[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 2015)][Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47565-47828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17596]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[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
http://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, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email:
meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 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: perry.bill@dol.gov.
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 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 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
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 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, 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 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.
(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 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 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.
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).
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 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.
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
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.
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) 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
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 [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 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 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
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
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
[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., 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. 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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
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 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).
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 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 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 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.
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.
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\.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
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\ 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 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 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.
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 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 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
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 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 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 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, 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.
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 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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 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. 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 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 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 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:
"Safe" 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," 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 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. 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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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 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 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%
-------------------------------------
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 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.005
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\.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.007
[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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.011
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
[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 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.
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 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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.014
[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 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 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 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.021
(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
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 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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 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 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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.022
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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[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 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.
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.
[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.
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.
[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
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.
[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 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 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.
[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 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 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
[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 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 #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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.030
[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
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 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.033
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
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
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 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.
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, 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 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.035
[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:
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 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. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.039
[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 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 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.041
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
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 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 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.
(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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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 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: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 exposure" 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.
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
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 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 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 (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 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 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
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 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 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
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 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 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-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 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
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/contactus/byoffice/oas.
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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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. (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.
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.
[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.
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)
[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.
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.
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/cgi-bin/Disease_Search.php?lng=EN&data_id=1061&Disease_Disease_Search_diseaseGroup=chronic-beryllium-disease&Disease_Disease_Search_diseaseType=Pat&Disease%28s%29/group%20of%20diseases=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.
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 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.
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.
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. 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.
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 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 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 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
(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 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 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 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.
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
