The technological feasibility analysis covers twelve application
groups that correspond to specific industries or production processes
that involve the potential for occupational exposures to materials
containing beryllium and that OSHA has determined fall within the scope
of this final beryllium standard. Within each of these application
groups, exposure profiles have been developed to characterize the
distribution of the available exposure measurements by job title or
group of jobs. Each section includes descriptions of existing, or
baseline, engineering controls for operations that generate beryllium
exposure. For those job groups in which current exposures were found to
exceed the final PEL, OSHA identifies and describes additional
engineering and work practice controls that can be implemented to
reduce exposure and achieve compliance with the final PEL. For each
application group or industry, a final determination is made regarding
the technological feasibility of achieving the proposed permissible
exposure limits based on the use of engineering and work practice
controls and without reliance on the use of respiratory protection. The
determination is made based on the legal standard of whether the PEL
can be achieved for most operations most of the time using such
controls. In a separate chapter on short-term exposures, OSHA also
analyzes the feasibility of achieving compliance with the Short-Term
Exposure Limit (STEL).
    The analysis is based on the best evidence currently available to
OSHA, 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)), and inspection data from OSHA's Integrated Management
Information System (IMIS) and OSHA's Information System (OIS). OSHA
also obtained information on beryllium production processes, worker
exposures, and the effectiveness of existing control measures from
Materion Corporation, the primary beryllium producer in the United
States, interviews with industry experts, and comments submitted to the
rulemaking docket in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
informal public hearings. All of this evidence is in the rulemaking
record.
    The twelve application groups are:
     Primary Beryllium Production,
     Beryllium Oxide Ceramics and Composites,
     Nonferrous Foundries,
     Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying, Including
Handling of Scrap and Recycled Materials,
     Precision Turned Products,
     Copper Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding,
     Fabrication of Beryllium Alloy Products,
     Welding,
     Dental Laboratories,
     Abrasive Blasting,
     Coal-Fired Electric Power Generation,
     Aluminum Production
    For discussion purposes, the twelve application groups are divided
into four general categories based on the distribution of exposures in
the exposure profiles: (1) Application groups in which baseline
exposures for most jobs are already at or below the final PEL of 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\; (2) application groups in which baseline exposures for one
or more jobs exceed the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, but additional
controls have been identified that could achieve exposures at or below
the final PEL for most of the operations most of the time; (3)
application groups in which exposures in one or more jobs routinely
exceed the preceding PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and therefore substantial
reductions in exposure would be required to achieve the final PEL; and
(4) application groups in which exposure to beryllium occurs due to
trace levels of beryllium found in dust or fumes that nonetheless can
result in exposures that exceed 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA under
foreseeable conditions.
    The application groups in category 1, where exposures for most jobs
are already at or below the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, typically
handle beryllium alloys containing a low percentage of beryllium (<2
percent) using processes that do not result in significant airborne
exposures. These four application groups are (1) copper rolling,
drawing, and extruding; (2) fabrication of beryllium alloy products;
(3) welding; and (4) aluminum production. The handling of beryllium
alloys in solid form is not expected to result in exposures of concern.
For example, beryllium alloys used in copper rolling, drawing, and
extruding typically contain 2 percent beryllium by weight or less
(Document ID 0081, Attachment 1). One facility noted that the copper-
beryllium alloys it used contained as little as 0.1 percent beryllium
(Document ID 0081, Attachment 1). These processes, such as rolling
operations that consist of passing beryllium alloys through a rolling
press to conform to a desired thickness, tend to produce less
particulate and fume than high energy processes. Exposures can be
controlled using containment, exhaust ventilation, and work practices
that include rigorous housekeeping. In addition, the heating of metal
during welding operations results in the release of fume, but the
beryllium in the welding fume accounts for a relatively small
percentage of the beryllium exposure. Worker exposure to beryllium

during welding activities is largely attributable to flaking oxide
scale on the base metal, which can be reduced through chemically
stripping or pickling the beryllium alloy piece prior to welding on it,
and/or enhancing exhaust ventilation (Corbett, 2006; Kent, 2005;
Materion Information Meeting, 2012).
    For application groups in category 2, where baseline exposures for
one or more jobs exceed the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m \3\, but
additional controls have been identified that could achieve exposures
at or below the final PEL for most of the operations most of the time,
workers may encounter higher content beryllium (20 percent or more by
weight), or higher temperature processes (Document ID 1662, p. 4.) The
application groups in the second category are: (1) Precision turned
products and (2) secondary smelting, refining, and alloying. While the
median exposures for most jobs in these groups are below the preceding
PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, the median exposures for some jobs in these
application groups exceed the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ when not
adequately controlled. For these application groups, additional
exposure controls and work practices will be required to reduce
exposures to or below the final PEL for most operations most of the
time. For example, personal samples collected at a precision turned
products facility that machined pure beryllium metal and high beryllium
content materials (40-60 percent) measured exposures on two machinists
of 2.9 and 6.6 [mu]g/m3 (ERG Beryllium Site 4, 2003). A second survey
at this same facility conducted after an upgrade to the ventilation
systems in the mill and lathe departments measured PBZ exposures for
these machinists of 1.1 and 2.3 [mu]g/m\3\ (ERG Beryllium Site 9,
2004), and it was noted that not all ventilation was optimally
positioned, indicating that further reduction in exposure could be
achieved. In 2007, the company reported that after the installation of
enclosures on milling machines and additional exhaust, average
exposures to mill and lathe operators were reduced to below 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ (ICBD, 2007). For secondary smelting operations, several
surveys conducted at electronic recycling and precious metal recovery
operations indicate that exposures for mechanical processing operators
can be controlled to or below 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\. However, for furnace
operations in secondary smelting, the median value in the exposure
profile exceeds the preceding PEL. Furnace operations involve high
temperatures that produce significant amounts of fumes and particulate
that can be difficult to contain. Therefore, the reduction of 8-hour
average exposures to or below the final PEL may not be achievable for
most furnace operations involved with secondary smelting of beryllium
alloys. In these cases, the supplemental use of respiratory protection
for specific job tasks will be needed to adequately protect furnace
workers for operations where exposures are found to exceed 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ despite the implementation of all feasible engineering and work
practice controls.
    The application groups in category 3 include application groups for
which the exposure profiles indicate that exposures in one or more jobs
routinely exceed the preceding PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The three
application groups in this category are: (1) Beryllium production, (2)
beryllium oxide ceramics production, and (3) nonferrous foundries. For
the job groups in which exposures have been found to routinely exceed
the preceding PEL, OSHA identifies additional exposure controls and
work practices that the Agency has determined can reduce exposures to
or below the final PEL, most of the time. For example, OSHA concluded
that exposures to beryllium resulting from material transfer, loading,
and spray drying of beryllium oxide powders can be reduced to or below
0.2 [micro]g/m3 with process enclosures, ventilation hoods, and
diligent housekeeping for material preparation operators working in
beryllium oxide ceramics and composites facilities (FEA, Chapter IV-
04). However, for furnace operations in primary beryllium production
and nonferrous foundries, and shakeout operations at nonferrous
foundries, OSHA recognizes that even after installation of feasible
controls, supplemental use of respiratory protection may be needed to
protect workers adequately (FEA, Chapter IV-03 and IV-05). The evidence
in the rulemaking record is insufficient to conclude that these
operations would be able to reduce the majority of the exposure to
levels below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time, and therefore some
increased supplemental use of respiratory protection may be required
for certain tasks in these jobs.
    Category 4 includes application groups that encounter exposure to
beryllium due to trace levels found in dust or fumes that nonetheless
can exceed 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA under foreseeable
conditions. The application groups in this category are (1) coal-fired
power plants in which exposure to beryllium can occur due to trace
levels of beryllium in the fly ash during very dusty maintenance
operations, such as cleaning the air pollution control devices; (2)
aluminum production in which exposure to beryllium can occur due to
naturally occurring trace levels of beryllium found in bauxite ores
used to make aluminum; and (3) abrasive blasting using coal and copper
slag that can contain trace levels of beryllium. Workers who perform
abrasive blasting using either coal or copper slag abrasives are
potentially exposed to beryllium due to the high total exposure to the
blasting media. Due to the very small amounts of beryllium in these
materials, the final PEL for beryllium will be exceeded only during
operations that generate excessive amount of visible airborne dust, for
which engineering controls and respiratory protection are already
required. However, the other workers in the general vicinity do not
experience these high exposures if proper engineering controls and work
practices, such as temporary enclosures and maintaining appropriate
distance during the blasting or maintenance activities, are
implemented.
    During the rulemaking process, OSHA requested and received comments
regarding the feasibility of the PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, as well as the
proposed alternative PEL of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ (80 FR 47565, 47780 (Aug.
7, 2015)). OSHA did this because it recognizes that significant risk of
beryllium disease is not eliminated at an exposure level of 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\. As discussed below, OSHA finds that the proposed PEL of 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\ can be achieved through engineering and work practice
controls in most operations most of the time in all the affected
industry sectors and application groups, and therefore is feasible for
these industries and application groups under the OSH Act. OSHA could
not find, however, that the proposed alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\
is also feasible for all of the affected industry sectors and
application groups.
    The majority of commenters, including stakeholders in labor and
industry, public health experts, and the general public, explicitly
supported the proposed PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ (NIOSH, Document ID
1671, Attachment 1, p. 2; National Safety Council, 1612, p. 3;
Beryllium Health and Safety Committee Task Group, 1655, p. 2; Newport
News Shipbuilding, 1657, p. 1; National Jewish Health (NJH), 1664, p.
2; the Aluminum Association, 1666, p. 1; the Boeing Company, 1667, p.
1; American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1686, p. 2; United
Steelworkers (USW), 1681, p. 7; Andrew Brown, 1636, p. 6; Department of
Defense, 1684, p. 1). In addition, Materion Corporation, the sole

