposal because the Agency believes 
the severity of disease resulting from beryllium exposure is great 
enough to justify requiring small businesses to maintain employee 
health records in accordance with this proposal. Also, recordkeeping 
for fewer employees should be less resource-intensive than for a larger 
organization. OSHA requests comment on the appropriateness of the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
(o) Dates
    According to paragraph (o), this standard will become effective 60 
days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 
OSHA intends for this period to allow affected employers the 
opportunity to familiarize themselves with the standard and to make 
preparations in order to be in compliance by the start-up dates. Under 
paragraph (o)(2), employer obligations to comply with most requirements 
of the final rule would begin 90 days after the effective date (150 
days after publication of the final rule). This additional time period 
is designed to allow employers to complete initial exposure assessments 
or otherwise make exposure determinations by use of historical or 
objective data, to establish regulated areas, to obtain appropriate 
work clothing and equipment, and to comply with other provisions of the 
rule.
    There are two exceptions to the normal start-up intervals--
establishing change rooms and implementing engineering controls--that 
provide additional time for employers to comply. Change rooms are 
required no later than one year after the effective date of the 
standard, and engineering controls need to be in place within two years 
after the effective date. The delayed start-up dates allow affected 
employers sufficient time to design and construct change rooms where 
necessary, and to design, obtain, and install any required control 
equipment. In addition, the longer intervals for change rooms and 
engineering controls are consistent with other OSHA

[[Page 47808]]

substance-specific standards such as those for chromium (VI) (29 CFR 
1910.1026) and cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027). OSHA solicits comment on the 
appropriateness of these proposed start-up dates.

XIX. References

[ACCP] American College of Chest Physicians. (1965). Beryllium 
disease: report of the section on nature and prevalence. Dis Chest 
48:550-558.
[ACGIH] American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 
(1949).
[ACGIH] American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 
(1971). Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Substances 
in Workroom Air With Supplements for Those Substances Added or 
Changed in 1971. American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH.
[ACGIH] American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 
(2009). Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical 
agents and biological exposure indices. American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH.
[AFL-CIO] American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
Organizations. (2003). AFL-CIO's response to OSHA's Request for 
Information (along with attachments). Dated: February 24, 2003.
[AIA] Aerospace Industries Association. (2003). Aerospace Industries 
Association's comments on OSHA's Request for Information. Dated: 
February 24, 2003.
AirClean Systems. (2011). Price Quote from AirClean Systems for 32'' 
Ductless Type A Balance Enclosure. Includes HEPA filter. March 10.
Aldy, J.E., and W.K. Viscusi, 2007. Age Differences in the Value of 
Statistical Life, Discussion Paper RFF DP 07005, Resources for the 
Future, April 2007.
Alekseeva OG. (1965) Ability of beryllium compounds to cause allergy 
of the delayed type. Fed Proc Transl Suppl. Sep-Oct; 25(5):843-6.
[ANSI] American National Standards Institute. (1970). Acceptable 
concentrations of beryllium and beryllium compounds. (Z37.29-1970) 
New York: American National Standards Institute.
Ames BN and Gold LS. (1990). Chemical Carcinogenesis: Too many 
rodent carcinogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. Oct; 87(19):7772-6.
Amicosante M, Berretta F, Franchi A, Rogliani P, Dotti C, Losi M, 
Dweik R, Saltini C. (2002). HLA-DP-unrestricted TNF-alpha release in 
beryllium-stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Eur Respir 
J Nov 20; 1174-1178.
Amicosante M, Berretta F, Rossman M, Butler RH, Rogliani P, van den 
Berg-Loonen E, Saltini C. (2005) Identification of HLA-DRPhe[beta]47 
as the susceptibility marker of hypersensitivity to beryllium in 
individuals lacking the berylliosis-associated supratypic marker 
HLA-DPGlu[beta]69. Respir Res. Aug 14; 6: 94.
Amicosante M, Deubner D, Saltini C. (2005) Role of the berylliosis-
associated HLA-DPGlu69 supratypic variant in determining the 
response to beryllium in a blood T-cells beryllium-stimulated 
proliferation test. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. Oct; 
22(3):175-9.
Amicosante M, Fontenot AP. (2006) T cell recognition in chronic 
beryllium disease. Clin Immunol. Nov; 121(2):134-43.
Andre SM, Metivier H, Lantenois G, Boyer M, Nolibe D, Masse R. 
(1987) Beryllium metal solubility in the lung: comparison of metal 
hot-pressed forms by in-vivo and in-vitro dissolution bioassays. 
Human toxicology, 6(3):233-240.
Arjomandi M, Seward J, Gotway MB, Nishimura S, Fulton GP, Thundiyil 
J, King TE Jr, Harber P, Balmes JR. (2010) Low Prevalence of Chronic 
Beryllium Disease Among Workers at a Nuclear Weapons Research and 
Development Facility. JOEM 52: 647-52.
Arlauskas A, Baker RS, Bonin AM, Tandon RK, Crisp PT, Ellis J. 
(1985) Mutagenicity of metal ions in bacteria. Environ Res. 36 (2); 
379-388.
Armstrong JL, Day GA, Park JY, Stefaniak AB, Stanton ML, Deubner DC, 
Kent MS, Schuler CR, Virji MA. (2014) Migration of beryllium via 
multiple exposure pathways among work processes in four different 
facilities. J Occup Environ Hyg; 11 (12): 781-792.
[ASAS] Aviation Safety Advisory Services. (2002). ASAS's response to 
OSHA's Request for Information (along with attachments) Dated: 
December 18, 2002.
Ashby J, Ishidate M, Stoner GD, Morgan MA, Ratpan F, Callander RD. 
(1990) Studies on the genotoxicity of beryllium sulphate in vitro 
and in vivo. Mutat Res. 240(3); 217-225.
[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. (1993) 
Toxicological Profile of Beryllium. April, 1993.
[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. (2002) 
Toxicological Profile of Beryllium. Sept, 2002.
Attia SM, Harisa GI, Hassan MH, Bakheet SA. (2013) Beryllium 
chloride-induced oxidative DNA damage and alterations I the 
expression patterns of DNA repair-related genes. Mutatgenesis. 28 
(5); 555-559.
Bailey RL, Thomas CA, Deubner DC, Kent MS, Kreiss K, Schuler CR. 
(2010) Evaluation of a preventive program to reduce sensitization at 
a beryllium metal oxide and alloy production plant. J Occup Environ 
med. 52(5); 505-512.
Ballonzoli L, Bouchier T. (2010) Ocular side-effects of steroids and 
other immunosupproessive agents. Therapie; 65 (2): 115-120.
Barbee RA, Halonen M, Kaltenborn WT, and Burrows B, 1991. ``A 
longitudinal study of respiratory symptoms in a community population 
sample. Correlations with smoking, allergen skin-test reactivity, 
and serum IgE,'' Chest, 1991 Jan;99(1): 20-6.
Bargon J, Kronenberger H, Bergmann L, et al. (1986). Lymphocyte 
transformation test in a group of foundry workers exposed to 
beryllium and non-exposed controls. Eur J Respir Dis 69:211-215.
Barna BP, Chiang T, Pillarisetti SG, et al. (1981) Immunological 
studies of experimental beryllium lung disease in the guinea pig. 
Clin Immunol Immunopathol 20:402-411.
Barna BP, Deodhar SD, Chiang T, et al. (1984a) Experimental 
beryllium-induced lung disease. I. Differences in immunologic 
response to beryllium compounds in strains 2 and 13 guinea pigs. Int 
Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 73:42-48.
Barna BP, Deodhar SD, Gautam S, et al. (1984b) Experimental 
beryllium-induced lung disease. II. Analyses of bronchial lavage 
cells in strains 2 and 13 guinea pigs. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 
73:49-55.
Barnett RN, Brown DS, Cadora CB, Baker GP. (1961) Beryllium disease 
with death from renal failure. Conn Med. 25; 142-147.
Bayliss DL, Lainhart WS, Crally LJ, et al. (1971) Mortality patterns 
in a group of former beryllium workers. In: Proceedings of the 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 33rd 
Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 94-107.
[BEA] Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2010. National Income and Product 
Accounts Table: Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross 
Domestic Product [Index numbers, 2005=100]. Revised May 27, 2010. 
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=13&Freq=Qtr&FrstYear=2006&LastYear=2008.
Belinsky SA, Snow SS, Nikula KJ, Finch GL, Tellez CS, and Palmisano 
WA. (2002) Aberrant CpG island methylation of the p16INK4a and 
estrogen receptor genes in rat lung tumors induced by particulate 
carcinogens. Carcinogenesis 23: 335-339.
Belman S. (1969) Beryllium binding in epidermal constituents. J 
Occup Med, Apr;11(4):175-83.
Benson JM, Holmes AM, Barr EB, Nikula KJ, and March TH. (2000) 
Particle clearance and histopathology in lungs of C3H/HeJ mice 
administered beryllium/copper alloy by intratracheal instillation. 
Inhalation Toxicology 12: 733-749.
Bernard A, Torma-Krajewski J, Viet S. (1996) Retrospective beryllium 
exposure assessment at the Rocky Flats Environmental Site. Am Ind 
Hyg Assoc J 57:804-808.
Beryllium Industry Scientific Advisory Committee. (1997) Is 
beryllium carcinogenic in humans. J Occup Environ Med 39:205-208.
Bian Y, Hiraoka S, Tomura M, Zhou XY, Yashiro-Ohtani Y, Mori Y, 
Shimizu J, Ono S, Dunussi-Joannopoulos K, Wolf S, Fujiwara H. 
(2005). The Capacity of the Natural Ligands for CD28 to Drive IL-4 
Expression in Na[iuml]ve And Antigen- Primed CD4\+\ and CD8\+\ T 
Cells. Int Immunol; 17(1): 73-83.
Bill JR, Mack DG, Falta MT, Maier LA, Sullivan AK, Joslin FG, Martin 
AK, Freed BM, Kotzin BL, Fontenot AP.

[[Page 47809]]

(2005) Beryllium presentation to CD4+ T cells is dependent on a 
single amino acid residue of the MHC class II beta-chain. J Immunol; 
175(10): 7029-7037.
[BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010a). 2010 Occupational 
Employment Statistics Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/.
[BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010b). 2010 Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at 
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/.
[BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). BLS Job Openings and Labor 
Turnover Survey (JOLTS). Available at: http://www.bls.gov/jlt/.
Boeniger MF. (2003). The significance of skin exposure. Ann Occup 
Hyg. Nov;47(8):591-593.
Borak J, Woolf SH, Fields CA. (2006) Use if beryllium lymphocyte 
proliferation testing for screening of asymptomatic individuals: an 
evidence-based assessment. J Occup Environ Med. 48 (9); 937-947.
Borm PJ, Schins RP, Albrecht C. (2004) Inhaled particles and lung 
cancer. Part B: Paradigms and risk assessments. Int J Cancer. May 
20;110(1):3-14.
Bost TW, Riches DWH, Schumacher B, et al. (1994) Alveolar 
macrophages from patients with beryllium disease and sarcoidosis 
express increased levels of mRNA for tumor necrosis factor-alpha and 
interleukin-6 but not interleukin-1beta. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 
10(5):506-513.
Brooks AL, Griffith WC, Johnson NF, Finch GL, Cuddihy RG. (1989) The 
induction of chromosome damage in CHO cells by beryllium and 
radiation given alone and in combination. Radiat Res. 120 (3); 494-
507.
Brown ES. (2009). Effects of glucocorticoids on mood, memory, and 
the hippocampus. Treatment and preventive therapy. Ann NY Acad Sci. 
Oct;1179:41-55.
Brush Wellman (2003). Brush Wellman's response to OSHA's Request for 
Information.
Brush Wellman (2004). Brush Wellman's 1999 baseline full-shift 
personal breathing zone (lapel-type) exposure results for its 
Elmore, Ohio, primary beryllium production facility. Data provided 
to Eastern Research Group, Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts, on August 
23, 2004. [Unpublished].
Cai H, White S, Torney D, Deshpande A, Wang Z, Marrone B, Nolan JP. 
(2000) Flow cytometry-based minisequencing: a new platform for high-
throughput single-nucleotide polymorphism scoring. Genomics 66: 135-
143.
Camner P, Hellstrom PA, Lundborg M, Philipson K. (1977). Lung 
clearance of 4[mu]m particles coated with silver, carbon or 
beryllium. Arch Environ Health, 32:58-62.
Carter JM, Corson N, Driscoll KE, Elder A, Finkelstein JN, Harkema 
JR, Gelein R, Wade-Mercer P, Nguyen K, Oberd[ouml]rster G. (2006) A 
Comparative Dose-Related Response of Several Key Pro- and Anti-
inflammatory Mediators in the Lungs of Rats, Mice and Hamsters after 
Subchronic Inhalation of Carbon Black. J Occup Environ Med. Dec; 
48(12): 1265-1278.
Carter JM and Driscoll KE. (2001) The role of inflammation, 
oxidative stress, and proliferation in silica-induced disease: a 
species comparison. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 2001;20 Suppl 
1:33-43.
[CCMA] California Cast Metals Association (2000). Ventilation 
Control of Airborne Metals and Silica in Foundries. El Dorado Hills, 
California. April.
[CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Take-Home 
Lead Exposure Among Children with Relatives Employed at a Battery 
Recycling Facility--Puerto Rico, 2011, MMWR: 2012; 61 (47): 967-970.
Chen MJ. (2001) Development of beryllium exposure matrices for 
workers in a former beryllium manufacturing plant. [Dissertation]. 
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Cherry N, Beach J, Burstyn I, Parboosingh J, Schouchen J, 
Senthilselvan A, Svenson L, Tamminga J, Yiannakoulias N. (2015) 
Genetic susceptibility to beryllium: a case-referent study of men 
and women of working age with sarcoisosi or oterh chronic lung 
disease. Occup Envion Med; 72: 21-27.
Cheskin LJ, Bartlett SJ, Zayas R, Twiley CH, Allison DB, Contoreggi 
C. (1999). Prescription medications: a modifiable contributor to 
obesity. South Med J. 1999 Sep;92(9):898-904.
Chiappino G, Cirla A, Vigliani EC. (1969) Delayed-type 
hypersensitivity reactions to beryllium compounds. An experimental 
Study. Arch Pathol Feb;87(2):131-40.
Cholack J, Schafer L, Yeager D. (1967) Exposures to beryllium in a 
beryllium alloying plant. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 28:399-407.
Chou YK, Edwards DM, Weinberg AD, Vadenbark AA, Kotzin BL, Fontenot 
AP, Burrows GG. (2005) Activation pathways implicate anti-HLA-DP and 
anti_LFA-1 antibodies as lead candidates for intervention in chronic 
berylliosis. J Immunol 174: 4316-4324.
Christensen JD, Tong BC. (2014) Computed Tomography Screening for 
Lung Cancer: Where Are We Now? NC Med J; 74(5): 406-410.
Cianciara MJ, Volkova AP, Aizina NL, Alekseeva OG. (1980) A study of 
humoral and cellular responsiveness in a population occupationally 
exposed to beryllium. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1980 
Jan;45(1):87-94.
Clary JJ, Bland LS, Stokinger HE. (1975) The effect of reproduction 
and lactation on the onset of latent chronic beryllium disease. 
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 33:214-221.
Cohen BS, Harley NH, Martinelli CA, and Lippman M. (1983) Sampling 
artifacts in the breathing zone. Proceedings of the International 
Symposium on Aerosols in the Mining and Industrial Work Environment 
pp 347-360. B. Y. H. Liu and V. A. Maples eds. Minneapolis, MN: Ann 
Arbor Press.
Conradi C, Burri PH, Kapanet Y, and Robinson FR. (1971) Lung changes 
after beryllium inhalation: Ultrastructural and morphometric study. 
Arch Environ Health 23: 348-358.
Cordeiro CR, Jones JC, Alfaro T, Ferriera AJ. (2007) Bronchoalveolar 
lavage in occupational lung diseases. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 
Oct;28(5):504-13.
Costa D., and M. Kahn, 2003. ``The Rising Value of Nonmarket 
Goods,'' American Economic Review, 93:2, pp. 227-233.
Costa D., and M. Kahn, 2004. ``Changes in the Value of Life, 1940-
1980,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29:2, pp. 159-180.
Couch JR, Petersen M, Rice C, Schubauer-Berigan MK. (2011) 
Development of Retrospective Quantitative and Qualitative Job-
Exposure Matrices for Exposures at a Beryllium Processing Facility. 
Occup Environ Med. May;68(5): 361-5.
Coussens LM, Werb Z. (2002) Inflammation and cancer. Nature. 
420(6917); 860-867.
Crowley JF, Hamilton JG, Scott KG. (1949) The metabolism of carrier-
free radioberyllium in the rat. Journal of biological chemistry, 
177:975-984.
Cummings KJ, Deubner DC, Day GA, Henneberger PK, Kitt MM, Kent MS, 
Kreiss K, Schuler CR. (2007) Enhanced preventive programme at a 
beryllium oxide ceramics facility reduces beryllium sensitization 
among workers. Occup Environ Med. Feb; 64 2):134-40.
Cummings KJ, Stefaniak AB, Virji MA, Kreiss K. (2009) A 
reconsiderationof acute beryllium disease. Environ Health Perspect. 
Aug;117(8):1250-6.
Curtis GH. (1951) Cutaneous hypersensitivity due to beryllium; A 
study of thirteen cases. AMA Arch Derm Syphiol. Oct; 64(4):470-82.
Curtis GH. (1959) The diagnosis of beryllium disease, with special 
reference to the patch test. AMA Arch Ind Health 19 (2): 150-153.
DANTE (2009). The DANTE Trial. A Randomized Study in Lung Cancer 
Screening with Low-Dose Spiral Computed Topography.
Dattoli JA, Lieben J, Bisbing J. (1964) Chronic Beryllium Disease. A 
Follow-Up Study. J Occup Med. 6:189-94.
Dai H, Guzman J, Costabel U. (1999) Increased expression of 
apoptosis signaling receptors by alveolar macrophages in 
sarcoidosis. Eur Respir J; 13(6): 1451-1454.
Dai S, Crawford F, Marrack P, Kappler JW. (2008) The structure of 
HLA-DR52c: comparison to other HLA-DRB3 Isotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 
105 (33):11893-7.
Dai S, Murphy GA, Crawford F, Mack DG, Falta MT, Marrack P, Kappler 
JW, Fontenot AP. (2010) Crystal structure of HLA-DP2 and 
implications for chronic beryllium disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci; 
107(16): 7425-7430.
Dai S, Falta MT, Bowerman NA, McKee AS, Fontenot AP. (2013). T Cell 
Recognition of Beryllium. Curr Opin Immunol 25(6): 775-780.