primary beryllium production company in the U.S., and USW, jointly
submitted a draft proposed rule that included an exposure limit of 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\ (Document ID 0754, p. 4). In its written comments, Materion
explained that it is feasible to control exposure to levels below 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\ through the use of engineering controls and work practices
in most, but not all, operations:

    Based on many years' experience in controlling beryllium
exposures, its vigorous product stewardship program in affected
operations, and the judgment of its professional industrial hygiene
staff, Materion Brush believes that the 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL for
beryllium, based on median exposures, can be achieved in most
operations, most of the time. Materion Brush does recognize that it
is not feasible to reduce exposures to below the PEL in some
operations, and in particular, certain beryllium production
operations, solely through the use of engineering and work practice
controls (Document ID 1052).

    On the other hand, the Nonferrous Founders' Society (NFFS) asserted
that OSHA had not demonstrated that the final PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\
was feasible for the nonferrous foundry industry (Document ID 1678, pp.
2-3). NFFS asserted that ``OSHA has failed to meet its burden of proof
that a ten-fold reduction to the current two micrograms per cubic meter
limit is technologically or economically feasible in the non-ferrous
foundry industry'' (Document ID 1678, pp. 2-3; 1756, Tr. 18). In
written testimony submitted as a hearing exhibit, NFFS claimed that
OSHA's supporting documentation in the PEA had no ``concrete assurance
on technologic feasibility either by demonstration or technical
documentation'' (Document ID 1732, Appendix A, p. 4).
    However, contrary to the NFFS comments, which are addressed at
greater length in Section IV-5 of the FEA, OSHA's exposure profile is
based on the best available evidence for nonferrous foundries; the
exposure data are taken from NIOSH surveys, an ERG site visit, and the
California Cast Metals Association (Document ID 1217; 1185; 0341,
Attachment 6; 0899). Materion also submitted substantial amounts of
monitoring data, process descriptions and information of engineering
controls that have been implemented in its facilities to control
beryllium exposure effectively, including operations that involve the
production of beryllium alloys using the same types of furnace and
casting operations as those conducted at nonferrous foundries producing
beryllium alloys (Document ID 0719; 0720; 0723). Furthermore, Materion
submitted the above-referenced letter to the docket stating that, based
on its many years of experience controlling beryllium exposures, a PEL
of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ can be achieved in most operations, most of the time
(Document ID 1052). Materion's letter is consistent with the monitoring
data Materion submitted, and OSHA considers its statement regarding
feasibility at the final PEL relevant to nonferrous foundries because
Materion has similar operations in its facilities, such as beryllium
alloy production. As stated in Section IV-5 of the FEA, the size and
configuration of nonferrous foundries may vary, but they all use
similar processes; they melt and pour molten metal into the prepared
molds to produce a casting, and remove excess metal and blemishes from
the castings (NIOSH 85-116, 1985). While the design may vary, the basic
operations and worker job tasks are similar regardless of whether the
casting metal contains beryllium.
    In the NPRM, OSHA requested that affected industries submit to the
record any available exposure monitoring data and comments regarding
the effectiveness of currently implemented control measures to inform
the Agency's final feasibility determinations. During the informal
public hearings, OSHA asked the NFFS panel to provide information on
current engineering controls or the personal protective equipment used
in foundries claiming to have difficulty complying with the preceding
PEL, but no additional information was provided (Document ID 1756; Tr.
24-25; 1785, p. 1). Thus, the NFFS did not provide any sampling data or
other evidence regarding current exposure levels or existing control
measures to support its assertion that a PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is not
feasible, and did not show that the data in the record are insufficient
to demonstrate technological feasibility for nonferrous foundry
industry.
    In sum, while OSHA agrees that two of the operations in the
nonferrous foundry industry, furnace and shakeout operations, employing
a relatively small percentage of workers in the industry, may not be
able to achieve the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time,
evidence in the record indicates that the final PEL is achievable in
the other six job categories in this industry. Therefore, in the FEA,
OSHA finds the PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is technologically feasible for
the nonferrous foundry industry.
    OSHA also recognizes that engineering and work practice controls
may not be able to consistently reduce and maintain exposures to the
final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ in some job categories in other application
groups, due to the processing of materials containing high
concentrations of beryllium, which can result in the generation of
substantial amounts of fumes and particulate. For example, the final
PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ cannot be achieved most of the time for furnace
operations in primary beryllium production and for some furnace
operation activities in secondary smelting, refining, and alloying
facilities engaged in beryllium recovery and alloying. Workers may need
supplementary respiratory protection during these high exposure
activities where exposures exceed the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or
STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ with engineering and work practice controls. In
addition, OSHA has determined that workers who perform open-air
abrasive blasting using mineral grit (i.e., coal slag) will routinely
be exposed to levels above the final PEL (even after the installation
of feasible engineering and work practice controls), and therefore,
these workers will also be required to wear respiratory protection.
    Overall, however, based on the information discussed above and the
other evidence in the record and described in Chapter IV of the FEA,
OSHA has determined that for the majority of the job groups evaluated
exposures are either already at or below the final PEL, or can be
adequately controlled to levels below the final PEL through the
implementation of additional engineering and work practice controls for
most operations most of the time. Therefore, OSHA concludes that the
final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is technologically feasible.
    In contrast, the record evidence does not show that it is feasible
for most operations in all affected industries and application groups
to achieve the alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time. As
discussed below, although a number of operations can achieve this
level, they may be interspersed with operations that cannot, and OSHA
sees value in having a uniform PEL that can be enforced consistently
for all operations, rather than enforcing different PELs for the same
contaminant in different operations.
    Several commenters supported a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. Specifically,
Public Citizen; the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace, and Agriculture Implement Workers of America
(UAW); North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU); and the American
College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine contended that OSHA
should adopt this lower level because of the residual risk at 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\