[[Page 47810]]

Dallman MF, Akana SF, Pecoraro NC, Warne JP, la Fleur SE., Foster 
MT. (2007). Glucocorticoids, the etiology of obesity and the 
metabolic syndrome. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2007 Apr;4(2):199-204.
Day GA, Dufresne A, Stefaniak AB, Schuler CR, Stanton ML, Miller WE, 
Kent MS, Deubner DC, Kreiss K, Hoover MD. (2007) Exposure assessment 
pathway at a copper-beryllium alloy facitilty. Ann Occup Hyg. Jan; 
51(1):67-80.
Day GA, Hoover MD, Stefaniak AB, Dickerson RM, Peterson EJ, and 
Esmen NA. (2005) Bioavailability of beryllium oxide particles: An in 
vitro study in the murine J774A.1 macrophage cell line model. Exp. 
Lung Res. 31(3):341-360.
Delic J (1992) Toxicity Review 27 (Part 2): Beryllium and beryllium 
compounds. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office (ISBN 0 11 886343 
6).
De Nardi JM, Van Ordstrand HS, Carmody MG. (1949) Acute dermatitis 
and pneumonitis in beryllium workers; review of 406 cases in 8-year 
period with follow-up on recoveries. Ohio Med. 1949 Jun; 45(6):567-
75.
De Nardi JM, Van Orstrand HS, Curtis GH, Zielinski J. (1953) 
Berylliosis: Summary and survey of all clinical types observed in a 
twelve-year period. American Medical Association archives of 
industrial hygiene and occupational medicine, 8:1-24.
Deodhar SD and BP Barna. (1991) Immune mechanisms in beryllium lung 
disease. Cleve Clin J Med. Mar-Apr;58(2):157-60.
de Silva PS, Fellows IW. (2010) Failure in wound healing following 
percutaneous gastrostomy insertion in patients on corticosteroids. J 
Gastrointestin Liver Dis. Dec;19(4):463.
Deubner D, Kelsh M, Shum M, et al. (2001a) Beryllium sensitization, 
chronic beryllium disease, and exposures at a beryllium mining and 
extraction facility. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 16(5):579-592.
Deubner DC, Goodman M, Iannuzzi J. (2001b) Variability, predictive 
value, and uses of the beryllium blood lymphocyte proliferation test 
(BLPT): Preliminary analysis of the ongoing workforce survey. Appl 
Occup Environ Hyg 16(5):521-526.
Deubner DC, Sabey P, Huang W, Fernandez D, Rudd A, Johnson WP, 
Storrs J, Larson R. (2011) Solubility and Chemistry of Materials 
Encountered by Beryllium Mine and Ore Extraction workers: Relation 
to Risk. J Occup Environ Med 53 (10) 1187-1193.
Diaconita G and Eskenasy A. (1978) Experimental aerogenic pulmonary 
berylliosis in rabbits. Morphol. Embryol. 24:75-79.
Ding J, Lin L, Hang W, Yan X. (2009) Beryllium uptake and related 
biological effects studied in THP-1 differentiated macrophages. 
Metallomics; 1(6): 471-478.
DLCST (2012). Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial.
[DOD] Department of Defense. (2003). DOD's response to OSHA's 
Request for Information (along with attachments). Dated: February 
24, 2003.
[DOE] Department of Energy. (1999) 10 CFR part 850 Chronic Beryllium 
Disease Prevention Program; Final Rule. December 8, 1999 http://www.hss.doe.gov/HealthSafety/WSHP/be/docs/berule.pdf.
[DOE] Department of Energy. (2001) Beryllium Lymphocyte 
Proliferation Testing. DOE SPEC 1142-2001.
[DOE] Department of Energy. (2006) 10 CFR parts 850 and 851 Chronic 
Beryllium Disease Prevention Program; Worker Safety and Health 
Program; Final Rule December 9, 2006 http://www.hss.energy.gov/HealthSafety/wshp/be/docs/beryllium_amendments.pdf.
DOE/HSS, 2006. ``Beryllium Current Worker Health Surveillance 
Through 2005,'' Publication ORISE 05-1711, https://www3.orau.gov/BAWR/pdf/beregistryrpt_2-13-2007.pdf.
Donovan EP, Kolanz ME, Galbraith DA, Chapman PS, Paustenbach DJ. 
(2007) Performance of the beryllium blood lymphocyte proliferation 
test based on a long-term occupational surveillance program. Int 
Arch Occup Environ Health; 81 (2); 165-178.
Dorman, P., and P. Hagstrom, 1998. ``Wage Compensation for Dangerous 
Work Revisited,'' Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52:1, pp. 
116-135.
Dotti C, D'Apice MR, Rogliani P, Novelli G, Saltini C, Amicosante M. 
(2004) Analysis of TNF-[alpha] promoter polymorphisms in the 
susceptibility to beryllium sensitization. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse 
Lung Dis. Mar; 21(1):29-34.
Driscoll KE. (1996) Role of inflammation in the development of rat 
lung tumors in response to chronic particle exposure. Inhal Toxicol. 
8 (Suppl): 139-153.
Duling MC, Stephaniak AB, Lawrence RB, Chipera SJ, Virji AM. (2012) 
Release of beryllium from mineral ores in artificial lung and skin 
surface fluids. Environ Geochem Health 34 (3) 313-322.
Dunkel VC, Pienta RJ, Sivak A, Traul KA. (1981) Comparative 
Neoplastic Transformation Response of Balb/3T3 Cells, Syrian Hamster 
Embryo Cells, and Rauscher Murine Leukemia Virus_infected Fisher 344 
Rat Embryo Cells to Chemical Carcinogens. J Nat Cancer Inst. 67(6); 
1303-1315.
Dutra FR. (1948) The pneumonitis and granulomatosis peculiar to 
beryllium workers. Am J Pathol. 24(6):1137-65.
[EIA] U. S. Energy Information Administration. (2011). Annual Energy 
Outlook. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo11/.
Eidson, A.F., A. Taya, G.L. Finch, M.D. Hoover, and C. Cook. (1991) 
Dosimetry of beryllium in cultured canine pulmonary alveolar 
macrophages. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 34(4):433-448.
Eisenbud M, Berghourt CF, Steadman LT. (1948) Environmental studies 
in plants and laboratories using beryllium; the acute disease. J Ind 
Hyg Toxicol; 30 (5): 281-285.
Eisenbud M, Wanta RC, Dustan C, Steadman LT, Harris WB, Wolf BS. 
(1949) Non-occupational berylliosis. J Ind Hyg Toxicol. 31: 281-294.
Eisenbud M. (1982) Origins of the standards for control of beryllium 
disease (1947-1949). Environ Res. 27(1):79-88.
Eisenbud M, Lisson J. (1983) Epidemiological aspects of beryllium-
induced non-malignant lung disease: A 30-year update. J Occup Med 25 
(3): 196-202.
Eisenbud M. (1993) Re: Lung cancer incidence among patients with 
beryllium disease [Letter]. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1697-1698.
Eisenbud, M. (1998) The Standard for Control of Chronic Beryllium 
Disease. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 13(1): 25-31.
Elder A, Gelein R, Finkelstein JN, Driscoll KE, Harkema J, 
Oberd[ouml]rster G. (2005) Effects of subchronically inhaled carbon 
black in three species. I. Retention kinetics, lung inflammation, 
and histopathology. Toxicol Sci. Dec;88(2):614-29.
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. (1974) National emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations 40:61.30-61.34.
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. (1987) Health Assessment 
Document for Beryllium. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC.
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. (1998) Toxicological review 
of beryllium and compounds. (CASRN 7440-41-7). In Support of Summary 
Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC EPA/635/R-98/008 Pp. 
1-93.
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). ``SAB Report on EPA's 
White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction,'' 
EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013. OSHA Docket OSHA-2010-0034-0652.
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). ``National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulations; Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection 
Byproducts Rule; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water 
Regulations; Approval of Analytical methods for Chemical 
Contaminants; Proposed Rule,'' Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 
159, August 18.
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). ``Final Ozone NAAQS 
Regulatory Impact Analysis,'' Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit 
and Cost Group, March.
Eastern Research Group (2003). ERG Beryllium Site 5, 2003. Site 
visit to a dental laboratory, January 28-29, 2003. Eastern Research 
Group, Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts. Attachment 4.
Epstein PE, Daubner JH, Rossman MD, Daniele RP. (1982) 
Bronchoalveolar Lavage in a Patient with Chronic Berylliosis: 
Evidence for Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. Annals Int Med; 97 (2): 
213-216.
Epstein, W. L. (1991). Cutaneous effects of beryllium. Beryllium 
Biomedical and Environmental Aspects.
[ERG] Eastern Research Group. (2003). Survey of the Cullman 
machining plant conducted by ERG.

[[Page 47811]]

[ERG] Eastern Research Group. (2004a). Survey of the Cullman 
machining plant conducted by ERG.
[ERG] Eastern Research Group. (2004b). ERG personal communication. 
``In 2004, the plant industrial hygienist reported that all machines 
had LEV and about 65 percent were also enclosed with either partial 
or full enclosures to control the escape of machining coolant''.
[ERG] Eastern Research Group. (2007b). Rulemaking Support for 
Supplemental Economic Feasibility Data for a Preliminary Economic 
Impact Analysis of a Proposed Crystalline Silica Standard; Updated 
Cost and Impact Analysis of the Draft Crystalline Silica Standard 
for General Industry. Task Report. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 
Lexington, MA. Submitted to Occupational Safety And Health 
Administration, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Office of 
Regulatory Analysis under Task Order 11, Contract No. DOLJ049F10022. 
April 20.
[ERG] Eastern Research Group. (2009a). Personal communication with 
an industrial hygiene researcher at NJMRC.
[ERG] Eastern Research Group. (2009b). Personal communication with 
Cullman machining plant's industrial hygienist.
[ERG] Eastern Research Group. (2010). External Peer Review of OSHA's 
Draft ``Preliminary Health Effects Section for Beryllium,'' 
``Preliminary Risk Assessment for Beryllium,'' and External Peer 
Review of NIOSH Papers. Submitted to Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Directorate of Standards and Guidance under Task 
Order 80, Contract No. DOLQ059622303. December 2, 2010.
Eskenasy A. (1979) Experimental pulmonary berylliosis in rabbits 
sensitized to beryllium sulfate: Contact hypersensitivity. Morphol. 
Embryol. 25(3):257-262.
[FDA] Food and Drug Administration. (2003). ``Food Labeling: Trans 
Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling, Nutrient Content Claims, and 
Health Claims. Final Rule,'' Federal Register, 68 FR 41434.
Ferriola PC, Nettesheim P. (1994) Regulation of normal and 
transformed tracheobronchial epithelial cell proliferation by 
autocrine growth factors. Crit Rev oncop. 5(2-3); 107-120.
Finch GL et al; (1986) Inhalation Toxicol Research Institute Annual 
Report: The Cytotoxicity of Beryllium Compounds to Cultured Canine 
Alveolar Macrophages p.286-90.
Finch, G., J. Mewhinney, A. Eidson, M. Hoover, and S. Rothenberg. 
(1988) In Vitro Dissolution Characteristics of Beryllium Oxide and 
Beryllium Metal Aerosols. J. Aerosol Sci. 19(3):333-342.
Finch GL, Mewhinney JA, Hoover MD, et al. (1990) Clearance, 
translocation, and excretion of beryllium following acute inhalation 
of beryllium oxide by beagle dogs. Fundam Appl Toxicol 15:231-241.
Finch GL, Finch GL, Lowther WT, Hoover MD, Brooks AL. (1991) Effects 
of beryllium metal particles on the viability and function of 
cultured rat alveolar macrophages. J Toxicol Environ Health. Sep; 
34(1):103-14.
Finch GL, Hahn FF, Carlton WW, Rebar AH, Hoover MD, Griffith WC, 
Mewhinney JA, and Cuddihy RG. (1994) Combined exposure of F344 rats 
to beryllium metal and \239\PuO2 aerosols. In Inhalation 
Toxicology Research Institute Annual Report 1993-1994 (Belinsky SA, 
Hoover MD, and Bradley PL, Eds.), pp 77-80. 1TRI-144, National 
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Finch G, March T, Hahn F, Barr E, Belinsky S, Hoover M, Lechner J, 
Nikula K, Hobbs C. (1998a) Carcinogenic responses of transgenic 
heterozygous p53 knockout mice to inhaled \239\PuO2 or 
metallic beryllium. Toxicol Pathol 26:484-491.
Finch GL, Nikula KJ, Hoover MD. (1998b) Dose-response relationships 
between inhaled beryllium metal and lung toxicity in C3H mice. 
Toxicol Sci 42(1):36-48.
Finch GL, March TH, Hahn FF, Barr EB, Belinsky SA, Hoover, MD, 
Lechner JF, Nikula KJ, and Hobbs CH. (1998c) Carcinogenic responses 
of transgenic heterozygous p53 knockout mice to inhaled 
\239\PuO2 or metallic beryllium. Toxicologic Pathology 26 
(4): 484-491.
Fireman E, Haimsky E, Noiderfer M, Priel I, Lerman Y. (2003) 
Misdiagnosis of sarcoidosis in patients with chronic beryllium 
disease. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. Jun; 20(2):144-8.
Fodor I. (1977) Histogenesis of beryllium-induced bone tumours. Acta 
Morphol Acad Sci Hung. 25(2-3): 99-105.
Fontenot AP, Falta MT, Freed BM, Newman LS, Kotzin BL. (1999) 
Identification of pathogenic T cells in patients with beryllium-
induced lung disease. J Immunol; 163(2): 1019-1026.
Fontenot AP, Torres M, Marshall WH, Newman LS, Kotzin BL. (2000) 
Beryllium presentation CD4+ T cells underlies disease-susceptibility 
HLA-DP alleles in chronic beryllium Disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 97 
(23): 12717-12722.
Fontenot AP, Canavera SJ, Gharavi L, Newman LS, Kotzin BL. (2002) 
Target organ localization of member CD4(+) T cells in patients with 
chronic beryllium disease. J Clin Invest. Nov 2002; 110(10): 1473-
1482.
Fontenot AP, Gharavi L, Bennett SR, Canavera SJ, Newman LS, and 
Kotzin BL. (2003) CD28 co-stimulation independence of target organ 
versus circulating memory antigen-specific CD4+ T cells. J Clin 
Invest. 112 (5): 776-784.
Fontenot AP, Palmer BE, Sullivan AK, Joslin FG, Wilson CC, Maier LA, 
Newman LS, Kotzin BL. (2005) Frequency of beryllium specific, 
central memory CD 4+ T cells in blood determines proliferation 
response. J Clin Invest. Oct; 115(10):2886-93.
Fontenot AP, Maier LA. (2005) Genetic susceptibility and immune-
mediated destruction in beryllium-induced disease. Trends Immunol; 
26(10): 543-549.
Fontenot AP, Keizer TS, McClesky M, Mack DG, Meza-RomeroR, Huan J, 
Edwards DM, Chou YK, Vandenbark AA, Scott B, Burrow GG. (2006) 
Recombinant HLA-DP2 binds beryllium and toerizes beryllium-specific 
pathogenic CD4+ T cells. J Immunol; 177;3874-3883.
Franchimont D, Kino T, Galon J, Meduri GU. (2002). Glucocorticoids 
and inflammation revisited: the state of the art. NIH clinical staff 
conference. Neuroimmunomodulation. 2002-2003;10(5):247-60.
Franchimont D, Galon J, Vacchio MS, Fan S, Visconti R, Frucht DM, 
Geenen V, Chrousos G, Ashwell JD, O'Shea JJ. (2002). Posititive 
effects of glucocorticoids on T cell function by up-regulation of 
IL-7 receptor alpha. J Immunol Mar 1:168(5):2212-8.
Frauman AG. (1996). An overview of the adverse reactions to adrenal 
corticosteroids. Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev. Nov;15(4):203-6.
Freeman H. (2012) Colitis associated with biological agents. World J 
Gastroenterol; 18 (16): 1871-1874.
Freiman DG, Hardy HL. (1970) Beryllium disease. The relation of 
pulmonary pathology to clinical course and prognosis based on a 
study of 130 cases from the U.S. beryllium case registry. Hum 
Pathol. Mar;1(1):25-44.
Frome EL, Smith MH, Littlefield LG, et al. (1996). Statistical 
methods for the blood beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test. 
Environ Health Perspect 104(Suppl. 5):957-968.
Frome E, Cragle D, Watkins J, Wing S, Shy C, Tankersley W, West C. 
(1997) A mortality study of employees of the nuclear industry in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee. Radiat Res 148:64-80.
Frome EL, Newman LS, Cragle DL, Colyer SP, Wambach PF. (2003) 
Identification of an abnormal beryllium lymphocyte proliferation 
test. Toxicology 183 (1-3); 39-56. Erratum in Toxicology 188 (2-3); 
335-336.
Fuchs B and Protchard DJ. (2002) Etiology of Osteosarcoma. Clin 
Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Apr;(397):40-52.
Furchner JE, Richmond CR, London JE. (1973). Comparative metabolism 
of radionuclides in mammals.VIII. Retention of beryllium in the 
mouse, rat, monkey and dog. Health Phys 24:293-300.
Gaede KI, Amiconsante M, Schurmann M, Fireman E, Saltini C, Muller-
Quernheim. (2005) Function associated transforming growth factor-
beta gene polymorphism in chronic beryllium disease. J Mol Med 
(Berl); 83(5): 397-405.
Gelman I. (1936) Poisoning by vapors of beryllium oxyfluoride. J Ind 
Hyg Toxicol 18:371379.
Gibson GJ, Prescott RJ, Muers MF, Middleton WG, Mitchell DN, 
Connolly CK, Harrison BD (1996). British Thoracic Society 
Sarcoidosis Study: effects of long-term corticosteroid treatment. 
Thorax. Mar; 51(3):238-47.
Gomme, P., and P. Rupert, 2004. ``Per Capita Income Growth and 
Disparity in the United States, 1929-2003,'' Federal Reserve Bank of 
Cleveland, August 15.

[[Page 47812]]

Gordon T and Bowser D. (2003) Beryllium: genotoxicity and 
carcinogenicity. Mutat Res. Dec 10; 533(1-2):99-105.
Greene TM, Lanzisera DV, Andrews L, Downs AJ (1998) Matrix-isolation 
and density functional theory study of the reactions of laser-abated 
beryllium, magnesium, and calcium atoms with methane. Journal of the 
American Chemical Society, 120 (24):6097-6104.
Greten FR, Karin M. (2004) The IKK/NF-kappa B activation pathway- a 
target for prevention and treatment of cancer. Cancer Lett. Apr 
8;206(2):193-9.
Groth DH, Kommineni C, and Mackay GR. (1980) Carcinogenicity of 
beryllium hydroxide and alloys. Environmental Research 21: 63-84.
Haley PJ, Finch GL, Mewhinney JA, et al. (1989). A canine model of 
beryllium-induced granulomatous lung disease. Lab Invest 61:219-227.
Haley PJ, Finch GL, Hoover, MD, et al. (1990) The acute toxicity of 
inhaled beryllium metal in rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol 15:767-778.
Haley PJ. (1991) Mechanisms of granulomatous lung disease from 
inhaled beryllium: the role of antigenicity in granuloma formation. 
Toxicol Pathol, 19(4 Pt 1):514-25.
Haley PJ, Finch GL, Hoover MD, et al. (1992). Beryllium-induced lung 
disease in the dog following two exposures to BeO. Environ Res 
59:400-415.
Haley P, Pavia KF, Swafford DS, et al. (1994) The comparative 
pulmonary toxicity of beryllium metal and beryllium oxide in 
cynomolgus monkeys. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 16(4):627-644.
Hall, R.E., and C.I. Jones, 2007. ``The Value of Life and the Rise 
in Health Spending,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXXII, pp. 39-
72.
Hall RH, Scott JK, Laskin S, Stroud CA, Stokinger HE. (1950) Acute 
toxicity of inhaled beryllium: Observations correlating toxicity 
with the physicochemical properties of beryllium oxide dust. Arch 
Ind Hyg Occup Med. 2 (1): 25-48.
Hamida, KS, Fajraoui KN, Ben Ghars Amara K, Haouachi R, Sahli H, 
Sellami S, Charfi MR, Zouri B. (2011). [Effect of inhaled 
corticosteroids on bone mineral density in asthmatic adults: a 20 
cases study]. Tunis Med. May;89(5):434-9.
Hanifin JM, Epstein WL and MJ Cline. (1970) In vitro studies on 
granulomatous hypersensitivity to beryllium. J Invest Derm. Oct; 
55(4):284-8.
Hardy HL, Tabershaw IR. (1946) Delayed chemical pneumonitis 
occurring in workers exposed to beryllium compounds. J Ind Hyg 
Toxicol 28:197-211.
Hardy HL, Rabe EW, Lorch S. (1967). United States Beryllium Case 
Registry: (1952-1966) Review of its methods and utility. J Occup 
Med. Jun; 9(6):271-6.
Hardy HL. (1980) Beryllium disease: a clinical perspective. Environ 
Res. Feb;21(1):1-9.
Harmsen AG, Finch GL, Mewhinney JA, et al. (1986) Lung cellular 
response and lymphocyte blastogenesis in beagle dogs exposed to 
beryllium oxide. In: Muggenburg BA, Sun JD, eds. Annual report of 
the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, October 1, 1985 
through September 30, 1986. Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental 
Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 291-295.
Hart BA, Bickford PC, Whatlen MC, Hemanway D (1980) Distribution and 
retention of beryllium in guinea pigs after administration of a 
beryllium chloride aerosol. US Department of Energy symposium series 
(pulmonary toxicology of respirable particulates), 53:87-102.
Hart BA, Harmsen AG, Low RB, Emerson R. (1984) Biochemical, 
cytological, and histological alterations in rat lung following 
acute beryllium aerosol exposure. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. Sep 
30;75(3):454-65.
Hasan FM, Kazemi H. (1974) Chronic beryllium diseae: a continued 
epidemiolic hazard. Chest. 65 (3); 289-293.
[HSDB] Hazardous Substance Database. (2010). Beryllium and Beryllium 
compounds. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/.
Heinrich U, Fuhst R, Rittenhausen S, Creutzenber O, Bellamn B, Koch 
W, Levsen K. (1995) Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats and 
two different strains of mice to diesel engine exhaust, carbon 
black, and titanium dioxide. Inhal Toxicol. 7: 533-556.
Henneberger PK, Cumro D, Deubner DD. (2001) Beryllium sensitization 
and disease among long-term and short-term workers in a beryllium 
ceramics plant. Int Arch Occup Health 74:167-176.
Hintermann, B., A. Alberini, and A. Markandya, 2010. ``Estimating 
the value of safety with labour market data: are the results 
trustworthy?'' Applied Economics, 42(9), pp. 1085-1100.
Hollins DM, McKinley MA, Williams C, Wiman A, Fillos D, Chapman PS, 
Madl AK. (2009) Beryllium and lung cancer: a weight of evidence 
evaluation of the toxicological and epidemiological literature. Crit 
Rev Toxicol. 2009;39 Suppl 1:1-32.
Honeywell (2003). Honeywell's comments on OSHA's Request for 
Information. Dated: February 24, 2003. Pp. 11.
Hong-Geller. (2006) Chemokine response to beryllium exposure in 
human peripheral blood mononuclear and dendritic cells. Toxicology. 
Feb 1; 218(2-3):216-28.
Hoover MD, Castorina BT, Finch GL, Rothenberg SJ. (1989) 
Determination of oxide layer thickness on beryllium metal particles. 
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. Oct; 50(10):550-3.
Hoover MD, Finch GL, Mewhinney JA, Eidson AF. (1990) Release of 
aerosols during sawing and milling of beryllium exposure in human 
peripheral blood mononuclear and dendritic cells. Appl Occup Environ 
Hyg 5 (11): 787-791.
Hsie AW (1978) Quantitative mammalian cell genetic toxicology. 
Environ Sci Res. 15; 291-315.
Huang H, Meyer KC, Kubai L, and Auerbach R. (1992) An immune model 
of beryllium-induced pulmonary granulomata in mice: Histopathology, 
immune reactivity, and flow-cytometric analysis of bronchoalveolar 
lavage-derived cells. Lab Invest 67:138-146.
Huang W, Fernandez D, Rudd A, Johnson WP, Deubner D, Sabey P, Storrs 
J, Larsen R. (2011) Dissolution and nanoparticle generation behavior 
of Be-associated materials in synthetic lung fluid using inductively 
coupled plasma mass spectroscopy and flow field-flow fractionation. 
J Chromatogr A 1218 (27) 4149-4159.
[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. (1993). 
Beryllium, cadmium, mercury and exposures in the glass manufacturing 
industry. Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Hum 58:41-117.
[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2009). Special 
Report: Policy A review of human carcinogens--Part C: metals, 
arsenic, dusts, and fibres. The Lancet/Oncology. Vol 10 May 2009.
[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2012) A review 
of the human carcinogens: arsenic, metals, fibres, and dusts.
[ICRP] International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1960) 
Report of ICRP Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal 
Radiation. Health physics, 3:154-155.
[ICRP] International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1994). 
ICRP Publication 66: Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological 
Protection (No. 66). ICRP (Ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences.
[ICSC] International Chemical Safety Card 0226 (beryllium metal). 
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/icsc/showcard.display?p_lang=en&p_card_id=0226.
[ICSC] International Chemical Safety Card 1325 (beryllium oxide) 
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1325.htm.
[ICSC] International Chemical Safety Card 1351 (beryllium sulfate) 
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1351.htm.
[ICSC] International Chemical Safety Card 1352 (beryllium nitrate) 
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1352.htm.
[ICSC] International Chemical Safety Card 1353 (beryllium carbonate) 
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1353.htm.
[ICSC] International Chemical Safety Card 1354 (beryllium chloride) 
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/icsc/showcard.display?p_lang=en&p_card_id=1354.
[ICSC] International Chemical Safety Card 1355 (beryllium fluoride) 
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1355.htm.
Infante P, Wagoner J, Sprince N. (1980) Mortality patterns from lung 
cancer and nonneoplastic respiratory disease among white males in 
the Beryllium Case Registry. Environ Res 21:35-43.
Invanokov AT, Popov BA, Parfenova IM (1982) Resorption of soluble 
beryllium compounds through the injured skin. Gig Tr Prof Zabol 9: 
50-52.

[[Page 47813]]

Irwin, R.S., F.J. Curley, and C.L. French, 1990. ``Chronic cough: 
the spectrum and frequency of causes, key components of the 
diagnostic evaluation, and outcome of specific therapy,'' Am Rev 
Respir Dis 1990; 141: 640-7.
Jackson L, Evers BM. (2006) Chronic inflammation and pathogenesis of 
GI and pancreatic cancers. Cancer Treat Res. 130:39-65.
Johnson JS, Foote K, McClean M, Cogbill G. (2001) Beryllium exposure 
control program at Cardiff Atomic Weapons Establishment in the 
United Kingdom. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. May;16(5):619-30.
Johnston CJ, Driscoll KE, Finkelstein JN, Baggs R, O'Reilly MA, 
Carter J, Gelein R, Oberd[ouml]rster G. (2000) Pulmonary chemokine 
and mutagenic responses in rats after subchronic inhalation of 
amorphous and crystalline silica. Toxicol Sci. 2000 Aug;56(2):405-
13.
Joseph, P., T. Muchnok, and T. Ong. (2001) Gene expression profile 
in BALB/c-3T3 cells transformed with beryllium sulfate. Mol. 
Carcinog. 32(1):28-35.
Kada T. (1980) Mutagenicity of selected chemicals in the rec-assay 
in bacillus subtilis. Cmpoarative Chemical Mutagenesis, pp 19-22.
KanematsuN, Hara M, Kada T. (1980) Rec assay and mutagenicity 
studies on metal compounds. Mutat Res. Feb;77(2):109-16.
Kang KY, Bice D, Hoffman E, D'Amato R, Ziskind M, Salviggio. (1977) 
Experimental studies of sensitization to beryllium, zirconium, and 
aluminum compounds in the rabbit. J. Allergy Clin Immunol. 
Jun;59(6):425-36.
Keizer TS, Sauer NN, McClesky TM. (2005) Beryllium binding at 
neutral pH: the importance of the Be-O-Be motif. J Inorg Biochem; 
99(5): 1174-1181.
Kelleher PC, Martyny JW, Mroz MM, Maier LA, Ruttenber AJ, Young DA, 
et al. (2001) Beryllium particulate exposure and disease relations 
in a beryllium machining plant. J Occup Environ Med 43: 238-249.
Kent MS, Robins TG, Madl AK. (2001) Is total mass or mass of 
alveolar -deposited airborne particles of beryllium a better 
predictor of the prevalence of disease? A preliminary study of a 
beryllium processing facility. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 16 (5): 539-
558.
Keshava, N, Zhou G, Spruill M, Ensell M, Ong TM. (2001) Carcinogenic 
potential and genomic instability of beryllium sulphate in BALB/c-
3T3 cells. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 222(1-2):69-76.
Kimber I, Basketter, DA, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Dearman RJ. 2011. 
Chemical Allergy: Transplating Biology into Hazard Characterization. 
Toxicol. Sci. 120 (S1): S238-S268.
Kittle LA, Sawyer RT, Fadok VA, Maier LA, Newman LS. (2002) 
Beryllium induces apoptosis in human lung macrophages. Sarcoidsis 
Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis; 19(2): 101-113.
Klemperer FW, Martin AP, Van Riper J. (1951) Beryllium excretion in 
humans. A M A Arch Ind Hyg Occup Med. Sep; 4(3):251-6.
Knaapen AM, Borm PJ, Albrecht C, Schins RP. (2004) Inhaled particles 
and cancer. Part A: Mechanisms. Int J Cancer. May 10;109(6):799-809.
Kniesner, T.J., W.K. Viscusi, and J.P. Ziliak, 2010. ``Policy 
relevant heterogeneity in the value of statistical life: New 
evidence from panel data quantile regression,'' Journal of Risk and 
Uncertainty, 40, pp. 15-31.
Kniesner, T.J., W.K. Viscusi, C. Woock, and J.P. Ziliak, 2012. ``The 
Value of a Statistical Life: Evidence from Panel Data,'' Review of 
Economics and Statistics, 94(1), pp. 74-87.
Kolanz, M., 2001. Brush Wellman Customer Data Summary. OSHA 
Presentation, July 2, 2001. Washington, DC.
Kreiss K, Newman LS, Mroz MM, Campbell PA. (1989) Screening blood 
test identifies subclinical beryllium diease. J Occup Med. 31 (7): 
603-608.
Kreiss K, Mroz MM, Zhen B, Martyny JW, Newman LS. (1993a) 
Epidemiology of beryllium sensitization and disease in nuclear 
workers. Am Rev Respir Dis 148:985-991.
Kreiss K, Wasserman S, Mroz MM, Newman LS. (1993b) Beryllium disease 
screening in the ceramics industry. Blood lymphocyte test 
performance and exposure-disease relations. J Occup Med 35:267-274.
Kreiss K, Mroz MM, Newman LS, Martyny J, Zhen B. (1996) Machining 
Risk of Beryllium Disease and Sensitization With Median Exposures 
Below 2 micrograms/m\3\. Am J Ind Med. 30(1):16-25.
Kreiss K, Mroz MM, Zhen B, Wiedemann H, Barna B. (1997) Risks of 
beryllium disease related processes at a metal, alloy, and oxide 
production plant. Occup Environ Med. 54 (8): 605-612.
Kreiss K, Day GA, Schuler CR. (2007) Beryllium: a modern industrial 
hazard. Annu Rev Public Health. 28:259-77.
Kriebel D, Sprince N, Eisen E, Greaves I. (1988a) Pulmonary function 
in beryllium workers: assessment of exposure. Br J Ind Med 45:83-92.
Kriebel D, Sprince NL, Eisen EA, et al. (1988b) Beryllium exposure 
and pulmonary function: A cross sectional study of beryllium 
workers. Br J Ind Med 45:167-173.
Krivanek, Reeves. (1972) The effects of chemical forms of beryllium 
on the production of the immunological response. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 
Jan; 33(1):45-52.
Kuroda K, Endo G, Okamoto A, Yoo YS, Horiguchi S. (1991) 
Genotoxicity of beryllium, gallium and antimony in short-term 
assays. Mutat Res. Dec;264(4):163-70.
Lang L. (1994) Beryllium: a chronic problem. Environ Health Perspect 
102:526-531.
Langhammer A, Forsmo S, Syversen U. (2009). Long-term therapy in 
COPD: any evidence of adverse effect on bone? Int J Chron Obstruct 
Pulmon Dis. 4:365-80.
Lansdown ABG (1995) Physiological and toxicological changes in the 
skin resulting from the action and interaction of metal ions. 
Critical reviews in toxicology, 25(5):397-462.
Larramendy ML, Popescu NC, DiPaolo JA. (1981) Induction by inorganic 
metal salts of sister chromatid exchanges and chromosome aberrations 
in human and Syrian hamster cell strains. Environ Mutagen. 3 (6): 
597-606.
Lederer H and J Savage. (1954) Beryllium Granuloma of the Skin. Br J 
Ind Med. Jan; 11(1):45-8.
Lee KP, Trochimowicz HJ, Reinhardt CF. (1985) Pulmonary response of 
rats exposed to titanium dioxide (TiO2) by inhalation for two years. 
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. Jun 30;79(2):179-92.
Leek RD, Harris AL. (2002) Tumor-associated macrophages in breast 
cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2002, 7:177-189.
LeFevre ME, Joel DD. (1986) Distribution of label after intragastric 
administration of 7Be-labeled carbon to weanling and aged mice. Proc 
Soc Exp Biol Med 182:112-119.
Lehouck A, Boonen S, Decramer M, Janssens W. (2011). COPD, bone 
metabolism, and osteoporosis. Chest. Mar;139(3):648-57.
Leonard A, Lauwerys R. (1987) Mutagenicity, carcinogenicity and 
teratogenicity of beryllium. Mutat Res 186:35-42.
Levy PS, Roth HD, Hwang PMT, Powers TE. (2002) Beryllium and lung 
cancer: A reanalysis of a NIOSH cohort mortality study. Inhal 
Toxicol. 14 (10): 1003-1015.
Levy, P.S., H.D. Roth, P.M.T. Hwang, and T.E. Powers, 2002. 
``Beryllium and Lung Cancer: A Reanalysis of a NIOSH Cohort 
Mortality Study,'' Inhalation Toxicology, 14:1003-1015.
Levy PS, Roth HD, Deubner DC. (2007) Exposure to beryllium and 
occurrence of lung cancer: A reexamination of findings from a nested 
case-control study. J Occup Environ Med. 49 (1): 96-101.
Lieben J, Metzner,F. (1959) Epidemiological findings associated with 
beryllium extraction. Am IndHyg Assoc J 20(6):152.
Lieben J, Williams RR. (1969) Respiratory Disease Associated With 
Beryllium Refining And Alloy Fabrication. 1968 Follow-up. J Occup 
Med. 11(9):480-5.
Lind, R.C. (Ed.), 1982. Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy 
Policy, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Lionakis MS and Kontoyiannis DP. (2003). Glucocorticoids and ivasive 
fungal infections. Lancet. Nov 29:362(9398):1828-38.
Lipworth BJ. (1999). Systemic adverse effects of inhaled 
corticosteroid therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch 
Intern Med. May 10: 159(9): 941-955.
Machle W, Beyer E, Gregorious F. (1948). Berylliosis; acute 
pneumonitis and pulmonary granulomatosis of beryllium workers. Occup 
Med (Chic Ill). Jun;5(6):671-83.
Mack DG, Lanham AK, Palmer PE, Maier LA, Watts TH, Fontenot AP. 
(2008) 4-4BB enhances proliferation of beryllium-specific T cells in 
the lung of subjects with chronic beryllium disease. J Immunol. Sep 
15;181(6):4381-8.
MacMahon B. (1994) The epidemiological evidence on the 
carcinogenicity of beryllium in humans. J Occup Med 36:15-24.

[[Page 47814]]