(Document ID 1689, p. 7; 1693, p. 3; 1670, p. 1; 1679, pp. 6-7; 1685,
p. 1; 1756, Tr. 167). Two of these commenters, Public Citizen and the
AFL-CIO, also contended that a TWA PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m3 is feasible
(Document ID 1756, Tr. 168-169, 197-198). Neither of those commenters,
however, submitted any additional evidence to the record that OSHA
could rely on to conclude that a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ is achievable.
    On the other hand, the Beryllium Health and Safety Committee and
NJH specifically rejected a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ in their comments.
They explained that they believed the proposed PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\
and the ancillary provisions would reduce the prevalence of beryllium
sensitization and chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and be the best
overall combination for protecting workers when taking into
consideration the analytical chemistry capabilities and economic
considerations (Document ID 1655, p. 16; 1664, p. 2).
    Based on the record evidence, OSHA cannot conclude that the
alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ is achievable most of the time for at
least one job category in 8 of the 12 application groups or industries
included in this analysis: Primary beryllium production; beryllium
oxide ceramics and composites; nonferrous foundries; secondary
smelting, refining, and alloying, including handling of scrap and
recycled materials; precision turned products; dental laboratories;
abrasive blasting; and coal-fired electric power generation. In
general, OSHA's review of the available sampling data indicates that
the alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ cannot be consistently achieved
with engineering and work practice controls in application groups that
use materials containing high percentages of beryllium or that involve
processes that result in the generation of substantial amounts of fumes
and particulate. Variability in processes and materials for operations
involving the heating or machining of beryllium alloys or beryllium
oxide ceramics also makes it difficult to conclude that exposures can
be routinely reduced to below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. For example, in the
precision turned products industry, OSHA has concluded that exposures
for machinists machining pure beryllium or high beryllium alloys can be
reduced to or below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, but not 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\.
Additionally, OSHA has determined that job categories that involve
high-energy operations will not be able to consistently achieve 0.1
[mu]g/m\3\ (e.g., abrasive blasting with coal slag in open-air). These
operations can cause workers to have elevated exposures even when
available engineering and work practice controls are used.
    In other cases, paucity of data or other data issues prevent OSHA
from determining whether engineering and work practice controls can
reduce exposures to or below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time (see
Chapter IV of the FEA). A large portion of the sample results obtained
by OSHA for the dental laboratories industry and for two of the job
categories in the coal-fired electric power generation industry
(operations workers and routine maintenance workers) were below the
reported limit of detection (LOD). Because the LODs for many of these
samples were higher than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, OSHA could not assess whether
exposures were below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. For example, studies of dental
laboratories showed that use of well-controlled ventilation can
consistently reduce exposures to below the LOD of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
However, without additional information, OSHA cannot conclude that
exposures can be reduced to or below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time.
Therefore, OSHA cannot determine if a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ would be
feasible for the dental laboratory industry.
    The lack of available data has also prevented OSHA from determining
whether exposures at or below of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ can be consistently
achieved for machining operators in the beryllium oxide ceramics and
composites industry. As discussed in Section IV-4 of the FEA, the
exposure profile for dry (green) machining and lapping and plate
polishing (two tasks within the machining operator job category) is
based on 240 full-shift PBZ samples obtained over a 10-year period
(1994 to 2003). The median exposure levels in the exposure profile for
green machining and lapping and polishing are 0.16 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.29
[mu]g/m\3\, respectively. While the record indicates that improvements
in exposure controls were implemented over time (Frigon, 2005, Document
ID 0825; Frigon, 2004 (Document ID 0826)), data showing to what extent
exposures have been reduced are not available. Nonetheless, because the
median exposures for green machining are already below 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\,
and the median exposures for lapping and polishing are only slightly
above the PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, OSHA concluded that the controls that
have been implemented are sufficient to reduce exposures to at or below
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time. However, without additional
information, OSHA cannot conclude that exposures could be reduced to or
below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ most of the time for these tasks.
    Most importantly for this analysis, the available evidence
demonstrates that the alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ is not
achievable in five out of the eight job categories in the nonferrous
foundries industry: Furnace operator, shakeout operator, pouring
operator, material handler, and molder. As noted above, the first two
of these job categories, furnace operator and shakeout operator, which
together employ only a small fraction of the workers in this industry,
cannot achieve the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ either, but evidence in
the record demonstrates that nonferrous foundries can reduce the
exposures of most of the rest of the workers in the other six job
categories to or below the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, most of the
time. However, OSHA's feasibility determination for the pouring
operator, material handler, and molder job categories, which together
employ more than half the workers at these foundries, does not allow
the Agency to conclude that exposures for those jobs can be
consistently lowered to the alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. See
Section IV-5 of the FEA. Thus, OSHA cannot conclude that most
operations in the nonferrous foundries industry can achieve a PEL of
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, most of the time. Accordingly, OSHA finds that the
alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ is not feasible for the nonferrous
foundries industry.
    OSHA has also determined either that information in the rulemaking
record demonstrates that 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ is not consistently achievable
in a number of operations in other affected industries or that the
information is insufficient to establish that engineering and work
practice controls can consistently reduce exposures to or below 0.1
[mu]g/m\3\. Therefore, OSHA finds that the proposed alternative PEL of
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ is not appropriate, and the rule's final PEL of 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\ is the lowest exposure limit that can be found to be
technologically feasible through engineering and work practice controls
in all of the affected industries and application groups included in
this analysis.
    Because of this inability to achieve 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ in many
operations, if OSHA were to adopt a PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, a
substantial number of employees would be required to wear respirators.
As discussed in the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (f), Methods
of Compliance, use of respirators in the workplace presents a number of
independent safety and health concerns. Workers wearing respirators may
experience diminished vision, and respirators can impair the ability of
employees to communicate with one another. Respirators can impose
physiological burdens on employees due to the weight of the respirator
and increased breathing resistance

experienced during operation. The level of physical work effort
required, the use of protective clothing, and environmental factors
such as temperature extremes and high humidity can interact with
respirator use to increase the physiological strain on employees.
Inability to cope with this strain as a result of medical conditions
such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, reduced pulmonary
function, neurological or musculoskeletal disorders, impaired sensory
function, or psychological conditions can place employees at increased
risk of illness, injury, and even death. The widespread, routine use of
respirators for extended periods of time that may be required by a PEL
of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ creates more significant concerns than the less
frequent respirator usage that is required by a PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Furthermore, OSHA concludes that it would complicate both
compliance and enforcement of the rule if it were to set a PEL of 0.1
[mu]g/m\3\ for some industries or operations and a PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\ for the remaining industries and operations where technological
feasibility at the lower PEL is either unattainable or unknown. OSHA
may exercise discretion to issue a uniform PEL if it determines that
the PEL is technologically feasible for all affected industries (if not
for all affected operations) and that a uniform PEL would constitute
better public policy. See Pertinent Legal Authority (discussing the
Chromium decision). In declining to lower the PEL to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for
any segment of the affected industries, OSHA has made that
determination here. Therefore, OSHA has determined that the proposed
alternative PEL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ is not appropriate.
    OSHA also evaluated the technological feasibility of the final STEL
of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and the alternative STEL of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\. An
analysis of the available short-term exposure measurements presented in
Chapter IV, Section 15 of the FEA 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 exposures can also occur during the transfer and
handling of beryllium oxide powders. OSHA finds that in many cases, the
control of peak short-term exposures associated with these intermittent
tasks will be necessary to reduce workers' TWA exposures to or below
the final PEL. The short-term exposure data presented in the FEA show
that the majority (79%) of these exposures are already below 2.0 [mu]g/
m\3\.
    A number of stakeholders submitted comments related to the proposed
and alternative STELs. Some of these stakeholders supported a STEL of
2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Materion stated that a STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for
controlling the upper range of worker short term exposures is
sufficient to prevent CBD (Document ID 1661, p. 3). Other commenters
recommended a STEL of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (Document ID 1661, p. 19; 1681, p.
7). However, no additional engineering controls capable of reducing
short term exposures to at or below 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ were identified by
these commenters. OSHA provides a full discussion of the public
comments in the Summary and Explanation section of this preamble. OSHA
has determined that the implementation of engineering and work practice
controls required to maintain full shift exposures at or below a PEL of
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ will reduce short term exposures to 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ or
below, and that a STEL of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ would require additional
respirator use. Furthermore, OSHA notes that the combination of a PEL
of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and a STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ would, in most cases,
keep workers from being exposed to 15 minute intervals of 1.0 [mu]g/
m\3\. See Table IV.78 of Chapter IV of the FEA.
    Therefore, OSHA concludes that the STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ can be
achieved for most operations most of the time, given that most short-
term exposures are already below 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. OSHA recognizes that
for a small number of tasks, short-term exposures may exceed the final
STEL, even after feasible control measures to reduce TWA exposure to or
below the final PEL have been implemented, and therefore, some limited
use of respiratory protection will continue to be required for short-
term tasks in which peak exposures cannot be reduced to less than 2.0
[mu]g/m\3\ through use of engineering controls.
    After careful consideration of the record, including all available
data and stakeholder comments in the record, OSHA has determined that a
STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ is technologically feasible. Thus, as explained
in the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (c), OSHA has retained the
proposed value of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ as the final STEL.