Madl AK, Unice K, Brown JL, Kolanz ME, Kent MS. (2007) Exposure-
response analysis for beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium 
disease among workers in a beryllium metal machining plant. J Occup 
Environ Hyg. Jun;4(6):448-66.
Magat W., W. Viscusi, and J. Huber, 1996. ``A Reference Lottery 
Metric for Valuing Health,'' Management Science, (42: 8), pp. 1118-
1130.
Maier LA. (2001) Beryllium health effects in the era of the 
beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 
16(5):514-520.
Maier LA, Reynolds MV, Young DA, et al. (1999) Angiotensin-1 
converting enzyme polymorphisms in chronic beryllium disease. Am J 
Respir Crit Care Med 159(4 Pt 1):1342-1350.
Maier LA, Tinkle SS, Kittie LA, et al. (2001) IL-4 fails to regulate 
in vitro beryllium-induced cytokines in berylliosis. Eur Resp J 
17:403-415.
Maier LA. (2001) Beryllium health effects in the era of the 
beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 16 
(5): 514-520.
Maier LA, McGrath DS, Sato H, Lympany P, Welsh K, Du Bois R, 
Silveira L, Fontenot AP, Sawyer RT, Wilcox E, Newman LS. (2003) 
Influence of MHC class II in susceptibility to beryllium 
sensitization and chronic beryllium disease. J Immunol 171(12): 
6910-6918.
Maier LA, Martyny JW, Liang J, Rossman MD. (2008) Recent Chronic 
Beryllium Disease in Residents Surrounding a Beryllium Facility. Am 
J Respir Crit Care Med. 1;177(9):1012-7.
Maier LA, Barkes BQ, Mroz M, Rossman MD, Barnard J, Gillespie M, 
Martin A, Mack DG, Silveira L, Sawyer RT, Newman LS, Fontenot AP. 
(2012) Infliximab therapy modulates an antigen-specific immune 
response in chronic beryllium disease. Respir Med; 106 (12): 1810-
1813.
Mancuso TF, El-Attar AA. (1969) Epidemiological study of the 
beryllium industry. Cohort methodology and mortality studies. J 
Occup Med. Aug;11(8):422-34.
Mancuso TF. (1970) Relation of duration of employment and prior 
respiratory illness to respiratory cancer among beryllium workers. 
Environ. Research 3: 251-275.
Mancuso TF. (1979) Occupational lung cancer among beryllium workers. 
Dusts and Diseases, R. Lemen and JM Dement eds. Park Forest South, 
Il: Pathotox Publishers. Pp 463-471.
Mancuso T. (1980) Mortality study of beryllium industry workers' 
occupational lung cancer. Environ Res 21:48-55.
Mandervelt C, Clottens FL, Demedts M, Nemery B. (1997) Assessment of 
the sensitization potential of five metals in the murine local nymph 
node assay. Toxicology. Jun 6;120(1):65-73.
Marchand-Adam S, El Khatib A, Guillon F, Brauner MW, Lamberto C, 
Lepage V, Naccache JM, Valeyre D. (2008) Short- and long-term 
response to corticosteroid therapy in chronic beryllium disease. Eur 
Respir J; 32 (3): 683-693.
Martin AK, mack DG, Falta MT, Mroz MM, Newman LS, Maier LA, Fontenot 
AP. (2011) Beryllium-specific CD4+ T cells in blood as a biomarker 
of disease progression. J Allergy Clin Immunol; 128(5): 1100-1106.
Martyny J, Hoover M, Mroz M, Ellis K, Maier L, Sheff K, Newman L. 
(2000) Aerosols generated during beryllium machining. J Occup 
Environ Med 42:8-18.
Marx JJ and R Burrell. (1973) Delayed hypersensitivity to beryllium 
compounds. J Immunol.l Aug;111(2):590-8.
Materion and USW (2012). Industry and Labor Joint Submission to OSHA 
of a Recommended Standard for Beryllium. February, 2012.
Materion Information Meeting, 2012. Personal communication during 
meeting between Materion Corporation and the U.S. Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration. Elmore, Ohio. May 8-9.
Materion (2004). [previously Brush Wellman, 2004]. Brush Wellman's 
1999 Baseline Full-Shift Personal Breathing Zone (Lapel-Type) 
Exposure Results for its Elmore, Ohio, Primary Beryllium Production 
Facility. Brush Wellman, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. Data provided to 
Eastern Research Group, Inc. August 23. [Unpublished].
McCanlies EC, Ensey JS, Schuler CR, Kreiss K, Weston A. (2004) The 
association between HLA-DPB1Glu69 and chronic beryllium disease and 
beryllium sensitization. Am J Ind Med. 46 (2): 95-103.
McCanlies EC, Schuler CR, Kreiss K, Frye BL, Ensey JS, Weston A. 
(2007) TNF-alpha polymorphism in chronic beryllium disease and 
beryllium sensitization. J Occup Environ Med. 49(4): 446-452.
McCanlies EC, YUCesoy B, Mnatsakanova A, Slaven JE, Andrew M, Frye 
BL, Schuler CR, Kreiss K, Weston A. (2010) Association between IL-1A 
single nucleotide polymorphisms and chronic beryllium disease and 
beryllium sensitization. JOEM 52 (7): 680-684.
McCawley MA, Kent MS, Berakis MT. (2001) Ultrafine beryllium number 
concentration as a possible metric for chronic beryllium disease 
risk. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 16(5):631-638.
McCord DP. (1951) Beryllium as a sensitizing agent. Ind Med Surg. 
Jul; 20(7):336-7.
McDonough AK, Curtis JR, Saag KG. (2008). The epidemiology of 
glucocorticoid-associated adverse events. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 
Mar;20(2):131-7.
Metzner FN, Lieben J. (1961) Respiratory disease associated with 
beryllium refining and alloy fabrication; a case study. J Occup Med. 
Jul; 3:341-5.
Meyer KC. (1994) Beryllium and Lung Disease. Chest 106; 942-946.
Middleton DC. (1998) Chronic beryllium disease: Uncommon disease, 
less common diagnosis. Environ Health Perspect 106(12):765-767.
Middleton DC, Lewin MD, Kowalski PJ, Cox SS, Kleinbaum D. (2006) The 
BeLPT: algorithms and implications. Am J Ind Med. Jan; 49(1):36-44.
Middleton DC, Fink J, Kowalski PJ, Lewin MD, Sinks T. (2008) 
Optimizing BeLPT criteria for beryllium sensitization. Am J Ind Med. 
49 (1); 36-44.
Middleton DC, Mayer AS, Lewin MD, Mroz MM, Maier LA. (2011) 
Interpreting borderline BeLPT results. Am J Ind Med. Mar;54(3):205-
9.
Miller FJ, Anjilvel S, Menache MG, Asgharian B, Gerrity T. (1995) 
Dosimetric issues relating to particulate toxicity. Inhal Toxicol. 7 
(5): 615-632.
Misra, U.K., G. Gawdi, and S.V. Pizzo. (2002) Beryllium fluoride-
induced cell proliferation: A process requiring P21-rasdependent 
activated signal transduction and NF-[kappa]B-dependent gene 
regulation. J. Leukoc. Biol. 71(3):487-494.
Miyaki M, Akamatsu N, Ono T, Koymam H. (1979) Mutagenicity of metal 
cations in cultured cells from Chinese hamster. Mutat Res. 68 (3); 
25-263.
Mossman BT. (2000) Mechanisms of action of poorly soluble 
particulates in overload-related lung pathology. Inhal Toxicol. Jan-
Feb;12(1-2):141-8.
Mroz MM, Kreiss K, Lezotte DC, Campbell PA, Newman LS. (1991) 
Reexamination of the blood lymphocyte transformation test in the 
diagnosis of chronic beryllium disease. J allergy Clin Immunol. 88 
(1); 54-60.
Mroz MM, Maier LA, Strand M, Silviera L, Newman LS. (2009) Beryllium 
lymphocyte proliferation test surveillance identifies clinically 
significant beryllium disease. Am J Ind Med. Oct; 52(10):762-73.
Mueller JJ, Adolphson DR. (1979) Corrosion/Electrochemistry of 
Beryllium and Beryllium. In Beryllium Science and Technology, Vol 2, 
DR Floyd and JN Lowe, eds New York: Plenum Press pp 417-433.
Mullen AL, Stanley RE, Lloyd SR, Moghissi AA. (1972) Radioberyllium 
metabolism by the dairy cow. Health physics, 22:17-22.
Muller-Quernheim, J. (2005) Chronic Beryllium Disease. Orphanet 
encyclopedia. http://www.orpha.net/consor/cgibin/Disease_Search.php?lng=EN&data_id=1061&Disease_Disease_Search_diseaseGroup=chronic-beryllium-disease&Disease_Disease_Search_diseaseType=Pat&Disease(s)/group of 
diseases=Chronic-berylliosis--Chronic-beryllium-disease-
&title=Chronic-berylliosis-Chronic-beryllium-disease-
&search=Disease_Search_Simple.
Muller-Quernheim J, Gaede KI, Fireman E, Zissel G. (2006) Diagnoses 
of chronic beryllium disease with cohorts of sarcoidosis patients. 
Eur Respir J. Jun; 27(6):1190-5.
[NAS] National Academies of Science (2008) Managing Health Effects 
of Beryllium Exposure Committee on Beryllium Alloy Exposures. 
National Research Council of the National Academies; The National 
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
[NCI] National Cancer Institute. Cancer Trends Progress Report--
2009/2010 Update, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, 
MD, April 2010, http://progressreport.cancer.gov.

[[Page 47815]]

Ndejembi MP, Teijaro JR, Patke DS, Bingaman AW, Chandok MR, Azimadeh 
A, Nadler SG, Farber DL. (2006) Control of memory CD4 T cell recall 
by the CD28/B7 costimulatory pathway. J Immunol; 177(11): 7698-7706.
[NEHC] Navy Environmental Health Center. (2003a). Navy Response to 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Occupational 
Exposure to Beryllium; Request for Information, February 2003. Navy 
Environmental Health Center, Portsmouth, VA.
[NEHC] Navy Environmental Health Center. (2003b). Attachment (1) 
Navy Occupational Exposure Database (NOED) Query Report Personal 
Breathing Zone Air Sampling Results for Beryllium. Samples taken May 
7, 1982 through June 7, 2002. Navy Environmental Health Center, 
Portsmouth, VA.
Newman LS, Kreiss K, King TE, Seay S, Campbell PA. (1989) Pathologic 
and immunologic alterations in early stages of beryllium disease. 
Reexamination of disease definition and natural history. Am Rev 
Respir Dis. 139 (6); 1479-1486.
Newman LS, Kreiss K. (1992) Non-occupational beryllium disease 
masquerading as sarcoidosis; identification by blood lymphocyte 
proliferation response to beryllium. Am Rev Respir Dis. 
May;145(5):1212-4.
Newman et al. (1994). Beryllium disease: assessment with CT. 
Radiology; 190(3): 835-840.
Newman LS. (1996) Immunology Genetics and Epidemiology of Beryllium 
Disease. Chest. 109; 40S-43S.
Newman LS, Llyody J, Daniloff E. (1996) The natural history of 
beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium disease. Environ 
Health Perspect. Oct;104 Suppl 5:937-43.
Newman LS, Mroz MM, Maier LA, Daniloff DA, Balkissoon. (2001) 
Efficacy of serial medical surveillance from chronic beryllium 
disease in a beryllium machining plant. J Occup Environ Health. 
43(3): 231-237.
Newman, L.S., L.A. Maier, J.W. Martyny, M.M. Mroz, and E.A. Barker, 
2003. National Jewish Medical and Research Center public comment to 
``Occupational Exposure to Beryllium: Request for Information,'' 
OSHA Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-0155.
Newman LS, Mroz MM, Balkissoon R, Maier LA. (2005) Beryllium 
sensitization progresses to chronic beryllium disease: A 
longitudinal study of disease risk. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 171 
(1): 54-60.
Newman LS. (2007) Immunotoxicology of beryllium lung disease. 
Environ Health Prev Med; 12 (4): 161-164.
Nicholson W. (1976) Case study 1: asbestos--the TLV approach. Ann NY 
Acad Sci 271:152-169.
Nickell-Brady C, Hahn FF, Finch GL, and Belinsky SA. (1994) Analysis 
of K-ras, p53, and c-raf-1 mutations in beryllium-induced rat lung 
tumors. Carcinogenesis 15:257-262.
Nikula KJ, Swafford DS, Hoover MD, Tohulka MD, and Finch GL. (1997) 
Chronic granulomatous pneumonia and lymphocytic responses induced by 
inhaled beryllium metal in A/J and C3HlHe J mice. Toxicologic 
Pathology 25 (1): 2-12.
Nilsen AM, Vik R, Behrens C, Drablos PA, Espevik T. (2010) Beryllium 
sensitivity among workers at a Norwegian aluminum smelter. Am J Ind 
Med. 53 (7); 724-732.
[NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. (1972) 
Occupational Exposure to Beryllium; Criteria for a Recommended 
Standard. DHEW (HSM) 72-10268. US Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, 
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Rockville, MD.
[NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. HHE 
75-87-280. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 75-87-
280, Kawecki Berylco Industries, Inc., Reading, Pennsylvania (NTIS 
document number PB89-161251). Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1976.
[NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. HHE 
78-17-567. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 78-17-
567, Kawecki Berylco Industries, Inc., Reading, Pennsylvania (NTIS 
document number PB81-143703). Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1979.
[NIOSH] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 
(1994) NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. DHHS (NIOSH) 
Publication No. 94-116. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 
Office, June 1994, p. 29.
[NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. (2005) 
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards.
[NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH 
Elmore database, 2011. Spreadsheet containing beryllium exposure 
values collected by NIOSH at the Materion Elmore facility in 2007 
and 2008; provided by Materion Corporation to OSHA-Directorate of 
Standards and Guidance. Fall 2011.
Nishimura M. (1966). Clinical and experimental studies on acute 
beryllium disease. Nagoya J Med Sci. Nov; 29(1):17-44.
Nishioka H. (1975). Mutagenic activites pf metal compounds I 
bacteria. Mutat Res. 31(3); 185-189.
[NJMRC] National Jewish Medical and Research Center. (2003). NJMRC's 
response to OSHA's Request for Information on occupational exposure 
to beryllium. Dated: February 20, 2003. Pp. 17.
[NJMRC] National Jewish Medical and Research Center. (2013). Web 
page on Chronic Beryllium Disease: Work Environment Management, from 
http://www.nationaljewish.org/healthinfo/conditions/beryllium-disease/environment-management/, accessed May 2013.
[NLST] National Lung Screening Trial (2011).--Bach PB (2011). 
Inconsistencies in findings from the early lung cancer action 
project studies of lung cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Instl 
103(13): 1002-1006.
[NTP] National Toxicology Program. (1993). Toxicology and 
Carcinogenesis Studies of Talc (CAS No. 14807-96-6)(Non-Asbestiform) 
in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies).
[NTP] National Toxicology Program. (1999). Final Report on 
Carcinogens: Background Document for Beryllium and Beryllium 
Compounds. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/newhomeroc/roc10/be_no_appendices_508.
[NTP] National Toxicology Program. (2002). Tenth report on 
carcinogens. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National 
Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/NewHomeROC/RAHC_list.html. July 12, 2002.
[NTP] National Toxicology Program. (2014). Report on Carcinogens, 
Thirteenth Edition. Beryllium and Beryllium compounds. CAS No. 7440-
41-7. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc13.
Oberdorster G. (1996). Significance of particle parameters in the 
evaluation of exposure-dose-response relationships of inhaled 
particles. Inhal Toxicol. 8 Suppl:73-89.
[OMB] U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Circular A-4, 
Regulatory Analysis, September 17, 2003. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2002). 
Request for Information (RFI) for ``Occupational Exposure to 
Beryllium'', 67 FR 70707, 70708, 70709, November 26, 2002.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2003). 
Letter of Interpretation. Directorate of Enforcement Programs. 
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25617.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2006). 
Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for OSHA's Final 
Standard for Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium; Docket 
H054A, Exhibit 49, pp. VI-16 to VI-18.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2007). 
Preliminary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the 
Preliminary Draft Standard for Occupational Exposure to Beryllium, 
September 17. OSHA Beryllium Docket Document ID Number: OSHA-H005C-
2006-0870-0338.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2007a). 
Appendix C. Beryllium Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel 
Report. Written comments from Small Entity Representatives (SERs).
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2007b). 
Preliminary Initial Considerations for a Draft Proposed Standard for 
General Industries, Construction and Maritime.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2008a). 
Compliance Directive, CPL 02-02-074.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2008b). 
Report of the

[[Page 47816]]

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the OSHA Draft Proposed 
Standard for Occupational Exposure to Beryllium. January 15, 2008.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2009). 
Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). Beryllium exposure 
data, updated April 21, 2009, covering the period 1978 through 
September 2008. Data provided to Eastern Research Group, Inc. by the 
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Washington, DC. [Unpublished, electronic files].
[OSHA] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2010a). 
Occupational Exposure to Beryllium: Preliminary OSHA Health Effects 
Evaluation. August 3, 2010.
[OSHA] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2010b). 
Preliminary Beryllium Risk Assessment. August 3, 2010.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2013). 
Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, Proposed 
Rule, Federal Register, 78 FR 56273.
[OSHA] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2014). 
Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis in support of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 
Occupational Exposure to Beryllium.
[OSHA] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2014a). Risk 
Analysis of a Worker Population at a Beryllium Machining Facility.
[OSHA] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2015a). 
Spreadsheets in Support of OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis for 
the Proposed Beryllium Standard.
[OSHA] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2015b). 
``Comparing Two Models for Beryllium Benefits.''
[OSHA] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2015c). 
``Spreadsheet for an Alternative Benefit Model.''
Pallavicino F., Pellicano R., Reggiani S., Simondi D., Sguazzini C., 
Bonagura A.G., Cisaro F., Rizzetto M., Astegiano M. (2013). 
Inflammatory Bowel Disease And Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: 
Hepatic And Pancreatic Side Effects Due To Azathioprine. Eur Rev Med 
Pharma Sci; 17: 84-87.
Palmer B.E., Mack D.G., Martin A.K., Gillespie M., Mroz M.M., Maier 
L.A., Fontenot A.P. (2008). Up-regulation of programmed death-1 
expression on beryllium-specific CD4+ T cells in chronic beryllium 
disease. J Immunol; 180(4): 2704-2712.
Pappas G.P., Newman L.S. (1993). Early pulmonary physiologic 
abnormalities in beryllium disease. American review of respiratory 
disease, 148:661-666.
Pikarsky E., Porat R.M., Stein I., Abramovitch R., Amit S., Kasem 
S., Gutkovich-Pyest E., Urieli-Shoval S., Galun E., Ben-Neriah Y. 
(2004). NF-kappaB functions as a tumour promoter in inflammation-
associated cancer. Nature. Sep 23; 431(7007):461-6.
Polak L., Barnes J.M., Turk J.L. (1968). The genetic control of 
contact sensitization to inorganic metal compounds in guinea-pigs. 
Immunology. 1968 May; 14(5):707-11.
Rana S.V. (2008). Metals and apoptosis: Recent developments. J trace 
Elem Biol; 22(4):262-284.
Reeves A.L. (1965). The absorption of beryllium from the 
gastrointestinal tract. Arch Environ Health. Aug; 11(2):209-14.
Reeves A.L., Vorwald A.J. (1967). Beryllium carcinogenesis. II. 
Pulmonary deposition and clearance of inhaled beryllium sulfate in 
the rat. Cancer Res 27:446-451.
Reeves A.L., Deitch D., Vorwald A.J. (1967). Beryllium 
carcinogenesis. I. Inhalation exposure of rats to beryllium sulfate 
aerosol. Cancer Res 27:439-445.
Reeves A.L., Krivanek N.D., Busby E.K., Swanborg R.H. (1972). 
Immunity to pulmonary berylliosis in guinea pigs. Int Arch 
Arbeitsmed. 29(3):209-20.
Refsnes M., Hetland R.B., Ovrevik J., Sundfor I., Schwarze P.E., Lag 
M. (2006). Different particle determinants induce apoptosis and 
cytokine release in primary alveolar macrophage cultures. Part Fibre 
Toxicol. Jun 14;3:10.
Rhoads K., Sanders C.L. (1985). Lung clearance, translocation, and 
acute toxicity of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, 
selenium, vanadium, and ytterbium oxides following deposition in rat 
lung.Environ Res 36:359-378.
Richeldi L., Sorrentino R., Saltini C. (1993). HLA-DPB1 glutamate 
69: A genetic marker of beryllium disease. Science. Oct 
8;262(5131):242-4.
Ritz B., Morgenstern H., Froines J., Young B. (1999). Effects of 
exposure to external ionizing radiation on cancer mortality in 
nuclear workers monitored for radiation at Rocketdyne/Atomics 
International. Am J Ind Med 35:21-31.
Robinson F.R., Schaffner F., and Trachtenburg E. (1968). 
Ultrastructure of the lungs of dogs exposed to beryllium-containing 
dusts. Arch. Environ. Health 16:374-379.
Rom, W.N., J.E. Lockey, J.S. Lee, A.C. Kimball, K.M. Bang, H. 
Leaman, R.E. Johns, D. Perrota, and H.L. Gibbons. (1984). 
Pneumoconiosis and Exposures of Dental Laboratory Technicians. 
American Journal of Public Health 74(11):1252-1257. November.
Rosenkranz H.S. and Poirer L.A. (1979). Evaluation of the 
mutagenicity and DNA-modifying activity of carcinogens and 
noncarcinogens in microbial systems. J Natl Cancer Inst. 62(4):873-
891.
Rosenman K., Hertzberg V., Rice C., Reilly M.J., Aronchick J., 
Parker J.E., Regovich J., Rossman M. (2005). Chronic beryllium 
disease and sensitization at a beryllium processing facility. 
Environ Health Perspect Oct;113(10):1366-72; Erratum (2006).
Rossman T.G., Molina M. (1984). The genetic toxicology of metal 
compounds: I. Induction of prophage in E coli WP2. Environ Mut. 
6(1); 59-69.
Rossman M.D., Kern J.A., Elias J.A., Cullen M.R., Epstein P.E., 
Preuss O.P., Markham T.N., Daniele R.P. (1988). Proliferative 
Response of Bronchoalveolar Lymphocytes to Beryllium: A test for 
chronic beryllium disease. Annals Int Med; 108(5):687-693.
Rossman M.D., Preuss O.P., Powers M.B., eds. (1991). Beryllium: 
Biomedical and Environmental Aspects. Immunopathogenesis of Chronic 
Beryllium Disease. Chapter 10. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Rossman M. (1996). Chronic beryllium disease; diagnosis and 
management. Environ Health Perspect. Oct; 104 Suppl 5:945-7.
Rossman M.D. (2001). Chronic beryllium disease: A hypersensitivity 
disorder. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. May; 16(5):615-8.
Rossman M., Kreider. (2003). Is chronic beryllium disease 
sarcoidosis of known etiology? Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 
Jun; 20(2):104-9.
Roth H.D. Memorandum to Brush Wellman enclosing a critique of the 
EPA health assessment document for beryllium. February 22, 1985.
Saber W., Dweik R.A. (2000). A 65-year-old factory worker with 
dyspnea on exertion and a normal chest x-ray. Cleve Clin J Med. Nov; 
67(11):791-2, 794, 797-8, 800.
Saltini C., Winestock K., Kirby M., Pinkston P., Crystal R.G. 
(1989). Maintenace of alveolitis in patients with chronic beryllium 
disease by beryllium-specific helper T cells. N Engl J Med. Apr 27; 
320(17):1103-9.
Saltini C., Kirby M., Trapnell B.C., Tamura N., Crystal R.G. (1990). 
Biased accumulation of T-lymphocytes with ``memory''-type CD45 
leukocyte common antigen gene expression on the epithelial surface 
of human lung. J Exp Med. Apr 1; 171(4):1123-40.
Saltini C., Amicosante M. (2001). Beryllium disease. Am J Med Sci 
321(1):89-98.
Saltini C., Richeldi L., Losi M., Amicosante M., Voorter C., van den 
Berg-Loonen E., Dweik R.A., Wiedmeann H.P., Deubner D.C., Tinelli C. 
(2001). Major Histocompatibility Locus Genetic Markers of Beryllium 
Sensitization and Disease. Eur Respir J 18(4):677-684.
Salvator H., Gille T., Herve A., Bron C., Lamberto C., Valeyre D. 
(2013). Chronic beryllium disease: Azathioprine as a possible 
alternative to corticosteroid treatment. Eur Respir J; 41(1):234-
236.
Sanders C.L., Cannon W.C., Powers G.J., et al. (1975). Toxicology of 
high-fired beryllium oxide inhaled by rodents. Arch Environ Health 
30:546-551.
Sanders, C.L., W.C. Cannon, and G.J. Powers. (1978). Lung 
carcinogenesis induced by inhaled high-fired oxides of beryllium and 
plutonium. Health Phys. 35(2):193-199.
Sanderson W.T., Henneberger P.K., Martyny J., Ellis K., Mroz M.M., 
Newman L.S. (1999). Beryllium contamination inside vehicles of 
machine shop workers. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 14(4):223-230.
Sanderson W.T., Ward E.M., Steenland K., Petersen M.R. (2001a). Lung 
Cancer Case Control Study of Beryllium Workers. Am J Ind Med. 
39(2):133-44.