E. Costs of Compliance

    In Chapter V, Costs of Compliance, OSHA assesses the costs to
general industry, maritime, and construction 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 final short-term exposure limit
(STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\, as well as of complying with the final
standard's ancillary provisions. These ancillary provisions encompass
the following requirements: Exposure monitoring, regulated areas (and
competent person in construction), a written exposure control plan,
protective work clothing, hygiene areas and practices, housekeeping,
medical surveillance, medical removal, familiarization, and worker
training. This final cost assessment is based in part on OSHA's
technological feasibility analysis presented in Chapter IV of the FEA;
analyses of the costs of the final 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) as part of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
process, comments submitted to the docket in response to the PEA,
comments during the hearings conducted in March 2016, and comments
submitted to the docket after the hearings concluded.
    Table VIII-4 presents summary of the annualized costs. All costs in
this chapter are expressed in 2015 dollars and were annualized using a
discount rate of 3 percent. (Costs at other discount rates are
presented in the chapter itself). Annualization periods for
expenditures on equipment are based on equipment life, and one-time
costs are annualized over a 10-year period. Chapter V provides detailed
explanation of the basis for these cost estimates.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.034

F. Economic Feasibility and Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    In Chapter VI, OSHA investigates the economic impacts of its final
beryllium rule on affected employers. This impact investigation has two
overriding objectives: (1) To establish whether the final rule is
economically feasible for all affected application groups/
industries,\31\ and (2) to determine if the Agency can certify that the
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As noted in the FEA, OSHA uses the umbrella term
``application group'' to refer either to an industrial sector or to
a cross-industry group with a common process. In the industrial
profile chapter, because some of the discussion being presented has
historically been framed in the context of the economic feasibility
for an ``industry,'' the Agency uses the term ``application group''
and ``industry'' interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VIII-5 presents OSHA's screening analysis, which shows costs
as percentage of revenues and as a percentage of profits. The chapter
explains why these screening analysis

results can reasonably be viewed as economically feasible. Section
VIII.j shows similar results for small and very small entities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.040

    In Chapter VII, OSHA estimates the benefits and net benefits of the
final beryllium rule. The methodology for these estimates largely
remains the same as in the PEA. OSHA did not receive many comments
challenging any aspect

of the benefits analysis presented in the PEA. There are, however, a
few significant alterations, such as: Using an empirical turnover rate
as part of the estimation of exposure response functions, full analysis
of the population model with varying turnover (a model only briefly
presented in the PEA), and presentation of a statistical proportional
hazard model in response to comment. The other large change to the
benefits analysis is the result of the increase in the scope of the
rule to protect workers in the construction and ship-building
industries. In the proposed rule, coverage of these latter industries
was only presented as an alternative and therefore were not included in
the benefits in the PEA, but they are covered by the final rule.
    This chapter 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 final PEL is adopted in a
final standard, and in which employees are exposed throughout their
working lives to either the baseline or the final PEL. The second step
also assumes that the final PEL is adopted, but uses the results from
the first step to estimate what would happen under a realistic scenario
in which new employees will not be exposed above the final PEL, while
employees already at work will experience a combination of exposures
below the final PEL and baseline exposures that exceed the final PEL
over their working lifetime. The comparison of these steps is given in
Table VIII-6. OSHA also presents in Chapter VII similar kinds of
results for a variety of other risk assessment and population models.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.041

    The third step covers the monetization of benefits. Table VIII-7
presents the monetization of benefits at various interest rates and
monetization values.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.042

    In the fourth step, OSHA estimates the net benefits of the final
rule by comparing the monetized benefits to the costs presented in
Chapter V of the FEA. These values are presented in Table VIII-8. The
table shows that benefits exceed costs for all situations except for
the low estimate of benefits using a 7 percent discount rate. The low
estimate of benefits reflects the assumption that the ancillary
provisions have no independent effect in reducing cases of CBD. OSHA
considers this assumption to be very unlikely, based on the available
evidence.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.043

    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.
This is done because the models underlying each step inevitably need to
make a variety of assumptions based on limited data. OSHA invited
comments on each aspect of the data and methods used in this chapter,
and received none specifically on the sensitivity analysis. Because
dental laboratories constituted a significant source of both costs and
benefits to the proposal, the PEA indicated that OSHA was particularly
interested in comments regarding the appropriateness of the model,
assumptions, and data for estimating the benefits to workers in that
industry. Although the Agency did not receive any comments on this
question directly, the American Dental Association's comments relevant
to the underlying use of beryllium alloys in dental labs are addressed
in Chapter III of the FEA. The Agency has not altered its main
estimates of the exposure profile for dental laboratory workers, but
provides sensitivity analyses in the FEA to examine the outcome if a
lower percentage of dental laboratories were to substitute materials
that do not contain beryllium for beryllium-containing materials. OSHA
also estimates net benefits with a variety of scenarios in which dental
laboratories are not included. All of these results are presented in
Chapter VII of the FEA.

H. Regulatory Alternatives

    Chapter VIII presents the costs, benefits and net benefits of a
variety of regulatory alternatives.

I. Final Regulatory Flexibility 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 final rulemaking will have on small
entities. The RFA states that whenever an agency promulgates a final
rule that is required to conform to the notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA). 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
    However, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the RFA states that Section 604 shall
not apply to any final rule if the head of the agency certifies that
the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed in Chapter VI
of the FEA, OSHA was unable to so certify for the final beryllium rule.
    For OSHA rulemakings, as required by 5 U.S.C. 604(a), the FRFA must
contain:
    1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
    2. a statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such
comments;
    3. the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
    4. a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate
is available;
    5. a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other

compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record;
    6. a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected; and for a covered agency, as
defined in section 609(d)(2), a description of the steps the agency has
taken to minimize any additional cost of credit for small entities.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act further states that the required
elements of the FRFA 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 FRFA. 5 U.S.C. 605(a).
    In addition to these elements, OSHA also includes in this section
the recommendations from the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)
Panel and OSHA's responses to those recommendations.
    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 FEA and its supporting materials, this FRFA
will summarize the key aspects of OSHA's analysis as they affect small
entities.
 The Need for, and Objective of, the Rule
    The objective of the final 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 necessary 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 the preamble for a more detailed
discussion.
    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 final 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 final risk assessment, presented in
Section VI of the 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 final standard, with a lower PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
m\3\, will help to address these health concerns. See the Health
Effects and Risk Assessment sections of the preamble for further
discussion.
 Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Comments on the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and OSHA's Assessment
of, and Response to, Those Issues
    This section of the FRFA focuses only on public comments concerning
significant issues raised on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA). OSHA received only one such comment.
    The Non-Ferrous Founders' Society claimed that the costs of the
rule will disproportionately affect small employers and result in job
losses to foreign competition (Document ID 1678, p. 3). This comment is
addressed in the FEA in the section on International Trade Effects in
Chapter VI: Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Determination. The summary of OSHA's response is that, in general,
metalcasters in the U.S. have shortened lead times, improved
productivity through computer design and logistics management, expanded
design and development services to customers, and provided a higher
quality product than foundries in China and other nations where labor
costs are low (Document ID 1780, p. 3-12). All of these measures,
particularly the higher quality of many U.S. metalcasting products and
the ability of domestic foundries to fulfill orders quickly, are
substantial advantages for U.S. metalcasters that may outweigh the very
modest price increases that might occur due to the final rule. For a
more detailed response please see the section on International Trade
Effects in Chapter VI of the FEA.
Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration and OSHA'S Response to Those Comments
    The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(``Advocacy'') did not provide OSHA with comments on this rule.
 A Description of, and an Estimate of, the Number of Small
Entities To Which the Rule Will Apply
    OSHA has analyzed the impacts associated with this final rule,
including the type and number of small entities to which the standard
will 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.
    OSHA estimates that approximately 6.600 small business entities
would be affected by the beryllium standard. Within these small
entities, 33,800 workers are exposed to beryllium and would be
protected by this final standard. A breakdown, by industry, of the
number of affected small entities is provided in Table III-14 in
Chapter III of the FEA.
    OSHA estimates that approximately 5,280 very small entities--those
with fewer than 20 employees--would be affected by the beryllium
standard. Within these very small entities, 11,800 workers are exposed
to beryllium and would be protected by the standard. A breakdown, by
industry, of the number of affected very small entities is provided in
Table III-15 in Chapter III of the FEA.
A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule
    Tables VIII-9 and VIII-10 show the average costs of the beryllium
standard and the costs of compliance as a percentage of profits and
revenues by NAICS code for, respectively, small entities (classified as
small by SBA) and very small entities (those with fewer than 20
employees). The full derivation of these costs is presented in Chapter
V. The cost for SBA-defined small entities ranges from a low of $832
per entity for