[[Page 47817]]

Sanderson W.T., Petersen M.R., Ward E.M. (2001b). Estimating 
Historical Exposures Of Workers In A Beryllium Manufacturing Plant. 
Am J Ind Med. 39(2):145-57.
Saracci R. (1991) Beryllium and lung cancer: Adding another piece to 
the puzzle of epidemiologic evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:1362-
1363.
Sawyer, R.T., V.A. Fadok, L.A. Kittle, L.A. Maier, and L.S. Newman. 
(2000). Beryllium-stimulated apoptosis in macrophage cell lines. 
Toxicology 149(2-3):129-142.
Sawyer R.T., Parsons C.E., Fontenot A.P., Maier L.A., Gillespie 
M.M., Gottschall E.B., Silveira L., Newman L.S. (2004). Beryllium-
induced tumor necrosis factor-alpha production by CD4+ T cells is 
mediated by HLA-DP. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. Jul; 31(1):122-30.
Sawyer, R.T., D.R. Dobis, M. Goldstein, L. Velsor, L.A. Maier, A.P. 
Fontenot, L. Silveira, L.S. Newman, and B.J. Day. (2005). Beryllium-
stimulated reactive oxygen species and macrophage apoptosis. Free 
Radic. Biol. Med. 38(7):928-937.
[SBAR] Small Business Advocacy Review. (2008). Report of the Small 
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on the OSHA Draft Proposed 
Standard for Occupational Exposure to Beryllium. Small Business 
Advisory Review Panel Report with Appendices A, B, C, and D. Final 
version, January 15, 2008. OSHA Beryllium Docket Document ID Number: 
OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-0345.
Schepers GW, Durkan TM, Delahant AB, Creedon FT. (1957) The 
biological action of inhalaed beryllium sulfate; a preliminary 
chronic toxicity study in rats. AMA Arch Ind Health. 15 (1); 32-58.
Schepers GW. (1962) The mineral content of the lung in chronic 
berylliosis. Dis Chest. Dec; 42:600-7.
Schlesinger RB, Ben-Jebria A, Dahl AR, Snipes MB, Ultman J 1997. 
Chapter 12. Disposition of inhaled toxicants. In: Handbook of Human 
Toxicology (Massaro EJ, ed). New York:CRC Press, 493-550.
Schubauer-Berigan MK, Deddens JA, Steenland K, Sanderson WT, 
Petersen MR. (2008) Adjustment for temporal confounders in a 
reanalysis of a case-control study of beryllium and lung cancer. 
Occup Environ Med. Jun; 65(6):379-83.
Schubauer-Berigan MK, Deddens JA, Peterson MR. (2011) Risk of lung 
cancer associated with quantitative beryllium exposure metrics 
within an occupational cohort. Occup Environ Med 68(5): 354-60.
Schubauer-Berigan, 4-22-2011, NIOSH, personal communication. (table 
of lifetime risk estimates, Table VI-20 p. 64 of draft risk doc).
Schuler CR, Kent MS, Deubner DC, Berakis MT, McCawley M, Henneberger 
PK, Rossman MD, Kreiss K. (2005) Process-Related Risk of Beryllium 
Sensitization and Disease in a Copper-Beryllium Alloy Facility. Am J 
Ind Med. 47(3):195-205.
Schuler CR, Kitt MM, Henneberger PK, Deubner, DC, Kreiss K. (2008) 
Cumulative Sensitization and Disease in a Beryllium Oxide Ceramics 
Worker Cohort. J Occup Environ Med. Dec;50(12):1343-1350.
Schuler CR, Virji MA, Deubner DC, Stanton ML, Stefaniak AB, Day GA, 
Park JY, Kent MS, Sparks R, Kreiss K. (2012) Sensitization and 
Chronic Beryllium Disease at a Primary Manufacturing Facility, Part 
3: Exposure-Response Among Short-Term Workers. Scand J Work Environ 
Health. May;38(3): 270-81. Epub 2011 Aug 29.
Scott JK, Neumann WF, Allen R. (1950) The effect of added carrier on 
the distribution and excretion of soluble beryllium. J Biol Chem, 
182:291-298.
Seidler A, Euler U, Muller-Quernheim J, Gaede KI, Latza U, Groneberg 
D, Letzel S. (2012) Systematic review: progression of beryllium 
sensitization to chronic beryllium disease. Occup Med; 62 (7): 506-
513.
Seiler D, Rice C, Herrick R, Hertzberg V. (1996) A study of 
beryllium exposure measurements: parts 1 and 2. Appl Occup Environ 
Hyg 11:89-102.
Sendelbach LE, Witschi HP, Tryka AF. (1986) Acute pulmonary toxicity 
of beryllium sulfate inhalation in rats and mice: Cell kinetics and 
histopathology. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 85:248-256.
Sendelbach LE, Witschi HP. (1987) Bronchoalveolar lavage in rats and 
mice following beryllium sulfate inhalation. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 
90:322-329.
Sendelbach LE, Tryka AF, Witschi H. (1989) Progressive lung injury 
over a one-year period after a single inhalation exposure to 
beryllium sulfate. Am Rev Respir Dis 139:1003-1009.
Silva DR, Coelho AC, Dumke A, Valentini JD, de Nunes JN, Stefani CL, 
da Silva Mendes LF, Knorst MM (2011) Osteoporosis prevalence and 
associated factors in patients with COPD: a cross-sectional study. 
Respir Care. 56(7):961-8.
Silveira LJ, McCanlies EC, Fingerlin TE, Van Dyke MV, Mroz MM, 
Strand M, Fontenot AP, Bowerman N, Dabelea DM, Schuler CR, Weston A, 
Maier LA. (2012) Chronic beryllium disease, HLA-DPB1, and the DP 
peptide binding groove. J Immunol 189(8): 4014-4023.
Simmon VF. (1979) In vitro assays for recombinogenic activity of 
chemical carcinogens and realted compounds with saccharomyces 
cerevisiae D3. Nat Cancer Inst. 62 (4); 901-909.
Skilleter DN, Price RJ. (1978) The uptake and subsequent loss of 
beryllium by rat liver parenchymal and non-parenchymal cells after 
the intravenous administration of particulate and soluble forms. 
Chem Biol Interact. Mar;20(3):383-96.
Skilleter DN, Paine AJ. (1979) Relative toxicities of particulate 
and soluble forms of beryllium to a rat liver parenchymal cell line 
in culture and possible mechanisms of uptake. Chem Biol Interact. 
Jan; 24(1):19-33.
Skilleter DN, Price RJ. (1981) Effects of beryllium compounds on rat 
liver Kupffer cells in culture. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. Jun 
30;59(2):279-86.
Skilleter DN, Price RJ. (1988) Effects of beryllium ions on tyrosine 
phosphorylation. Biochem SocTrans 16:1047-1048.
Snyder, J. A., Weston, A., Tinkle, S. S., & Demchuk, E. (2003). 
Electrostatic potential on human leukocyte antigen: implications for 
putative mechanism of chronic beryllium disease. Environmental 
health perspectives, 111(15), 1827.
Snyder JA, Demchuk E, McCanlies EC, Schuler CR, Kreiss K, Andrew ME, 
Frye BL, Ensey JS, Stanton ML, Weston A. (2008) Impact of negatively 
charged patches on the surface of MHC class II antigen-presneting 
proteins on risk of chronic beryllium disease. J R Soc Interface; 
5(24): 749-758.
Sood A, Beckett WS, Cullen MR. (2004) Variable response to long-term 
corticosteroid therapy in chronic beryllium disease. Chest; 126 (6): 
2000-2007.
Sood A. (2009) Current treatment of chronic beryllium disease. J 
Occup Environ Hyg; 6 (12): 762-765.
Spencer HC, Sadek SE., Jones JC, Hook RH, Blumentshine JA, 
McCollister SB. (1967) Toxicological studies on beryllium oxides and 
beryllium containing exhaust products, technical report. AMRL-TR-67-
46. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Aerospace Medical Research 
Laboratories. May: 1-53.
Sprince NL, Kazemi H, Hardy HL. (1976) Current (1975) problem of 
differentiating between beryllium disease and sarcoidosis. Ann N Y 
Acad Sci. 278:654-64.
Sprince NL, Kazemi H. (1980) U.S. beryllium case registry through 
1977. Environmental research, 21:44-47.
Stange AW, Hilmas DE, Furman FJ, Gatliffe TR. (2001) Beryllium 
sensitization and chronic beryllium disease at a former nuclear 
weapons facility. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 16(3): 405-417.
Stange AW, Furman FJ, Hilmas DE. (2004) The beryllium lymphocyte 
proliferation test: Relevant issues in beryllium helath 
surveillance. Am J Ind Med. 46 (5): 453-462.
Stanton ML, Henneberger PK, Kent MS, Deubner DC, Kreiss K, Schuler 
CR. (2006) Sensitization and chronic berullium disease among workers 
in copper-beryllium distribution centers. J Occup Environ Med. 48 
(2): 204-211.
Steele VE, Wilkinson BP, Arnold JT, and Kutzman RS. (1989) Study of 
beryllium oxide genotoxicity in cultured respiratory epithelial 
cells. Inhalation Toxicology 1: 95-110.
Steenland K, Ward E. (1991) Lung cancer incidence among patients 
with beryllium disease: A cohort mortality study. J Natl Cancer Inst 
83:1380-1385.
Stefaniak AB, Weaver VM, Cadorette M, Puckett LG, Schwartz BS, Wiggs 
LD, Jankowski MD, and Breysse PN. (2003) Summary of historical 
beryllium uses and airborne concentration levels at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 18(9):708-715.

[[Page 47818]]

Stefaniak AB, Hoover MD, Dickerson RM, Peterson EJ, Day GA, Breysse 
PN, Kent MS, Scripsick RC. (2003a) Surface area of respirable 
beryllium metal, oxide, and copper alloy aerosols and implications 
for assessment of exposure risk of chronic beryllium disease. Am. 
Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 64(3):297-305.
Stefaniak AB, Guilmette RA, Day GA, Hoover MD, Breysse PN, Scripsick 
RC. (2005) Characterization of phagolysomal simulant fluid of 
beryllium aerosol particle dissolution. Toxicol In Vitro; 19(1):123-
134.
Stefaniak, AB, Day GA, Hoover MD, Breysse PN, Scripsick RC. (2006) 
Differences in dissolution behavior in a phagolysosomal stimulant 
fluid for single-constituent and multi-constituent materials 
associated with beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium 
disease. Toxicol. In Vitro 20(1):82-95.
Stefaniak AB, Chipera SJ, Day GA, Sabey P, Dickerson RM, Sbarra DC, 
Duling MG, Lawrence RB, Stanton ML, Scripsick RC. (2008) 
Physicochemical characteristics of aerosol particles generated 
during the milling of beryllium silicate ores: Implications for risk 
assessment. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 71(22):1468-81.
Stefaniak AB, et al. 2008. Size-selective poorly soluble particulate 
reference materials for evaluation of quantitative analytical 
methods. Anal. Bioan. Chem. 391:2071-2077.
Stefaniak, A. B., Virji, M. A., & Day, G. A. (2011). Dissolution of 
beryllium in artificial lung alveolar macrophage phagolysosomal 
fluid. Chemosphere, 83(8), 1181-1187.
Stefaniak AB, Virji A, Day GA. (2012) Release of beryllium into 
artificial airway epithelial lining fluid. Arch Environ Occup 
Health; 67(4):219-228.
Stiefel T, Schultze K, Zorn H, Tolg G. (1980) Toxicokinetic and 
toxicodynamic studies on beryllium. Arch Toxicol. Jul; 45(2):81-92.
Sterner JH and Eisenbud M. (1951) Epidemiology of Beryllium 
Intoxification. A M A Arch Ind Hyg Occup Med. Aug; 4(2):123-51.
Stoeckle JD, Hardy HL, Weber AL. (1969) Chronic beryllium disease. 
Long-term follow-up of sixty cases and selective review of the 
literature. Am J Med. 46 (4); 545-561.
Stokes RF, Rossman MD. (1991) Blood cell proliferation response to 
beryllium: Analysis by receiver-operating characteristics. J Occup 
Med. Jan; 33(1):23-8.
Stokinger HE, Sprague GF, Hall RH, et al. (1950) Acute inhalation 
toxicity of beryllium. I. Four definitive studies of beryllium 
sulfate at exposure concentrations of 100, 50, 10 and 1 mg per cubic 
meter. Arch Ind Hyg Occup Med 1:379-397.
Stokinger HE, Altman KI, Salomon K. (1953) The effect of various 
pathological-conditions on in vivo hemoglobin synthesis. I. 
Hemoglobin synthesis in beryllium-induced anemia as studied with 
alpha-14C-acetate. Biochim Biophys Acta. Nov; 12(3):439-44.
Stubbs J, Argyris E, Lee CW, Monos D, Rossman MD. (1996) Genetic 
markers in beryllium hypersensitization. Chest. Mar; 109 (3 Suppl): 
45S.
Sutton M, Burastero SR. (2003) Beryllium chemical speciation in 
elemental human biological fluids. Chem Res Toxicol. Sep; 
16(9):1145-54.
Swafford DS, Middleton SK, Palmisano WA, Nikula KJ, Tesfaigzi J, 
Baylin SB, Herman JG, and Belinsky SJ. (1997) Frequent aberrant 
methylation of p16INK4a in primary rat lung tumors. Molecular and 
Cellular Biology 17 (3):1366-1374.
Sweiss NJ, Lower EE, Korsten P, Niewold TB, Favus MJ, Baughman RP. 
(2011). Bone health issues in sarcoidosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. Jun; 
13(3):265-72.
Taiwo OA, Slade MD, Cantley LF, Fiellin MG, Wesdock JC, Bayer FJ, 
Cullen MR. (2008) Beryllium Sensitization in Aluminum Smelter 
Workers. JOEM 50(2):157-162.
Taiwo OA, Slade MD, Cantley LF, Kirsche SR, Wesdock JC, Cullen MR. 
(2010) Prevalence of beryllium sensitization among aluminum smelter 
workers. Occup Med 60:569-571.
Tan MH, Commens CA, Burnett L, Snitch PJ. (1996) A pilot study on 
the percutaneous absorption of microfine titanium dioxide from 
sunscreens. Australas J Dermatol. Nov; 37(4):185-7.
Tarantino-Hutchison LM, Sorrentino C, Nadas A, Zhu Y, Rubin EM, 
Tinkle SS, Weston A, Gordon T (2009). Genetic determinants of 
sensitivity to beryllium in mice. J Immunotoxicol. 6 (2):130-135.
Thomas CA, Bailey RL, Kent MS, Deubner DC, Kreiss K, Schuler CR. 
(2009) Efficacy of a program to prevent beryllium sensitization 
among new employees at a copper-beryllium alloy processing facility. 
Public Health Rep. Jul-Aug; 124 Suppl 1:112-24.
Thaler, R., and S. Rosen, 1976. ``The Value of Saving a Life: 
Evidence from the Labor Market,'' in Household Production and 
Consumption, N E. Terleckyj (ed.), New York: Columbia University 
Press, 1976, pp. 265-298.
Thomas CA, Bailey RL, Kent MS, Deubner DC, Kreiss K, Schuler CR. 
(2009) Efficacy of a Program to Prevent Beryllium Sensitization 
Among New Employees at a Copper-Beryllium Alloy Processing Facility. 
Public Health Rep.124 Suppl 1:112-24.
Thorat DD, Mahadevan TN, Ghosh DK. (2003) Particle size distribution 
and respiratory deposition estimates of beryllium aerosols in an 
extraction and processing plant. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 64 (4):522-527.
Tinkle SS, Newman LS. (1997) Beryllium-stimulated release of tumor 
necrosis factor-alpha, IL-6 and their soluble receptors in chronic 
beryllium disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Dec; 156 (6):1884-91.
Tinkle SS, Kittle LA, Schumacher BA, Newman LS. (1997) Beryllium 
induces IL-2 and IFN-gamma in berylliosis. J Immunol. Jan 1; 
158(1):518-26.
Tinkle S, Kittle L, Schwitters PW, Addison JR, Newman LS. (1996) 
Beryllium stimulates release of T helper 1 cytokines interleukin-2 
and interferon gamma from BAL cells in chronic beryllium disease. 
Chest; 109 (Suppl 3):5S-6S.
Tinkle SS, Antonini JM, Rich BA, Roberts JR, Salmen R, DePree K, 
Adkins EJ. (2003) Skin as a route of exposure and sensitization in 
chronic beryllium disease. Environ Health Perspect. Jul; 
111(9):1202-8.
Toledo, F., Silvestre, J. F., Cuesta, L., Latorre, N., & Monteagudo, 
A. (2011). Contact allergy to beryllium chloride: Report of 12 
cases. Contact dermatitis, 64(2), 104-109.
Torres, S.J., & Nowson, C.A. (2007). Relationship between stress, 
eating behavior, and obesity. Nutrition, 23, 887-94.
Trikudanathan S, McMahon GT. (2008). Optimum management of 
glucocorticoid-treated patients. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab. 
May; 4(5):262-71.
Tso WW, Fung WP. (1981) Mutagencity of metallic cations. Toxicol 
Lett. 8 (4-5); 195-200.
Turk J.L. and Polak L. (1969) Experimental studies on metal 
dermatitis in guinea pigs. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 36(1):75-
81.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance 
Coverage in the United States: 2008, Current Population Reports, 
P60-236(RV), and Historical Tables--Table P-1, September 2009. 
Internet release date: December 15, 2010. Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/index.html.
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. (2013a). 2011 Minerals 
Yearbook: Beryllium [Advance Release]. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/beryllium/myb1-2011-beryl.pdf.
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. (2013b). Mineral Commodity 
Summaries. [Online]. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2013/mcs2013.pdf.
Vacher J. (1972) Immunological response of guinea pigs to beryllium 
salts. J Med Microbiol. Feb; 5(1):91-108.
Van Cleave C.D., Kaylor C.T. (1955) Distribution, retention, and 
elimination of Be in the rat after intratracheal injection. Archives 
of industrial health, 11:375-392.
Van Dyke M.V., Martyny J.W., Mroz M.M., Silveira L.J., Strand M., 
Fingerlin T.E., Sato H., Newman L.S., Maier L.A. (2011) Risk of 
chronic beryllium disease by HLA-DPB1 E69 genotype and beryllium 
exposure in nuclear workers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 183 
(12):1680-1688.
Van Ordstrand H., Hughes R., Carmody M.G. (1943). Chemical Pneumonia 
in Workers Extracting Beryllium Oxide. Archives of the Cleveland 
Clinic Quarterly. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. (1984) 51(2): 
431-439. (originally in Cleveland Clinic Quarterly 10:10-18, 1943).
Van Ordstrand H., Hughes R., DeNardi J.M., et al. (1945). Beryllium 
poisoning. J Am Med Assoc129:1084-1090.