entities in NAICS 339116a: Dental Laboratories, to a high of about
$599,836 for NAICS 331313: Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum
Production.
    The annualized cost for very small entities ranges from a low of
$542 for entities in NAICS 339116a: Dental Laboratories, to a high of
about $34,222 for entities in NAICS 331529b: Other Nonferrous Metal
Foundries (except Die-Casting).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The cost of $542 for NAICS 339116a is the sum of a $524
cost to substitute for a non-hazard material and $19 for cost of
ancillary provisions. The total cost of $34,222 for NAICS 331529b is
the sum of $22,601 for engineering controls, $186 for respirator
costs, and $11,435 for ancillary provisions.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.051

Description of the Steps OSHA Has Taken To Minimize the Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives
of Applicable Statutes and Statement of the Reasons For Selecting the
Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule
    OSHA has made a number of changes in the final beryllium rule that
will serve to minimize significant impacts on small entities consistent
with the objectives of the OSH Act. These changes are explained in more
detail in Section XVI: Summary and Explanation in this preamble.
    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 final
rule, the Agency has removed skin contact as a trigger for medical
surveillance. OSHA has also reduced the frequency of medical
surveillance from annually (in the proposed rule) to biennially in the
final rule.
    In the final rule, OSHA has added a performance option, as an
alternative to scheduled monitoring, to allow employers to comply with
exposure assessment requirements. This performance option should allow
employers more flexibility, and often lower cost, in complying with the
exposure assessment requirements.
    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 final rule, OSHA has concluded that all
affected employers currently have hand washing facilities. OSHA has
also concluded that no affected employers will be required to install
showers. OSHA noted in the PEA that some facilities already have
showers. There were no comments challenging the Agency's preliminary
determinations regarding the existing availability of shower facilities
or the means of preventing contamination, so the Agency concludes that
all employers have showers where needed. Therefore, employers will not
need to provide any new shower facilities to comply with the
standard.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ OSHA reached the same conclusion in the PEA (p. V-118). For
information purposes, OSHA estimated the initial cost of installing
portable showers at $39,687, with an annualized cost of $4,653 per
facility (Id.) and did not receive any comments suggesting that
shower costs should be included or regarding the cost of installing
them. The annual cost per employee for shower supplies, towels, and
time required for showering was estimated to be $1,519. However, as
indicated above in the text, the Agency believed that employers
would be able to comply with the standard by less costly means than
the installation of shower facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in the PEA the Agency included no additional costs for
readily accessible washing facilities, under the expectation that
employers already have such facilities in place (PEA p. IX-19).
Although the abrasive blasters exposed to beryllium in maritime and
construction work may not have been expressly addressed in the PEA,
OSHA notes that their employers are typically already required to
provide readily accessible washing facilities to comply with other OSHA
standards such as its sanitation standard at 29 CFR 1926.51(f)(1).\34\
In the absence of additional comment, OSHA is not including any costs
for washing facilities in the FEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ OSHA's shipyard standard at 29 CFR 1915.58(e) requires
handwashing facilities ``at or adjacent to each toilet facility''
and ``equipped with . . . running water and soap, or with waterless
skin-cleansing agents that are capable of . . . neutralizing the
contaminants to which the employee may be exposed.'' OSHA's
construction standard at 29 CFR 1926.51(f)(1) requires ``adequate
washing facilities for employees engaged in . . . operations where
contaminants may be harmful to the employees. Such facilities shall
be in near proximity to the worksite and shall be so equipped as to
enable employees to remove such substances.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's shipyard standard at 29 CFR 1915.58(e) requires handwashing
facilities ``at or adjacent to each toilet facility'' and ``equipped
with . . . running water and soap, or with waterless skin-cleansing
agents that are capable of . . . neutralizing the contaminants to which
the employee may be exposed.'' OSHA's construction standard at 29 CFR
1926.51(f)(1) requires ``adequate washing facilities for employees
engaged in . . . operations where contaminants may be harmful to the
employees. Such facilities shall be in near proximity to the worksite
and shall be so equipped as to enable employees to remove such
substances.''

    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.
    Finally, in the final rule, OSHA has extended the compliance
deadlines for change rooms from one year to two years and for
engineering controls from two years to three years.
 Regulatory Alternatives
    For the convenience of those persons interested only in OSHA's
regulatory flexibility analysis, this section repeats the discussion
presented in Chapter VIII of the FEA, but only for the regulatory
alternatives to the final OSHA beryllium standard that would have
lowered costs.
    Each regulatory alternative presented here is described and
analyzed relative to the final rule. Where appropriate, the Agency
notes whether the regulatory alternative, to have been a legitimate
candidate for OSHA consideration, required evidence contrary to the
Agency's final findings of significant risk and feasibility. For this
chapter on the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the Agency is
only presenting regulatory alternatives that would have reduced costs
for small entities. (See Chapter VIII for the full list of all
alternatives analyzed.) There are 14 alternatives that would have
reduced costs for small entities (and for all businesses in total).
Using the numbering scheme from Chapter VIII of the FEA, these are
Regulatory Alternatives #1a, #2a, #2b, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11,
#12, #13, #15, #16, #18, and #22. OSHA has organized these 16 cost-
reducing alternatives (and a general discussion of considered phase-ins
of the rule) into four categories: (1) Scope; (2) exposure limits; (3)
methods of compliance; and (4) ancillary provisions.
(1) Scope Alternatives
    The scope of the beryllium final rule applies to general industry
work, construction and maritime activities. In addition, the final rule
provides an exemption for those working with materials containing only
trace amounts of beryllium (less than 0.1% by weight) when the employer
has objective data that employee exposure to beryllium will remain
below the action level as an 8-hour TWA under any foreseeable
conditions.
    The first set of regulatory alternatives would alter the scope of
the final standard by differing in coverage of groups of employees and
employers. Regulatory Alternatives #1a, #2a, and #2b would decrease the
scope of the final standard.
    Regulatory Alternative #1a would exclude all operations where
beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant; that is, where the
materials used contain less than 0.1% beryllium by weight, with no
other conditions. OSHA has identified two industries with workers
engaged in general industry work that would be excluded under
Regulatory Alternative #1a: Primary aluminum production and coal-fired
power generation.
    Table VIII-11 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 final
rule. Table VIII-11 also breaks out costs by provision, and benefits by
type of disease and by morbidity/mortality prevented. (Note:
``morbidity'' cases are cases where health effects are limited to non-
fatal illness; in these cases there is no further disease progression
to fatality).
    As shown in Table VIII-11, Regulatory Alternative #1a would
decrease the annualized cost of the rule from $73.9 million to $64.6
million using a 3 percent discount rate and from $76.6 million to $67.0
million using a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized benefits in
monetized terms would decrease from $560.9 million to $515.7 million,
using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $249.1 million to $229.0
million using a 7 percent discount rate. Net benefits would decrease
from $487.0 million to $451.1 million using a 3 percent discount rate
and from $172.4 million to $162.0 million using a 7 percent discount
rate.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.052

    Regulatory Alternative #2a would exclude construction and maritime
work from the scope of the final standard. For example, this
alternative would exclude 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.
    Table VIII-12 presents the estimated costs, benefits, and net
benefits of Regulatory Alternative #2a 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 these alternatives relative to the final rule. Table VIII-12 also
breaks out costs by provision and benefits by type of disease and by
morbidity/mortality.
    As shown in Table VIII-12, Regulatory Alternative #2a would
decrease costs from $73.9 million to $62.0 million, using a 3 percent
discount rate, and from $76.6 million to $64.4 million using a 7
percent discount rate. Annualized benefits would decrease from $560.9
million to $533.3 million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and from
$249.1 million to $236.8 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Net
benefits would change from $487.0 million to $471.3 million, using a 3
percent discount rate, and is essentially unchanged at a discount rate
of 7 percent, with the final rule having net benefits of $172.4 million
while the alternative has $172.5 million. Thus, at a 7 percent discount
rate, the costs exceed the benefits for this alternative by $0.1
million per year. However, OSHA believes that for these industries, the
cost estimate is severely overestimated because 45 percent of the costs
are for exposure monitoring assuming that employers use the periodic
monitoring option. Employers in this sector are far more likely to use
the performance based monitoring options at considerably reduced costs.
If this is the case, benefits would exceed costs even at a 7 percent
discount rate.
    Regulatory Alternative #2b would eliminate the ancillary provisions
in the final rule for the shipyard and construction sectors and for any
operations where beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant.
Accordingly, only the final TWA PEL and STEL would apply to employers
in these sectors and operations (through 29 CFR 1910.1000 Tables Z-1
and Z-2, 1915.1000 Table Z, and 1926.55 Appendix A). Operations in
general industry where the ancillary provisions would be eliminated
under Regulatory Alternative #2b include aluminum smelting and
production and coal-powered utility facilities and any other operations
where beryllium is present only as a trace contaminant (in addition to
all operations in construction and shipyards).
    As shown in Table VIII-13, Regulatory Alternative #2b would
decrease the annualized cost of the rule from $73.9 million to $53.5
million using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $76.6 to $55.6
million using a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized benefits would
decrease from $560.9 million to $493.3 million, using a 3 percent
discount rate, and from $249.1 million to $219.1 million, using a 7
percent discount rate. Net benefits would decrease from $487.0 million
to $439.8 million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and from $172.4
million to $163.5 million, using a 7 percent discount rate.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.054

(2) Exposure Limit (TWA PEL, STEL, and Action Level) Alternatives
    Paragraph (c) of the three final standards establishes two PELs for
beryllium in all forms, compounds, and mixtures: An 8-hour TWA PEL of
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (paragraph (c)(1)), and a 15-minute short-term exposure
limit (STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (paragraph (c)(2)). OSHA has defined the
action level for the final standard as an airborne concentration of
beryllium of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ calculated as an eight-hour TWA (paragraph
(b)). In this final rule, as in other standards, the action level has
been set at one half of the TWA PEL.
    Regulatory Alternative #5 would set a higher TWA PEL at 0.5
[micro]g/m\3\ and an action level at 0.25 [micro]g/m\3\. This
alternative 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 final PELs (see Chapter VI
of the FEA), and Regulatory Alternative #5 was considered in response
to the second half of that recommendation. However, the higher 0.5
[micro]g/m\3\ TWA PEL is not 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 VIII-14 below indicate that the final TWA PEL would
prevent additional fatalities and non-fatal illnesses relative to
Regulatory Alternative #5.
    Table VIII-14 below presents, for informational purposes, the
estimated costs, benefits, and net benefits of the final rule under the
final TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and for the regulatory alternative TWA
PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ (Regulatory Alternative #5), 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 final TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Table VIII-14 also breaks out
costs by provision and benefits by type of disease and by morbidity/
mortality.
    As Table VIII-14 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 30
beryllium-related fatalities and an additional 16 non-fatal illnesses.
This is consistent with OSHA's final risk assessment, which indicates
significant risk to workers exposed at a TWA PEL of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\;
furthermore, OSHA's final 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 final TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ would
decrease from $487.0 million to $376.5 million using a 3 percent
discount rate and from $172.4 million to $167.2 million using 7 percent
discount rate.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.055

Regulatory Alternative With Unchanged PEL But Full Ancillary Provisions
    An Informational Analysis: This final regulation has the somewhat
unusual feature for an OSHA substance-specific health standard that
most of the quantified benefits that OSHA estimated would come from the
ancillary provisions rather than from meeting the PEL solely with
engineering controls (see Chapter VII of the FEA for a more detailed
discussion). OSHA decided to analyze for informational purposes the
effect of retaining the preceding 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 final provisions (including respiratory protection) would be
required with their triggers remaining the same as in the final 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 [micro]g/m\3\ (e.g.,
periodic monitoring, medical removal), or at 0.2 [micro]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. The absence of engineering controls
would not be consistent with OSHA's application of the hierarchy of
controls, in which engineering controls are applied to eliminate or
control hazards, before administrative controls and personal protective
equipment are applied to address remaining exposures. Section 6(b)(5)
of the OSH Act 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. Also, OSHA estimates the costs
would be about the same (or slightly lower, depending on certain
assumptions) under that approach as under the traditional final
approach.
    When examined on an industry-by-industry basis, OSHA found that
some industries would have lower costs if they could adopt the
ancillary-provision-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 employer-by-
employer of when the ancillary-provisions-only approach might be
cheaper. In the majority of affected industries, the Agency estimates
there are no cost savings to the ancillary-provisions-only approach.
However, OSHA estimates an annualized total cost saving of $2.7 million
per year 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 [micro]g/
m\3\), OSHA did not 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 and medical surveillance.
    If respirators were as effective as engineering controls, the
ancillary-provisions-only approach would have benefits comparable to
the benefits of the final rule. However, in this alternative most
exposed individuals would be required to use respirators, which OSHA
considers less effective than engineering controls in preventing
employee exposure to beryllium. OSHA also examined what the benefits
would be if respirators were not required, were not worn, or were
ineffective. OSHA found that, if all of the other aspects of the
benefits analysis remained the same, the annualized benefits would be
reduced by from $33.2 million using a discount rate of 3 percent, and
$22.4 using a discount rate of 7 percent, largely as a result of
failing to reduce deaths from lung cancer, which are unaffected by the
ancillary provisions. However, there are also other reasons to believe
that benefits may be even lower:
    (1) As noted above, in the final rule 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.
    (2) OSHA judges that the benefits of the ancillary provisions (a
midpoint estimate of eliminating 45 percent of all remaining cases of
CBD for all sectors except for abrasive blasting and coal-fired power
plants, and an estimate of 11.25 percent, or one fourth of the
percentage for other sectors, for abrasive blasting and coal-fired
power plants) would be partially or wholly negated in the absence of
engineering controls that would reduce both airborne and surface dust
levels. The Agency's high estimate (90 percent for all sectors except
abrasive blasting and coal fired power plants, 22.5 percent for
abrasive blasting and coal-fired power plants) of the proportion of
remaining CBD cases eliminable by ancillary provisions is based on data
from a facility with average exposure levels of less than 0.2 [micro]g/
m\3\.
    Based on these considerations, OSHA finds that the ancillary-
provisions-only approach is not one that is likely to maximize net
benefits. The cost savings, 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)(i) of the final standards contains requirements
for the implementation of engineering and work practice controls to
minimize beryllium exposures in general industry, maritime, and
construction. For each operation in a beryllium work area in general
industry or where exposures are or can reasonably be expected to be
above the action level in shipyards or construction, employers must
ensure that one or more of the following are in place to minimize
employee exposure: Material and/or process substitution; isolation,
such as ventilated partial or full enclosures; local exhaust
ventilation; or process controls, such as wet methods and automation.
Employers are exempt from using these methods only when they can show
that such methods are not feasible or where exposures are below the
action level based on two exposure samples taken at least seven days
apart.
    OSHA believes that the methods 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 therefore
also considered Regulatory Alternative #6, which would drop the
provisions of (f)(2)(i) from the final 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
final 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 VIII-15,
Regulatory Alternative #6 would decrease the annualized cost of the
final rule by $606,706 using a discount rate of 3 percent and by
$638,100 using a discount rate of 7 percent.
    In the PEA, OSHA had been unable to estimate the benefits of this
alternative and invited public comment. The Agency did not receive
public comment and therefore has not estimated the change in benefits
resulting from Regulatory Alternative #6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.056