[[Page 47819]]

Vainio H., Rice J. Beryllium revisted. (1997) J Occup Environ Med 
39:203-204.
Vegni-Talluri M. and Guiggiani V. (1967) Action of beryllium ions on 
primary cultures of swine cells. Carlogia 20:355-367.
Viet S.M., Torma-Krajewski J., Rogers J. (2000) Chronic beryllium 
disease and beryllium sensitization at Rocky Flats: A case-control 
study. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 61:244-254.
Virji M.A., Stefaniak A.B., Day G.A., Stanton M.L., Kent M.S., 
Kreiss K., Schuler C.R. (2011). Characteristics of Beryllium 
Exposure to Small Particles At A Beryllium Production Facility. Ann 
Occup Hyg; 55 (1):70-85.
Virji M.A., Park J.Y., Stefaniak A.B., Stanton M.L., Day G.A., Kent 
M.S., Kreiss K., Schuler C.R. (2012) Sensitization and chronic 
beryllium disease at a primary manufacturing facility, part 1: 
Historical exposure reconstruction. Scand J Work Environ Health; 38 
(3):247-258.
Viscusi, W. and J. Aldy, 2003. ``The Value of a Statistical Life: A 
Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World,'' Journal 
of Risk and Uncertainty, 27, pp. 5-76.
Votto J.J., Barton R.W., Gionfriddo M.A., Cole S.R., McCormick J.R., 
and Thrall R.S. (1987) A model of pulmonary granulomata induced by 
beryllium sulfate in the rat. Sarcoidosis 4(1):71-76.
Vorwald A.J. (1968) Biologic manifestations of toxic inhalants in 
monkeys. In: Vagrborg H., ed. Use of Nonhuman primates in drug 
evaluation: A symposium. Southwest Foundation for Research and 
Education. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 222-228.
Vorwald A.J., Reeves A.L. (1959) Pathologic changes induced by 
beryllium compounds. Arch Ind Health 19:190-199.
Vourlekis J.A., R.T. Sawyer, L.S. Newman. (2000) Sarcoidosis: 
Developments in etiology, immunology, and therapeutics. Adv Intern 
Med; 45:209-257.
Wagoner J., Infante P., Bayliss D. (1980) Beryllium: An etiologic 
agent in the induction of lung cancer, nonneoplastic respiratory 
disease and heart disease among industrially exposed workers. 
Environ Res 21:15-34.
Wagner W.D., Groth D.H., Holtz J.L., Madden G.E., and Stokinger H.E. 
(1969) Comparative chronic inhalation toxicity of beryllium ores, 
bertrandite and beryl, with production of pulmonary tumors by beryl. 
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 15:10-29.
Ward E., Okun A., Ruder A., Fingerhut M., Steenland K. (1992) A 
mortality study of workers at seven beryllium processing plants. Am 
J Ind Med 22:885-904.
Warrington T.P., Bostwick J.M. (2006). Psychiatric adverse effects 
of corticosteroids. Mayo Clin Proc. Oct; 81(10):1361-7.
Warheit D.B., Yuen I.S., Kelly D.P., Snajdr S., Hartsky M.A. (1996) 
Subchronic inhalation of high concentrations of low toxicity, low 
solubility particulates produces sustained pulmonary inflammation 
and cellular proliferation. Toxicol Lett. Nov; 88(1-3):249-53.
Weston A., Snyder J., McCanlies E.C., Schuler C.R., Andrew M.E., 
Kreiss K., Demchuk E. (2005) Immunogenetic factors in beryllium 
sensitization and chronic beryllium disease. Mutat Res 592 (1-2):68-
78.
Williams W.J. and Williams W.R. (1983) Value of beryllium lymphocyte 
transformation tests in chronic beryllium disease and in potentially 
exposed workers. Thorax. Jan; 38(1):41-4.
[WHO] World Health Organization. (1990). International Programme on 
Chemical Safety (IPCS 1990). Beryllium: Health and safety guide. No. 
44. [online]. Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/hsg/hsg044.htm#SectionNumber:7.3.
[WHO] World Health Organization. (2001). Concise International 
Chemical Assessment Document (CICAD) 32 Beryllium and Beryllium 
compounds.
Winchester M.R., et al. (2009). Certification of beryllium mass 
fraction in SRM 1877 Beryllium Oxide Powder using high-performance 
inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry with exact 
matching. Analytical Chemistry. 81:2208-2217.
Wolf G. (2002). Glucocorticoids in adipocytes stimulate visceral 
obesity. Nutr Rev. May; 60(5 Pt 1):148-51.
Yeh H.C., Cuddihy R.G., Phalen R.F., Chang I.Y. (1996) Comparison of 
calculated respiratory tract deposition of particles based on the 
proposed NCRP model and the new ICRP 66 model. Aerosol Sci Techn; 
25:134-140.
Yoshida T., Shima S., Nagaoka K., Taniwaki H., Wada A., Kurita H., 
Morita K. (1997) A study on the beryllium lymphocyte transformation 
test and the beryllium levels in working environment. Ind Health 
35:374-379.
Yucesoy B., Johnson V.J. (2011) Genetic variability in 
susceptibility to occupational respiratory sensitization. J Allergy; 
2011, 346719:1-7.
Zaki M.H., Lyons H.A., Leilop L., Huang C.T. (1987) Corticosteroid 
therapy in sarcoidosis. A five-year, controlled follow-up study. NY 
State J Med. Sep; 87(9):496-9.
Zakour R.A., Glickman B.W. (1984) Metal-induced mutagenesis in the 
lacI gene of Escherichia coli. Mutation research, 126:9-18.
Zissu D., Binet S., Cavelier C. (1996) Patch testing with beryllium 
alloy samples in guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis. Mar; 34(3):196-
200.
Zorn, H., Stiefel, T., & Diem, H. (1977). The importance of 
beryllium and its compounds for the industrial physician-2. 
communication. Zentralblatt f[uuml]r Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz 
und Prophylaxe, 27(4), 8.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Cancer, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health, Occupational 
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation 
of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under Sections 4, 6, and 8 
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act 
(33 U.S.C. 941); section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety 
Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3704); Secretary of 
Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, January 25, 2012); and 29 CFR part 
1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 14, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proposed Standard

    Chapter XVII of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
1. The authority citation for subpart Z of part 1910 is revised to read 
as follows:

     Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 
6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 
(72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970, except those substances that have 
exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 
1910.1000. The latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 
655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic 
(organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI) 
listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract 
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704) and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under 
29 U.S.C. 653. Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 
114 Stat. 1901.

[[Page 47820]]

Sec.  1910.1000  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  1910.1000:
0
a. Table Z-1 is amended by revising the entry for ``Beryllium and 
beryllium compounds (as Be)''; and by adding footnote ``W''; and
0
b. Table Z-2 is amended by adding footnote ``Y''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

                                     Table Z-1--Limits for Air Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            ppm (a)    mg/m\3\ (b)      Skin
                       Substance                           CAS No. (c)        \1\          \1\       designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Beryllium and beryllium compounds (as Be); see
 1910.1024 \W\........................................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The PELs are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a ceiling limit. They are to be
  determined from breathing-zone air samples.
a. Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25 [deg]C and 760 torr.
b. Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is in this column only, the value is exact; when
  listed with a ppm entry, it is approximate.
c. The CAS number is for information only. Enforcement is based on the substance name. For an entry covering
  more than one metal compound, measured as the metal, the CAS number for the metal is given--not CAS numbers
  for the individual compounds.
d. The final benzene standard in Sec.   1910.1028 applies to all occupational exposures to benzene except in
  some circumstances the distribution and sale of fuels, sealed containers and pipelines, coke production, oil
  and gas drilling and production, natural gas processing, and the percentage exclusion for liquid mixtures; for
  the excepted subsegments, the benzene limits in Table Z-2 apply. See Sec.   1910.1028 for specific
  circumstances.
e. This 8-hour TWA applies to respirable dust as measured by a vertical elutriator cotton dust sampler or
  equivalent instrument. The time-weighted average applies to the cottom waste processing operations of waste
  recycling (sorting, blending, cleaning and willowing) and garnetting. See also Sec.   1910.1043 for cotton
  dust limits applicable to other sectors.
f. All inert or nuisance dusts, whether mineral, inorganic, or organic, not listed specifically by substance
  name are covered by the Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated (PNOR) limit which is the same as the inert or
  nuisance dust limit of Table Z-3.
 * * * * * * *
\W\ See Table Z-2 for the exposure limits for any operations or sectors for which the exposure limits in Sec.
  1910.1024 are not in effect.


                                                    Table Z-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Acceptable maximum peak above the
                                         8-hour time     Acceptable     acceptable ceiling average concentration
              Substance                   weighted         ceiling                 for an 8-hr shift
                                           average      concentration ------------------------------------------
                                                                        Concentration       Maximum duration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Beryllium and beryllium compounds (as    2 [mu]g/m\3\    5 [mu]g/m\3\     25[mu]g/m\3\  30 minutes
 Be) \Y\.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * *
\Y\ This standard applies to any operations or sectors for which the Beryllium standard, 1910.1024, is not in
  effect.

0
3. Section 1910.1024 is added to subpart Z to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1024  Beryllium

    (a) Scope and application. (1) This section applies to occupational 
exposures to beryllium in all forms, compounds, and mixtures in general 
industry, except those articles and materials exempted by paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (2) This section does not apply to articles, as defined in the 
Hazard Communication standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200(c)), that contain 
beryllium and that the employer does not process.
    (3) This section does not apply to materials containing less than 
0.1% beryllium by weight.
    (b) Definitions.
    Action level means a concentration of airborne beryllium of 0.1 
micrograms per cubic meter of air ([mu]g/m\3\) calculated as an 8-hour 
time-weighted average (TWA).
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, United States Department of Labor, or 
designee.
    Beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT) means the 
measurement of blood lymphocyte proliferation in a laboratory test when 
lymphocytes are challenged with a soluble beryllium salt. A confirmed 
positive test result indicates the person has beryllium sensitization.
    Beryllium work area means any work area where employees are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium, regardless 
of the level of exposure.
    CBD Diagnostic Center means a medical diagnostic center that has 
on-site facilities to perform a clinical evaluation for the presence of 
chronic beryllium disease (CBD) that includes bronchoalveolar lavage, 
transbronchial biopsy and interpretation of the biopsy pathology, and 
the beryllium bronchoalveolar lavage lymphocyte proliferation test 
(BeBALLPT).
    Chronic beryllium disease (CBD) means a chronic lung disease 
associated with exposure to airborne beryllium.
    Confirmed Positive means two abnormal test results from either 
consecutive BeLPTs or a second abnormal BeLPT result within a 2-year 
period of the first abnormal test result. It also means the result of a 
more reliable and accurate test indicating a

[[Page 47821]]

person has been identified as having beryllium sensitization.
    Director means the Director of the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, or designee.
    Emergency means any uncontrolled release of airborne beryllium.
    Exposure and exposure to beryllium mean the exposure to airborne 
beryllium that would occur if the employee were not using a respirator.
    High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter means a filter that 
is at least 99.97 percent efficient in removing particles 0.3 
micrometers in diameter.
    Physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) means 
an individual whose legally permitted scope of practice (i.e., license, 
registration, or certification) allows the individual to independently 
provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide some or all of 
the health care services required by paragraph (k) of this standard.
    Regulated area means an area that the employer must demarcate, 
including temporary work areas where maintenance or non-routine tasks 
are performed, where an employee's exposure exceeds, or can reasonably 
be expected to exceed, either of the permissible exposure limits 
(PELs).
    This standard means this beryllium standard, 29 CFR 1910.1024.
    (c) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs). (1) Time-weighted average 
(TWA) PEL. The employer shall ensure that each employee's exposure does 
not exceed 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ calculated as an 8-hour TWA.
    (2) Short-term exposure limit (STEL). The employer shall ensure 
that each employee's exposure does not exceed 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ as 
determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes.
    (d) Exposure monitoring--(1) General. (i) These exposure monitoring 
requirements apply when employees are, or may reasonably be expected to 
be, exposed to airborne beryllium.
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, the employer shall determine the 8-hour TWA exposure for each 
employee based on one or more breathing zone samples that reflect the 
exposure of employees on each work shift, for each job classification, 
in each beryllium work area.
    (iii) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, the employer shall determine short-term exposure from 15-
minute breathing zone samples measured in operations that are likely to 
produce exposures above the STEL for each work shift, for each job 
classification, and in each beryllium work area.
    (iv) The employer may perform representative sampling to 
characterize exposure, provided that the employer:
    (A) Performs representative sampling where several employees 
perform the same job tasks, in the same job classification, on the same 
work shift, and in the same work area, and have similar duration and 
frequency of exposure;
    (B) Takes sufficient personal breathing zone air samples to 
accurately characterize exposure on each work shift, for each job 
classification, in each work area; and
    (C) Samples those employee(s) who are expected to have the highest 
exposure.
    (v) Accuracy of measurement. The employer shall use a method of 
exposure monitoring and analysis that can measure beryllium to an 
accuracy of plus or minus 25 percent within a statistical confidence 
level of 95 percent for airborne concentrations at or above the action 
level.
    (2) Initial exposure monitoring. The employer shall conduct initial 
exposure monitoring to determine the 8-hour TWA exposure and 15-minute 
short-term exposure for each employee. The employer does not have to 
conduct initial exposure monitoring in the following situations:
    (i) Where the employer has conducted exposure monitoring for 
beryllium and relies on these historical data, provided that:
    (A) The work operations and workplace conditions that were in place 
when the historical monitoring data were obtained reflect workplace 
conditions closely resembling the processes, material, control methods, 
work practices, and environmental conditions used and prevailing in the 
employer's current operations;
    (B) The characteristics of the beryllium-containing material being 
handled when the historical monitoring data were obtained closely 
resemble the characteristics of the beryllium-containing material used 
during the job for which initial monitoring will not be performed; and
    (C) The exposure monitoring satisfied all other requirements of 
this section, including Accuracy of Measurement in paragraph (d)(1)(v).
    (ii) Where the employer relies on objective data to satisfy initial 
monitoring requirements, provided that such data:
    (A) Demonstrate that any material containing beryllium or any 
specific process, operation, or activity involving beryllium cannot 
release beryllium dust, fumes, or mist in concentrations at or above 
the action level or above the STEL under any expected conditions of 
use; and
    (B) Reflect workplace conditions closely resembling the processes, 
material, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditions 
used and prevailing in the employer's current operations.
    (3) Periodic exposure monitoring. If initial exposure monitoring 
indicates that exposures are at or above the action level and at or 
below the TWA PEL, the employer shall conduct periodic exposure 
monitoring at least annually in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section.
    (4) Additional monitoring. The employer also shall conduct exposure 
monitoring within 30 days after any of the following situations occur:
    (i) Any change in production processes, equipment, materials, 
personnel, work practices, or control methods that can reasonably be 
expected to result in new or additional exposure; or
    (ii) The employer has any other reason to believe that new or 
additional exposure is occurring.
    (5) Employee notification of monitoring results. (i) Within 15 
working days after receiving the results of any exposure monitoring 
completed under this standard, the employer shall notify each employee 
whose exposure is measured or represented by the monitoring 
individually in writing of the monitoring results or shall post the 
monitoring results in an appropriate location that is accessible to 
each of these employees.
    (ii) Where exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL, the written 
notification required by paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section shall 
include suspected or known sources of exposure and the corrective 
action(s) the employer has taken or will take to reduce exposure to or 
below the PELs, where feasible corrective action exists but had not 
been implemented when the monitoring was conducted.
    (6) Observation of monitoring. (i) The employer shall provide an 
opportunity to observe any exposure monitoring required by this 
standard to each employee whose exposures are measured or represented 
by the monitoring and each employee's representative(s).
    (ii) When observation of monitoring requires entry into an area 
where the use of protective clothing or equipment (which may include 
respirators) is required, the employer shall provide each observer with 
appropriate protective clothing and equipment at no

[[Page 47822]]

cost to the observer and shall ensure that each observer uses such 
clothing and equipment.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that each observer complies with 
all applicable OSHA requirements and the employer's workplace safety 
and health procedures.
    (e) Beryllium work areas and regulated areas--(1) Establishment. 
(i) The employer shall establish and maintain a beryllium work area 
wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to 
airborne beryllium, regardless of the level of exposure.
    (ii) The employer shall establish and maintain a regulated area 
wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to 
airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL.
    (2) Demarcation. (i) The employer shall identify each beryllium 
work area through signs or any other methods that adequately establish 
and inform each employee of the boundaries of each beryllium work area.
    (ii) The employer shall identify each regulated area in accordance 
with paragraph (m)(2) of this section.
    (3) Access.The employer shall limit access to regulated areas to:
    (i) Persons the employer authorizes or requires to be in a 
regulated area to perform work duties;
    (ii) Persons entering a regulated area as designated 
representatives of employees for the purpose of exercising the right to 
observe exposure monitoring procedures under paragraph (d)(6) of this 
section; and
    (iii) Persons authorized by law to be in a regulated area.
    (4) Provision of personal protective clothing and equipment, 
including respirators. The employer shall provide and ensure that each 
employee entering a regulated area uses:
    (i) Respiratory protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this 
section; and
    (ii) Personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance with 
paragraph (h) of this section.
    (f) Methods of compliance--(1) Written exposure control plan.
    (i) The employer shall establish, implement, and maintain a written 
exposure control plan for beryllium work areas, which shall contain:
    (A) An inventory of operations and job titles reasonably expected 
to have exposure;
    (B) An inventory of operations and job titles reasonably expected 
to have exposure at or above the action level;
    (C) An inventory of operations and job titles reasonably expected 
to have exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL;
    (D) Procedures for minimizing cross-contamination, including but 
not limited to preventing the transfer of beryllium between surfaces, 
equipment, clothing, materials, and articles within beryllium work 
areas;
    (E) Procedures for keeping surfaces in the beryllium work area as 
free as practicable of beryllium;
    (F) Procedures for minimizing the migration of beryllium from 
beryllium work areas to other locations within or outside the 
workplace;
    (G) An inventory of engineering and work practice controls required 
by paragraph (f)(2) of this standard; and
    (H) Procedures for removal, laundering, storage, cleaning, 
repairing, and disposal of beryllium-contaminated personal protective 
clothing and equipment, including respirators.
    (ii) The employer shall update the exposure control plan when:
    (A) Any change in production processes, materials, equipment, 
personnel, work practices, or control methods results or can reasonably 
be expected to result in new or additional exposures to beryllium;
    (B) An employee is confirmed positive, is diagnosed with CBD, or 
shows signs or symptoms associated with exposure; or
    (C) The employer has any reason to believe that new or additional 
exposures are occurring or will occur.
    (iii) The employer shall make a copy of the exposure control plan 
accessible to each employee who is or can reasonably be expected to be 
exposed to airborne beryllium in accordance with OSHA's Access to 
Employee Exposure and Medical Records (Records Access) standard (29 CFR 
1910.1020(e)).
    (2) Engineering and work practice controls. (i) (A) For each 
operation in a beryllium work area, the employer shall ensure that at 
least one of the following engineering and work practice controls is in 
place to minimize employee exposure:
    (1) Material and/or process substitution;
    (2) Ventilated partial or full enclosures;
    (3) Local exhaust ventilation at the points of operation, material 
handling, and transfer; or
    (4) Process control, such as wet methods and automation.
    (B) An employer is exempt from using the above controls to the 
extent that:
    (1) The employer can establish that such controls are not feasible; 
or
    (2) The employer can demonstrate that exposures are below the 
action level, using no fewer than two representative personal breathing 
zone samples taken 7 days apart, for each affected operation.
    (ii) If after implementing the control(s) required by (f)(2)(i)(A) 
exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer shall implement 
additional or enhanced engineering and work practice controls to reduce 
exposures to or below the PELs.
    (iii) Wherever the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to 
reduce exposures to or below the PELs by the engineering and work 
practice controls required by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, the employer shall implement and maintain engineering and work 
practice controls to reduce exposures to the lowest levels feasible and 
supplement these controls by using respiratory protection in accordance 
with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) Prohibition of rotation. The employer shall not rotate 
employees to different jobs to achieve compliance with the PELs.
    (g) Respiratory protection--(1) General. The employer shall provide 
at no cost and ensure that each employee uses respiratory protection 
during:
    (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
and work practice controls where exposures exceed or can reasonably be 
expected to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL;
    (ii) Operations, including maintenance and repair activities and 
non-routine tasks, when engineering and work practice controls are not 
feasible and exposures exceed or can reasonably be expected to exceed 
the TWA PEL or STEL;
    (iii) Work operations for which an employer has implemented all 
feasible engineering and work practice controls when such controls are 
not sufficient to reduce exposure to or below the TWA PEL or STEL;
    (iv) Emergencies.
    (2) Respiratory protection program. Where this standard requires an 
employee to use respiratory protection, such use shall be in accordance 
with the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).
    (h) Personal protective clothing and equipment--(1) Provision and 
use. The employer shall provide at no cost and ensure that each 
employee uses appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment in 
accordance with the written exposure control plan required under 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section and OSHA's Personal Protective 
Equipment standards (29 CFR part 1910 subpart I):
    (i) Where employee exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected 
to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL;
    (ii) Where employees' clothing or skin may become visibly 
contaminated with

[[Page 47823]]

beryllium including during maintenance and repair activities or during 
non-routine tasks; or
    (iii) Where employees' skin can reasonably be expected to be 
exposed to soluble beryllium compounds.
    (2) Removal and storage. (i) The employer shall ensure that each 
employee removes all beryllium-contaminated protective clothing and 
equipment:
    (A) At the end of the work shift or at the completion of tasks 
involving beryllium, whichever comes first, or
    (B) When protective clothing or equipment becomes visibly 
contaminated with beryllium.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that each employee removes 
protective clothing visibly contaminated with beryllium as specified in 
the exposure control plan required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that each employee stores and keeps 
required protective clothing separate from street clothing.
    (iv) The employer shall ensure that no employee removes beryllium-
contaminated protective clothing or equipment from the workplace, 
except for employees authorized to do so for the purposes of 
laundering, cleaning, maintaining or disposing of beryllium-
contaminated protective clothing and equipment at an appropriate 
location or facility away from the workplace.
    (v) When protective clothing or equipment required by this standard 
is removed from the workplace for laundering, cleaning, maintenance or 
disposal, the employer shall ensure that protective clothing and 
equipment are stored and transported in sealed bags or other closed 
containers that are impermeable and are labeled in accordance with 
paragraph (m)(3) of this section and the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200).
    (3) Cleaning and replacement. (i) The employer shall ensure that 
all reusable protective clothing and equipment required by this 
standard is cleaned, laundered, repaired, and replaced as needed to 
maintain its effectiveness.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that beryllium is not removed from 
protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking or any other 
means that disperses beryllium into the air.
    (iii) The employer shall inform in writing the persons or the 
business entities who launder, clean or repair the protective clothing 
or equipment required by this standard of the potentially harmful 
effects of exposure to airborne beryllium and contact with soluble 
beryllium compounds and that the protective clothing and equipment must 
be handled in accordance with this standard.
    (i) Hygiene areas and practices--(1) General. For each employee 
working in a beryllium work area, the employer shall:
    (i) Provide readily accessible washing facilities to remove 
beryllium from the hands, face, and neck; and
    (ii) Ensure each employee exposed to beryllium to use these 
facilities when necessary.
    (2) Change rooms. In addition to the requirements of paragraph 
(i)(1)(i) of this section, the employer shall provide affected 
employees with a designated change room and washing facilities in 
accordance with this standard and the Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 
1910.141) where employees are required to remove their personal 
clothing.
    (3) Showers. (i) The employer shall provide showers in accordance 
with the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141) where:
    (A) Exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the 
TWA PEL or STEL; and
    (B) Beryllium can reasonably be expected to contaminate employees' 
hair or body parts other than hands, face, and neck.
    (ii) Employers required to provide showers under paragraph 
(i)(3)(i) of this section shall ensure that each employee showers at 
the end of the work shift or work activity if:
    (A) The employee reasonably could have been exposed above the TWA 
PEL or STEL; and
    (B) Beryllium could reasonably have contaminated the employee's 
hair or body parts other than hands, face, and neck.
    (4) Eating and drinking areas. Whenever the employer allows 
employees to consume food or beverages in a beryllium work area, the 
employer shall ensure that:
    (i) Surfaces in eating and drinking areas are as free as 
practicable of beryllium;
    (ii) No employee in eating and drinking areas is exposed to 
airborne beryllium at or above the action level; and
    (iii) Eating and drinking facilities provided by the employer are 
in accordance with the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141).
    (5) Prohibited activities. (i) The employer shall ensure that no 
employees eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in 
regulated areas.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that no employees enter any eating 
or drinking area with protective work clothing or equipment unless 
surface beryllium has been removed from the clothing or equipment by 
methods that do not disperse beryllium into the air or onto an 
employee's body.
    (j) Housekeeping--(1) General. (i) The employer shall maintain all 
surfaces in beryllium work areas as free as practicable of 
accumulations of beryllium and in accordance with the exposure control 
plan required under paragraph (f)(1) of this section and the cleaning 
methods required under paragraph (j)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that all spills and emergency 
releases of beryllium are cleaned up promptly and in accordance with 
the exposure control plan required under paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section and the cleaning methods required under paragraph (j)(2) of 
this section.
    (2) Cleaning methods. (i) The employer shall ensure that surfaces 
in beryllium work areas are cleaned by HEPA-filter vacuuming or other 
methods that minimize the likelihood and level of exposure.
    (ii) The employer shall not allow dry sweeping or brushing for 
cleaning surfaces in beryllium work areas unless HEPA-filtered 
vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood and level of 
exposure have been tried and were not effective.
    (iii) The employer shall not allow the use of compressed air for 
cleaning beryllium-contaminated surfaces unless the compressed air is 
used in conjunction with a ventilation system designed to capture the 
particulates made airborne by the use of compressed air.
    (iv) Where employees use dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air 
to clean beryllium-contaminated surfaces, the employer shall provide 
and ensure that each employee uses respiratory protection and 
protective clothing and equipment in accordance with paragraphs (g) and 
(h) of this section.
    (v) The employer shall ensure that cleaning equipment is handled 
and maintained in a manner that minimizes the likelihood and level of 
employee exposure and the re-entrainment of airborne beryllium in the 
workplace.
    (3) Disposal. The employer shall ensure that:
    (i) Waste, debris, and materials visibly contaminated with 
beryllium and consigned for disposal are disposed of in sealed, 
impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers;
    (ii) Bags or containers of waste, debris, and materials required by 
(j)(3)(i) of this section are labeled in accordance with paragraph 
(m)(3) of this section; and

[[Page 47824]]

    (iii) Materials designated for recycling that are visibly 
contaminated with beryllium shall be cleaned to remove visible 
particulate, or placed in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags 
or containers, that are labeled in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of 
this section.
    (k) Medical surveillance--(1) General. (i) The employer shall make 
medical surveillance as required by this paragraph available at no cost 
to the employee, and at a reasonable time and place, as follows:
    (A) For each employee who has worked in a regulated area for more 
than 30 days in the last 12 months;
    (B) For each employee showing signs or symptoms of CBD, such as 
shortness of breath after a short walk or climbing stairs, persistent 
dry cough, chest pain, or fatigue;
    (C) For each employee exposed to beryllium during an emergency; and
    (D) For each employee who was exposed to airborne beryllium above 
.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-month period for 5 years or 
more, limited to the procedures described in paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(F) of 
this section unless the employee also qualifies for an examination 
under paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that all medical examinations and 
procedures required by this standard are performed by or under the 
direction of a licensed physician.
    (2) Frequency. The employer shall provide a medical examination:
    (i) Within 30 days after determining that:
    (A) An employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) of 
this section, unless the employee has received a medical examination, 
provided in accordance with this standard, within the last 12 months; 
or
    (B) An employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B) or (C) 
of this section.
    (ii) Annually thereafter for each employee who continues to meet 
the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section; and
    (iii) At the termination of employment for each employee who meets 
the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section at 
the time the employee's employment is terminated, unless an examination 
has been provided in accordance with this standard during the 6 months 
prior to the date of termination.
    (3) Contents of examination. (i) The employer shall ensure that the 
PLHCP advises the employee of the risks and benefits of participating 
in the medical surveillance program and the employee's right to opt out 
of any or all parts of the medical examination.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that the employee is offered a 
medical examination that includes:
    (A) A medical and work history, with emphasis on past and present 
exposure, smoking history, and any history of respiratory system 
dysfunction;
    (B) A physical examination with emphasis on the respiratory tract;
    (C) A physical examination for skin breaks and wounds;
    (D) Pulmonary function tests, performed in accordance with the 
guidelines established by the American Thoracic Society including 
forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume at one (1) second 
(FEV1);
    (E) (1) A standardized BeLPT upon the first examination and within 
every 2 years from the date of the first examination until the employee 
is confirmed positive. If a more reliable and accurate diagnostic test 
is developed after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] of this standard such 
that beryllium sensitization can be confirmed after one test, a second 
confirmation test need not be performed.
    (2) If an employee who has not been confirmed positive receives an 
abnormal BeLPT result, a second BeLPT is to be performed within 1 
month. This requirement for a second test is waived if a more reliable 
and accurate test for beryllium sensitization does not need to be 
repeated due to variability, repeatability and accuracy of the test 
methodology.
    (F) Each employee who meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) 
shall be offered a low dose helical tomography (CT Scan). The CT Scan 
shall be offered every 2 years for the duration of the employee's 
employment. This obligation begins on the [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE], or on the 15th year after the employee's first exposure above .2 
[mu]g/m\3\ for more than 30 days in a 12-month period, whichever is 
later; and
    (G) Any other test deemed appropriate by the PLHCP.
    (4) Information provided to the PLHCP. The employer shall ensure 
that the examining PLHCP has a copy of this standard and all appendices 
and shall provide the following information, if known:
    (i) A description of the employee's former and current duties that 
relate to the employee's occupational exposure;
    (ii) The employee's former and current levels of occupational 
exposure;
    (iii) A description of any protective clothing and equipment, 
including respirators, used by the employee, including when and for how 
long the employee has used that protective clothing and equipment; and
    (iv) Information from records of employment-related medical 
examinations previously provided to the employee, currently within the 
control of the employer, after obtaining a medical release from the 
employee.
    (5) Licensed physician's written medical opinion. (i) The employer 
shall obtain a written medical opinion from the licensed physician 
within 30 days of the examination, which contains:
    (A) The licensed physician's opinion as to whether the employee has 
any detected medical condition that would place the employee at 
increased risk of CBD from further exposure;
    (B) Any recommended limitations on the employee's exposure, 
including the use and limitations of protective clothing or equipment, 
including respirators; and
    (C) A statement that the PLHCP has explained the results of the 
medical examination to the employee, including any tests conducted, any 
medical conditions related to exposure that require further evaluation 
or treatment, and any special provisions for use of protective clothing 
or equipment.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that neither the licensed physician 
nor any other PLHCP reveals to the employer specific findings or 
diagnoses unrelated to exposure to airborne beryllium or contact with 
soluble beryllium compounds.
    (iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the licensed physician's 
written medical opinion to the employee within 2 weeks after receiving 
it.
    (6) Referral to a CBD diagnostic center. (i) Within 30 days after 
an employer learns that an employee has been confirmed positive, the 
employer's designated licensed physician shall consult with the 
employee to discuss referral to a CBD diagnostic center that is 
mutually agreed upon by the employer and the employee.
    (ii) If, after this consultation, the employee wishes to obtain a 
clinical evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, the employer shall 
provide the evaluation at no cost to the employee.
    (7) Beryllium sensitization test results research. Upon request by 
OSHA, employers must convey employees' beryllium sensitization test 
results to OSHA for evaluation and analysis. Employers must remove 
employees' names, social security numbers, and other personally 
identifying information from the test results before conveying them to 
OSHA.
    (l) Medical removal. (1) If an employee works in a job with 
exposure

[[Page 47825]]

at or above the action level and is diagnosed with CBD or confirmed 
positive, the employee is eligible for medical removal.
    (2) If an employee is eligible for medical removal, the employee 
must choose:
    (i) Removal as described in paragraph (l)(3) of this section; or
    (ii) To remain in a job with exposure at or above the action level, 
provided that the employee wears a respirator in accordance with the 
Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134).
    (3) If the employee chooses removal:
    (i) The employer shall remove the employee to comparable work for 
which the employee is qualified or can be trained within 1 month. In 
this standard, comparable work must be in a work environment where the 
exposure is below the action level. The employee must accept comparable 
work if such work is available;
    (ii) If comparable work is not available, the employer shall place 
the employee on paid leave for 6 months or until such time as 
comparable work becomes available, whichever comes first; and
    (iii) Whether the employee is removed to comparable work or placed 
on paid leave, the employer shall maintain for 6 months the employee's 
base earnings, seniority, and other rights and benefits that existed at 
the time of removal.
    (4) The employer's obligation to provide medical removal protection 
benefits to a removed employee shall be reduced to the extent that the 
employee receives compensation for earnings lost during the period of 
removal from a publicly or employer-funded compensation program, or 
receives income from another employer made possible by virtue of the 
employee's removal.
    (m) Communication of hazards-- (1) General. (i) Chemical 
manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers shall comply with 
all requirements of the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200) for beryllium.
    (ii) In classifying the hazards of beryllium, the employer shall 
address at least the following hazards: Cancer; lung effects (CBD and 
acute beryllium disease); beryllium sensitization; skin sensitization; 
and skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation.
    (iii) Employers shall include beryllium in the hazard communication 
program established to comply with the HCS. Employers shall ensure that 
each employee has access to labels on containers of beryllium and to 
safety data sheets, and is trained in accordance with the requirements 
of the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200) and paragraph (m)(4) of this section.
    (2) Warning signs--(i) Posting. The employer shall provide and 
display warning signs at each approach to a regulated area so that each 
employee is able to read and understand the signs and take necessary 
protective steps before entering the area.
    (ii) Sign specification. (A) The employer shall ensure that the 
warning signs required by paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section are 
legible and readily visible.
    (B) The employer shall ensure each warning sign required by 
paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section bears the following legend:

 
 
 
                                 DANGER
                                BERYLLIUM
                            MAY CAUSE CANCER
                         CAUSES DAMAGE TO LUNGS
                        AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY
  WEAR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT IN
                                THIS AREA
 

    (3) Warning labels. The employer shall label each bag and container 
of clothing, equipment, and materials visibly contaminated with 
beryllium consistent with the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200), and shall, at a 
minimum, include the following on the label:

 
 
 
                                 DANGER
                           CONTAINS BERYLLIUM
                            MAY CAUSE CANCER
                         CAUSES DAMAGE TO LUNGS
                           AVOID CREATING DUST
                           DO NOT GET ON SKIN
 

    (4) Employee information and training. (i) For each employee who is 
or can reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne beryllium:
    (A) The employer shall provide information and training in 
accordance with the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200(h));
    (B) The employer shall provide initial training to each employee by 
the time of initial assignment; and
    (C) The employer shall repeat the training required under this 
section annually for each employee.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that each employee who is or can 
reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne beryllium can 
demonstrate knowledge of the following:
    (A) The health hazards associated with exposure to beryllium and 
contact with soluble beryllium compounds, including the signs and 
symptoms of CBD;
    (B) The written exposure control plan, with emphasis on the 
location(s) of beryllium work areas, including any regulated areas, and 
the specific nature of operations that could result in employee 
exposure, especially employee exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL;
    (C) The purpose, proper selection, fitting, proper use, and 
limitations of personal protective clothing and equipment, including 
respirators;
    (D) Applicable emergency procedures;
    (E) Measures employees can take to protect themselves from exposure 
to beryllium and contact with soluble beryllium compounds, including 
personal hygiene practices;
    (F) The purpose and a description of the medical surveillance 
program required by paragraph (k) of this section including risks and 
benefits of each test to be offered;
    (G) The purpose and a description of the medical removal protection 
provided under paragraph (l) of this section;
    (H) The contents of the standard; and
    (I) The employee's right of access to records under the Records 
Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    (iii) When a workplace change (such as modification of equipment, 
tasks, or procedures) results in new or increased employee exposure 
that exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, either the TWA 
PEL or the STEL, the employer shall provide additional training to 
those employees affected by the change in exposure.
    (iv) Employee information. The employer shall make a copy of this 
standard and its appendices readily available at no cost to each 
employee and designated employee representative(s).
    (n) Recordkeeping--(1) Exposure measurements. (i) The employer 
shall maintain a record of all measurements taken to monitor employee 
exposure as prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The date of measurement for each sample taken;
    (B) The operation that is being monitored;
    (C) The sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their 
accuracy;
    (D) The number, duration, and results of samples taken;
    (E) The type of personal protective clothing and equipment, 
including respirators, worn by monitored employees at the time of 
monitoring; and
    (F) The name, social security number, and job classification of 
each employee represented by the monitoring, indicating which employees 
were actually monitored.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record as required by the 
Records