(4) Regulatory Alternatives That Affect Ancillary Provisions
    The final standard contains several ancillary provisions
(provisions other than the exposure limits), including requirements for
exposure assessment, medical surveillance, medical removal, training,
competent person, and regulated areas or access control. As reported in
Chapter V of the FEA, these ancillary provisions account for $61.3
million (about 83 percent) of the total annualized costs of the rule
($73.4 million) using a 3 percent discount rate. The most expensive of
the ancillary provisions are the requirements for housekeeping and
exposure monitoring, with annualized costs of $22.8 million and $13.7
million, respectively, at a 3 percent discount rate.
    OSHA's reasons for including each of the final ancillary provisions
are explained in Section XVI of the preamble, Summary and Explanation
of the Standards.
    OSHA has examined a variety of regulatory alternatives involving
changes to one or more of the final ancillary provisions. The
incremental cost of each of these regulatory alternatives and its
impact on the total costs of the final rule are summarized in Table
VIII-16 at the end of this section. OSHA has determined that several of
these ancillary provisions will increase the benefits of the final
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 final 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 #20), and
for medical removal protection (#22).
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 final TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or the final STEL
of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Regulatory Alternative #7 would only update 1910.1000 Tables Z-1
and Z-2, so that the final TWA PEL and STEL would apply to all workers
in general industry, construction, and maritime. This alternative would
eliminate all of the ancillary provisions of the final rule, including
exposure assessment, medical surveillance, medical removal protection,
PPE, housekeeping, training, competent person, and regulated areas or
access control. Under this regulatory alternative, OSHA estimates that
the costs for the final ancillary provisions of the rule (estimated at
$61.4 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 United Steelworkers, 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 final rule. The total costs for this alternative
are $12.5 million at a 3% discount rate and $13.5 million at a 7%
discount rate.
    OSHA has also estimated the effect of this regulatory alternative
on the benefits of the rule, presented in Table VIII-16. As a result of
eliminating all of the ancillary provisions, annualized benefits are
estimated to decrease 71 percent, relative to the final rule, from
$560.9 million to $211.9 million, using a 3 percent discount rate, and
from $249.1 million to $94.0 million using a 7 percent discount rate.
This estimate follows from OSHA's analysis of benefits in Chapter VII
of the FEA, which found that about 68 percent of the benefits of the
final 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 final rule will not
be fully achieved if employers do not implement the ancillary
provisions of the final 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 Materion, the primary beryllium producer, 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 United Steelworkers, 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 final TWA PEL alone
could achieve.
    Under Regulatory Alternative #8, several ancillary provisions that
the current final rule 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
final standard:

--Exposure monitoring: Whereas the scheduled monitoring option of the
final standards requires monitoring every six months when exposure
levels are at or above the action level and at or below the TWA PEL and
every three months when exposure levels exceed the TWA PEL, Regulatory
Alternative #8 would require annual exposure monitoring where exposure
levels exceed the TWA PEL or STEL;

    [cir] Written exposure control plan: Whereas the final standards
require 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;

    [cir] PPE: Whereas the final standards require PPE when airborne
exposure to beryllium exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed,
the PEL or STEL, and where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal
contact with beryllium, Alternative #8 would require PPE only for
employees exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL;

    [cir] Medical Surveillance: Whereas the final standard's medical
surveillance provisions require employers to offer medical surveillance
to employees exposed above the action level for 30 days per year,
showing signs or symptoms of CBD, exposed to beryllium in an emergency,
or when recommended by a medical opinion, 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, with results presented in Table VIII-16. Combining these
various adjustments along with associated unit costs, OSHA estimates
that, under this regulatory alternative, the costs for the final rule
would decline from $73.9 million to $35.8 million, using a 3 percent
discount rate, and from $76.6 million to $37.9 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 final 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 final TWA PEL and STEL could achieve.
    The remainder of this chapter discusses additional regulatory
alternatives that apply to individual ancillary provisions.
Exposure Monitoring
    Paragraph (d) of the final standard, Exposure Assessment, allows
employers to choose either the performance option or scheduled
monitoring. The scheduled monitoring option requires semi-annual
monitoring for those workers exposed at or above the action level but
at or below the PEL and quarterly exposure monitoring for those workers
exposed above the PEL. The rationale for this provision is provided in
the preamble discussion of paragraph (a) in Section XVI, Summary and
Explanation of the Standards.
    OSHA has examined three regulatory alternatives that would modify
the requirements of periodic monitoring in the final rule. Under
Regulatory Alternative #9, employers would be required to perform
periodic exposure monitoring annually when exposures are at or above
the action level or above the STEL, but at or below the TWA PEL. As
shown in Table VIII-16, Regulatory Alternative #9 would decrease the
annualized cost of the final rule by about $4.3 million using either a
3 percent or 7 percent discount rate.
    Under Regulatory Alternative #10, employers would be required to
perform periodic exposure monitoring annually when exposures are at or
above the action level. As shown in Table VIII-16, Regulatory
Alternative #10 would decrease the annualized cost of the final rule by
about $4.9 million using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate.
    Under Regulatory Alternative #11, employers would be required to
perform annual exposure monitoring where exposures are at or above the
action level but at or below the TWA PEL and STEL. When exposures are
above the TWA PEL, no periodic monitoring would be required. As shown
in Table VIII-16, Regulatory Alternative #11 would decrease the
annualized cost of the final rule by about $5.0 million using either a
3 percent or 7 percent discount rate. OSHA is unable to quantify the
effect of this change on benefits but has judged the alternative
adopted necessary and protective.
Regulated Areas
    Final paragraph (e) for General Industry requires employers to
establish and maintain beryllium work areas in any work area containing
a process or operation that can release beryllium where employees are,
or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at
any level or where there is the potential for dermal contact with
beryllium, and regulated areas wherever airborne concentrations of
beryllium exceed, or can reasonably be expected to

exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL. The Shipyards standard also requires
regulated areas. The Construction standard has a comparable competent
person requirement. Employers in General Industry and Shipyards are
required to demarcate 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 in the General Industry and Maritime standards, and eliminate the
competent person requirement in the Construction standard. This
alternative would not eliminate the final requirement to establish
beryllium work areas, where required. As shown in Table VIII-16,
Regulatory Alternative #12 would decrease the annualized cost of the
final rule by about $1.0 million using either a 3 or 7 percent discount
rate.
Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
    Regulatory Alternative #13 would modify the requirements for
personal protective equipment (PPE) by eliminating the requirement for
appropriate PPE whenever there is potential for skin contact with
beryllium or beryllium-contaminated surfaces. This alternative would be
narrower, and thus less protective, than the PPE requirement in the
final standards, which require PPE to be used where airborne exposure
exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL,
or where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with
beryllium.
    The economic analysis for the final standard already contains costs
for protective clothing, namely gloves, for all employees who can
reasonably be expected to be have dermal contact with beryllium; thus
OSHA estimated the cost of this alternative as the cost reduction from
not providing gloves under these circumstances. As shown in Table VIII-
16, Regulatory Alternative #13 would decrease the annualized cost of
the final rule by about $481,000 using either a 3 percent or 7 percent
discount rate.
 Medical Surveillance
    The final requirements for medical surveillance include: (1)
Medical examinations, including a test for beryllium sensitization, for
employees who are or are reasonably expected to be exposed to beryllium
at or above the action level for more than 30 days per year, who show
signs or symptoms of CBD or other beryllium-related health effects, are
exposed to beryllium in an emergency, or whose more recent written
medical opinion required by paragraph (k)(6) or (k)(7) recommends such
surveillance, and (2) low dose CT scans for employees when recommended
by the PLCHP. The final standards require biennial medical exams to be
provided for eligible employees. The standards also require tests for
beryllium sensitization to be provided to eligible employees
biennially.
    OSHA estimated in Chapter V of the FEA that the medical
surveillance requirements would apply to 4,528 workers in general
industry, of whom 387 already receive medical surveillance.\35\ In
Chapter V of the FEA, OSHA estimated the costs of medical surveillance
for the remaining 4,141 workers who would now have such protection due
to the final standard. The Agency's final analysis indicates that 4
workers with beryllium sensitization and 6 workers with CBD will be
referred to a CBD diagnostic center 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 final PELs, are at significant risk of illness.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See baseline compliance rates for medical surveillance in
Chapter III of the FEA, Table III-20.
    \36\ OSHA did not estimate, and the benefits analysis does not
include, monetized benefits resulting from early discovery of
illness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has examined four regulatory alternatives (#15, #16, #18, and
#22) that would modify the final 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 final rule, which was modified since the SBAR Panel
was convened (see the preamble at Section XVI, Summary and Explanation
of the Standards, for more detailed discussion). Regulatory Alternative
#16 also responds to recommendations by the SBAR Panel to reduce
burdens on small businesses by dropping or reducing the frequency of
medical surveillance requirements.
    OSHA has determined that a significant risk of beryllium
sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer exists at exposure levels below the
final TWA PEL and that there is evidence that beryllium sensitization
can occur even from short-term exposures (see the preamble at Section
V, Health Effects, and Section VII, 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 section XVI of this preamble, the Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (k)).
    Regulatory Alternative #15 would decrease eligibility for medical
surveillance to employees who are exposed to beryllium above the final
PEL
    To estimate the cost of Regulatory Alternative #15, OSHA assumed
that all workers exposed above the PEL before the final rule would
continue to be exposed after the standard is promulgated. Thus, this
alternative eliminates costs for medical exams for the number of
workers exposed between the action level and the TWA PEL. As shown in
Table VIII-16, Regulatory Alternative #15 would decrease the annualized
cost of the final rule by about $4.5 million using a discount rate of 3
percent, and by about $4.8 million using a discount rate of 7 percent.
    In response to concerns raised during the SBAR Panel process about
testing requirements, OSHA considered 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 VIII-16, this
alternative would decrease the annualized cost of the final rule by
about $2.4 million using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate.
    Regulatory Alternative #18 would eliminate the CT scan requirement
from the final rule. This alternative would decrease the annualized
cost of the final rule by about $613,000 using a discount rate of 3
percent, and by about $643,000 using a discount rate of 7 percent.
 Medical Removal
    Under paragraph (l) of the final standard, Medical Removal,
employees in jobs with exposure at or above the action level become
eligible for medical removal when they provide their employers with a
written medical report indicating they are diagnosed with CBD or
confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization, or if a written medical
opinion recommends medical removal