[[Page 47826]]

Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(1)(ii)).
    (2) Historical monitoring data. (i) The employer shall establish 
and maintain an accurate record of any historical data used to satisfy 
the initial monitoring requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this 
standard.
    (ii) The record shall demonstrate that the data comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record as required by the 
Records Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    (3) Objective data. (i) Where an employer uses objective data to 
satisfy the monitoring requirements under paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section, the employer shall establish and maintain a record of the 
objective data relied upon.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The data relied upon;
    (B) The beryllium-containing material in question;
    (C) The source of the objective data;
    (D) A description of the operation exempted from initial monitoring 
and how the data support the exemption; and
    (E) Other information demonstrating that the data meet the 
requirements for objective data contained in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of 
this section.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record as required by the 
Records Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    (4) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and 
maintain a record for each employee covered by medical surveillance 
under paragraph (k) of this section.
    (ii) The record shall include the following information about the 
employee:
    (A) Name, social security number, and job classification;
    (B) A copy of all licensed physicians' written opinions; and
    (C) A copy of the information provided to the PLHCP as required by 
paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that medical records are maintained 
in accordance with the Records Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    (5) Training. (i) At the completion of any training required by 
this standard, the employer shall prepare a record that indicates the 
name, social security number, and job classification of each employee 
trained, the date the training was completed, and the topic of the 
training.
    (ii) This record shall be maintained for 3 years after the 
completion of training.
    (6) Access to records. Upon request, the employer shall make all 
records maintained as a requirement of this standard available for 
examination and copying to the Assistant Secretary, the Director, each 
employee, and each employee's designated representative(s) in 
accordance the Records Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    (7) Transfer of records. The employer shall comply with the 
requirements involving transfer of records set forth in the Records 
Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    (o) Dates. (1) Effective date.This standard shall become effective 
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (2) Start-up dates. All obligations of this standard commence and 
become enforceable [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 
except:
    (i) Change rooms required by paragraph (i) of this section shall be 
provided no later than 1 year after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; and
    (ii) Engineering controls required by paragraph (f) of this 
standard shall be implemented no later than 2 years after [EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (p) Appendices. Appendices A and B of this section are non-
mandatory.

Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1024--Immunological Testing for the 
Determination of Beryllium Sensitization (Non-Mandatory)

I. Background

    Exposure to beryllium via inhalation or dermal contact has been 
determined to cause an immunological reaction (sensitization) in 
some individuals. Beryllium sensitization can progress to chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD). Identifying sensitized workers through an 
immunological screening program is an essential element in any 
monitoring and surveillance program designed to reduce the risk of 
developing CBD in the workplace (Kreiss, 1993b, Newman, 2005). 
Immunological testing for sensitization to beryllium serves to 
identify workers at risk for progression to CBD. The medical 
surveillance and medical removal provisions of the proposed standard 
provide for clinical evaluation of sensitized workers for early-
stage CBD and intervention before progression to more debilitating 
health effects occurs.
    2. This appendix provides an overview of the test currently used 
to detect beryllium sensitization, the peripheral blood Beryllium 
Lymphocyte Proliferation Test (BeLPT) as well as a description of 
the test procedure, the best available information on the accuracy 
of the test, and several repeat-testing algorithms designed to 
improve the predictive value of the test. It is important that this 
information be made available to employers, employees, physicians 
and other medical personnel to ensure their understanding of the 
test and the meaning of test results, and to provide a basis to 
compare the reliability and validity (utility) of any other 
sensitization tests that may be developed with the utility of the 
BeLPT.

II. The Peripheral Blood Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Test 
(BeLPT)

    1. The BeLPT is an in-vitro blood test that measures the 
beryllium antigen-specific T-cell mediated immune response. 
Currently, the BeLPT is the most commonly available diagnostic tool 
for identifying beryllium sensitization.
    2. To perform the BeLPT, venous blood is collected in 
heparinized tubes. Lymphocytes are isolated from the blood using 
centrifugation and washed in salt solution. The lymphocytes are 
counted and evaluated for cell viability. These cells are then 
cultured in quadruplicate in the presence or absence of beryllium 
sulfate at 1, 10, and 100 [mu]M concentrations for 3-7 days. During 
the last 4 hours of the culture, cells are pulsed with a 
radiolabeled DNA precursor (tritiated thymidine deoxyriboside), 
harvested onto filters and counted in a liquid scintillation 
counter. The counts per minute (cpm) from each set of quadruplicates 
are averaged and expressed as a ratio of the cpm of the beryllium 
stimulated cells to the unstimulated cells. This ratio is called the 
stimulation index (SI) (Maier, 2003).
    3. The BeLPT is interpreted based on the proportion of SIs that 
exceeds a cut-off value, the expected SI for non-sensitized 
individuals. Each laboratory sets its own cut-off for the test 
(Newman 1996). Traditionally, this cut-off value is determined by 
testing cells from control/non-exposed individuals, and must be 
determined with each new serum lot that will be used for culturing 
the peripheral blood lymphocytes. The cut-off is based on the mean 
value of the peak stimulation index among controls plus 2 or 3 
standard deviations. This methodology was modeled into a statistical 
method known as the ``least absolute values'' (an adaptation of the 
``statistical-biological positive'' method) and relies on natural 
log modeling of the median stimulation index values (DOE 2001, Frome 
2003). This methodology is recommended by the Department of Energy 
in guidance (DOE-SPEC-1142-2001) developed by DOE to optimize and 
standardize beryllium sensitivity testing. It is recommended, but 
not mandated, to be used in all DOE contracts with laboratories for 
the purchase of BeLPT services. Other labs have used a standard 
ratio of 3.0 (stimulated to unstimulated) as the cut-off for an 
abnormal result (Stange 2004, Deubner 2001).
    4. BeLPT results are reported as ``normal,'' ``abnormal,'' or 
``borderline abnormal.'' According to the DOE a BeLPT result is 
considered ``abnormal'' if at least two of the six stimulation 
indices are elevated (DOE 2001). If only one of the six stimulation 
indices is elevated, the test is considered ``borderline abnormal'' 
(DOE 2001). If no stimulation index is elevated, the test is normal. 
A BeLPT may be considered uninterpretable if there are problems with 
the viability of the cells or lack of response to mitogen, or other 
problems with the test procedure. (DOE 2001).
    5. Due to the nature of the test, issues with variability and 
reproducibility of a test can

[[Page 47827]]

arise between and within labs. Potential sources of variability 
include: technical problems such as bacterial contamination, cell 
death, omission of tritiated thymidine pulse, technician skill, 
degree of automation, use of flat- or round-bottom culture plates, 
serum concentration, use of beryllium sulfate versus beryllium 
fluoride, concentration of the culture serum, and the handling of 
outlier SIs (Mroz 1991).
    6. Test characteristics and testing algorithms. The utility of 
any diagnostic, screening or surveillance test relies on the 
capacity of the test to predict whether or not an individual indeed 
has the condition intended to be reflected by the test. In the 
discussion below, sensitivity refers to the proportion of sensitized 
persons who test positive for sensitization using the BeLPT. 
Specificity refers to the proportion of non-sensitized persons who 
test negative. Positive predictive value (PPV) refers to the 
proportion of persons who test positive, who are actually 
sensitized. The PPV is related not only to the utility of the test, 
but also to the prevalence of the condition in the tested 
population. In the remainder of this discussion, we will refer to 
the results of a single BeLPT as ``abnormal,'' ``normal,'' and 
``borderline,'' and will refer to the outcome of a testing algorithm 
as ``positive'' for sensitization or ``negative.''
    7. Stange et al. (2004) investigated the utility of BeLPT 
testing in a population of employees of 18 United States Department 
of Energy (DOE) sites. At these sites, 12,194 current and former 
employees were tested for beryllium sensitization at four 
laboratories with BeLPT expertise. Stange et al. reported that 68.3 
percent of beryllium-sensitized workers tested positive based on a 
single abnormal BeLPT result (sensitivity). Thus, the rate of false 
negatives (undetected cases of beryllium sensitization) based on one 
normal result was 31.7 percent. Stange et al. reported a false 
positive rate of 1.09 percent for one abnormal BeLPT result and a 
PPV of 0.253, which they found comparable to other widely accepted 
medical tests. Middleton et al. (2006) adjusted Stange's parameters 
to consider borderline test results and estimated that 59.7 percent 
of sensitized persons would test abnormal, 27.7 percent would test 
normal, and 12.6 percent would have borderline results. They 
estimated that among non-sensitized persons, 97.37 percent would 
test normal, 1.09 percent would test abnormal, and 1.58 percent 
would have borderline results. Stange et al. recommended repeat 
testing to confirm an abnormal BeLPT result to assure appropriate 
referral for CBD medical evaluation (Stange et al., 2004).
    8. Middleton et al. (2006) studied the characteristics of two 
testing algorithms. The more basic algorithm used a single initial 
test plus subsequent split specimen confirmation tests. In the 
second, enhanced algorithm, an initial test was split and sent to 
different laboratories for analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, 
and PPV reported by Middleton were 65.7 percent, 99.9 percent, and 
93 percent respectively for the basic algorithm, and 86 percent, 
99.8 percent, and 90 percent respectively for the enhanced 
algorithm. The authors concluded that an algorithm for BeLPT testing 
and interpretation is best selected or designed after considering 
the (1) likelihood and level of exposure; (2) purpose of testing 
(i.e., screening versus medical testing of patients; (3) opportunity 
for one-time testing versus serial testing; (4) importance of 
getting the right answer the first time; and (5) number of persons 
to be tested and the funds available.
    9. In April 2006, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry (ATSDR) convened an expert panel of seven physicians and 
scientists to discuss the BeLPT and to consider what algorithm 
should be used to interpret BeLPT results to establish beryllium 
sensitization (Middleton et al., 2008). The three criteria proposed 
by panel members were Criteria A (one abnormal BeLPT result 
establishes sensitization); Criteria B (one abnormal and one 
borderline result establish sensitization); and Criteria C (two 
abnormal results establish sensitization).
    10. Using the single-test outcome probabilities developed by 
Stange et al., the panel convened by ATSDR calculated and compared 
the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPVs) 
for each algorithm. The characteristics for each algorithm were as 
follows:

                                 Table A.1--Characteristics of BeLPT Algorithms
                                      [Adapted from Middleton et al., 2008]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Criteria B  (1
                                                             Criteria A  (1     abnormal + 1     Criteria C  (2
                                                                abnormal)        borderline)        abnormal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity...............................................             68.2%             65.7%             61.2%
Specificity...............................................            98.89%            99.92%            99.98%
PPV at 1% prevalence......................................             38.3%             89.3%             96.8%
PPV at 10% prevalence.....................................             87.2%             98.9%             99.7%
False positives per 10,000................................               111                 8                 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The study demonstrated that confirmation of BeLPT results, 
whether as one abnormal and one borderline abnormal or as two 
abnormals, enhances the test's PPV and protects the persons tested 
from unnecessary and invasive medical procedures. In populations 
with a high prevalence of beryllium sensitization (i.e., 10 percent 
or more), however, a single test may be adequate to predict 
sensitization (Middleton et al., 2008).
    12. In a later analysis, Middleton et al. (2011) conducted an 
evaluation using borderline results from BeLPT testing. Utilizing 
the common clinical algorithm with a criterion that accepted 1 
abnormal and 1 borderline as establishing beryllium sensitization 
resulted in a PPV of 94.4 percent. This study also found that 3 
borderline results resulted in a PPV of 91 percent. Both of these 
PPVs were based on a population prevalence of 2 percent. This study 
further demonstrates borderline results' value in predicting 
beryllium sensitization using the BeLPT.

III. New Beryllium-Specific Immunological Test Protocols

    1. In the medical surveillance provisions of this standard, OSHA 
requires the use of a standardized BeLPT, but states that a ``more 
reliable and accurate diagnostic test'' for beryllium sensitization 
may be used in lieu of the BeLPT if such a test is developed. The 
Agency considers the following criteria to be important in judging a 
new test's validity and reliability:
    a. A test report prepared by an independent \1\ research 
laboratory stating that the laboratory has tested the protocol and 
has found it to be valid and reliable; and
    b. An article that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal 
describing the protocol and explaining how test data support the 
protocol's validity and reliability.
    c. Sensitivity and specificity that meet or exceed those 
reported for the BeLPT in peer-reviewed publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An example of an ``independent'' research laboratory would 
be a laboratory with no financial interest in the protocol, and no 
affiliation with the manufacture or supply of beryllium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B to Sec.  1910.1024: Control Strategies To Minimize Beryllium 
Exposure (Non-Mandatory)

    Paragraph (f)(2)(i) of Sec.  1910.1024 requires employers to use 
one or more of the control methods listed in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) 
of Sec.  1910.1024 to minimize worker exposure in each operation in 
a beryllium work area, unless the operation is exempt under 
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of Sec.  1910.1024. This appendix sets forth 
a non-exhaustive list of control options that employers could use to 
comply with paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of Sec.  1910.1024 for a number 
of specific beryllium operations.

[[Page 47828]]



                                   Table B.1--Exposure Control Recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Operation                         Minimal control strategy *               Application group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beryllium Oxide Forming (e.g., pressing,  For pressing operations:..................  Primary Beryllium
 extruding).                              (1) Install local exhaust ventilation        Production; Beryllium
                                           (LEV) on oxide press tables, oxide feed     Oxide Ceramics and
                                           drum breaks, press tumblers, powder         Composites.
                                           rollers, and die set disassembly
                                           stations;.
                                          (2) Enclose the oxide presses; and........
                                          (3) Install mechanical ventilation (make-
                                           up air) in processing areas..
                                          For extruding operations:.................
                                          (1) Install LEV on extruder powder loading
                                           hoods, oxide supply bottles, rod breaking
                                           operations, centerless grinders, rod
                                           laydown tables, dicing operations,
                                           surface grinders, discharge end of
                                           extrusion presses;.
                                          (2) Enclose the centerless grinders; and..
                                          (3) Install mechanical ventilation (make-
                                           up air) in processing areas..
Chemical Processing Operations (e.g.,     For medium and high gassing operations....  Primary Beryllium
 leaching, pickling, degreasing,          (1) Perform operation with a hood having a   Production; Beryllium
 etching, plating).                        maximum of one open side; and.              Oxide Ceramics and
                                          (2) Design process so as to minimize         Composites; Copper
                                           spills; if accidental spills occur,         Rolling, Drawing and
                                           perform immediate cleanup..                 Extruding.
Finishing (e.g., grinding, sanding,       (1) Perform portable finishing operations   Secondary Smelting;
 polishing, deburring).                    in a ventilated hood. The hood should       Fabrication of Beryllium
                                           include both downdraft and backdraft        Alloy Products; Dental
                                           ventilation, and have at least two sides    Labs.
                                           and a top.
                                          (2) Perform stationary finishing
                                           operations using a ventilated and
                                           enclosed hood at the point of operation.
                                           The grinding wheel of the stationary unit
                                           should be enclosed and ventilated..
Furnace Operations (e.g., Melting and     (1) Use LEV on furnaces, pelletizer; arc    Primary Beryllium
 Casting).                                 furnace ingot machine discharge; pellet     Production; Beryllium
                                           sampling; arc furnace bins and conveyors;   Oxide Ceramics and
                                           beryllium hydroxide drum dumper and         Composites; Nonferrous
                                           dryer; furnace rebuilding; furnace tool     Foundries; Secondary
                                           holders; arc furnace tundish and tundish    Smelting.
                                           skimming, tundish preheat hood, and
                                           tundish cleaning hoods; dross handling
                                           equipment and drums; dross recycling; and
                                           tool repair station, charge make-up
                                           station, oxide screener, product sampling
                                           locations, drum changing stations, and
                                           drum cleaning stations.
                                          (2) Use mechanical ventilation (make-up
                                           air) in furnace building..
Machining...............................  Use (1) LEV consistent with ACGIH[supreg]   Primary Beryllium
                                           ventilation guidelines on deburring         Production; Beryllium
                                           hoods, wet surface grinder enclosures,      Oxide Ceramics and
                                           belt sanding hoods, and electrical          Composites; Copper
                                           discharge machines (for operations such     Rolling, Drawing, and
                                           as polishing, lapping, and buffing);        Extruding; Precision
                                          (2) high velocity low volume hoods or        Turned Products.
                                           ventilated enclosures on lathes, vertical
                                           mills, CNC mills, and tool grinding
                                           operations;.
                                          (3) for beryllium oxide ceramics, LEV on
                                           lapping, dicing, and laser cutting; and.
                                          (4) wet methods (e.g., coolants)..........
Mechanical Processing (e.g., material     (1) Enclose and ventilate sources of        Primary Beryllium
 handling (including scrap), sorting,      emission;                                   Production; Beryllium
 crushing, screening, pulverizing,        (2) Prohibit open handling of materials;     Oxide Ceramics and
 shredding, pouring, mixing, blending).    and.                                        Composites; Aluminum and
                                          (3) Use mechanical ventilation (make-up      Copper Foundries;
                                           air) in processing areas..                  Secondary Smelting.
Metal Forming (e.g., rolling, drawing,    (1) For rolling operations, install LEV on  Primary Beryllium
 straightening, annealing, extruding).     mill stands and reels such that a hood      Production; Copper
                                           extends the length of the mill;             Rolling, Drawing, and
                                          (2) For point and chamfer operations,        Extruding; Fabrication of
                                           install LEV hoods at both ends of the       Beryllium Alloy Products.
                                           rod;.
                                          (3) For annealing operations, provide an
                                           inert atmosphere for annealing furnaces,
                                           and LEV hoods at entry and exit points;.
                                          (4) For swaging operations, install LEV on
                                           the cutting head;.
                                          (5) For drawing, straightening, and
                                           extruding operations, install LEV at
                                           entry and exit points; and.
                                          (6) For all metal forming operations,
                                           install mechanical ventilation (make-up
                                           air) for processing areas..
Welding.................................  For fixed welding operations:               Primary Beryllium
                                          (1) Enclose work locations around the        Production; Fabrication
                                           source of fume generation and use local     of Beryllium Alloy
                                           exhaust ventilation; and.                   Products; Welding.
                                          (2) Install close capture hood enclosure
                                           designed so as to minimize fume emission
                                           from the enclosure welding operation..
                                          For manual operations:....................
                                          (1) Use portable local exhaust and general
                                           ventilation..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All LEV specifications should be in accordance with the ACGIH[supreg] Publication No. 2094, ``Industrial
  Ventilation--A Manual of Recommended Practice'' wherever applicable.

[FR Doc. 2015-17596 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P