in accordance with the medical surveillance paragraph of the standards.
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, the employer must 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, in which case the employer would have to
provide, and the employee would have to use, a respirator.
    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 final
requirement that employers offer MRP. As shown in Table VIII-16, this
alternative would decrease the annualized cost of the final rule by
about $1.2 million using a discount rate of 3 percent, and by about
$1.3 million using a discount rate of 7 percent.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA17.057

SBAR Panel
    Table VIII-17 lists all of the SBAR Panel recommendations and
OSHA's response to those recommendations.
 Table VIII-17: 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.
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 final standard, in line
                                          with OSHA's normal practice,
                                          requires exposure monitoring
                                          every three months for levels
                                          above the PEL or STEL and
                                          every six months for exposures
                                          between the action level and
                                          the PEL. In the preamble to
                                          the final standard, OSHA
                                          provides further explanation
                                          on the use of objective data,
                                          which would exempt employers
                                          from the requirements of the
                                          final rule.
                                         These issues are discussed in
                                          the preamble at Section XVI,
                                          Summary and Explanation of the
                                          Standards, (d): Exposure
                                          Monitoring.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  In the preamble to the final
 providing some type of guidance to       standards, OSHA discusses the
 describe how to use objective data to    issue of objective data. While
 estimate exposures in lieu of            OSHA recognizes that some
 conducting personal sampling.            establishments will have
Using objective data could provide        objective data, for purposes
 significant regulatory relief to         of estimating the cost of this
 several industries where airborne        rule, the Agency is assuming
 exposures are currently reported by      that no establishments will
 SERs to be well below even the lowest    use objective data. The Agency
 PEL option. In particular, since         recognizes that this will
 several ancillary provisions, which      overestimate costs.
 may have significant costs for small    The use of objective data is
 entities may be triggered by the PEL     discussed in the preamble at
 or an action level, OSHA should          Section XVI, Summary and
 consider encouraging and simplifying     Explanation of the Standards,
 the development of objective data from   (d): Exposure Monitoring.
 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 final PEL of 0.2
 work with beryllium questioned the       [mu]g/m\3\.
 need for separating areas of work by    The final standards for general
 exposure level. Segregating machines     industry and maritime require
 or operations, SERs said, would affect   the employer to establish and
 productivity and flexibility. Until      maintain a regulated area
 the health risks of beryllium are        wherever employees are, or can
 known in their industries, SERs          be expected to be, exposed to
 challenged the need for regulated        airborne beryllium at levels
 areas.                                   above the PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
                                          m\3\. There is no regulated
                                          area requirement in
                                          Construction.
The Panel recommends that OSHA revisit   In General industry employers
 its cost model for hygiene areas to      must ensure that employees who
 reflect SERs' comments that estimated    have dermal contact with
 costs are too low and more carefully     beryllium wash any exposed
 consider the opportunity costs of        skin at the end of the
 using space for hygiene areas where      activity, process, or work
 SERs report they have no unused space    shift and prior to eating,
 in their physical plant for them. The    drinking, smoking, chewing
 Panel also recommends that OSHA          tobacco or gum, applying
 consider more clearly defining the       cosmetics, or using the
 triggers (skin exposure and              toilet. In General Industry,
 contaminated surfaces) for the hygiene   although there is a shower
 areas provisions. In addition, the       requirement, OSHA has
 Panel recommends that OSHA consider      determined that establishments
 alternative requirements for hygiene     required to have showers will
 areas dependent on airborne exposure     already have them, and
 levels or types of processes. Such       employers will not have to
 alternatives might include, for          install showers to comply with
 example, hand washing facilities in      the beryllium standard (Please
 lieu of showers in particular cases or   see the Hygiene Areas and
 different hygiene area triggers where    Practices section in Chapter V
 exposure levels are very low.            of the FEA). In Construction
                                          and Maritime, for each
                                          employee required to use
                                          personal protective clothing
                                          or equipment, the employer
                                          must ensure that employees who
                                          have dermal contact with
                                          beryllium wash any exposed
                                          skin at the end of the
                                          activity, process, or work
                                          shift and prior to eating,
                                          drinking, smoking, chewing
                                          tobacco or gum, applying
                                          cosmetics, or using the
                                          toilet. For Construction and
                                          Maritime, language involving
                                          showers has been removed but
                                          employers are still required
                                          to provide change rooms. Where
                                          personal protective clothing
                                          or equipment must be used, the
                                          employer must provide washing
                                          facilities. The standards do
                                          not require that eating and
                                          drinking areas be provided,
                                          but impose requirements when
                                          the employer chooses to have
                                          eating and drinking areas.
                                         Change rooms have been costed
                                          in general industry for
                                          employees who work in a
                                          beryllium work area and in
                                          construction and maritime for
                                          employees who required to use
                                          personal protective clothing
                                          or equipment. The Agency has
                                          determined that the long-term
                                          rental of modular units is
                                          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 the preamble to the final
 clearly explaining the purpose of the    rule, OSHA has clarified the
 housekeeping provision and describing    purpose of the housekeeping
 what affected employers must do to       provision. However, due to the
 achieve it.                              variety of work settings in
For example, OSHA should consider         which beryllium is used, OSHA
 explaining more specifically what        has concluded that a highly
 surfaces need to be cleaned and how      specific directive in the
 frequently they need to be cleaned.      preamble on what surfaces need
 The Panel recommends that the Agency     to be cleaned, and how
 consider providing guidance in some      frequently, would not provide
 form so that employers understand what   effective guidance to
 they must do. The Panel also             businesses. Instead, at the
 recommends that once the requirements    suggestion of industry and
 are clarified that the Agency re-        union stakeholders (Materion
 analyze its cost estimates.              and USW, 2012), OSHA's final
The Panel also recommends that OSHA       standards include a more
 reconsider whether the risk and cost     flexible requirement for
 of all parts of the medical              employers to develop a written
 surveillance provisions are              exposure control plan specific
 appropriate where exposure levels are    to their facilities. In
 very low. In that context, the Panel     general industry, the employer
 recommends that OSHA should also         must establish procedures to
 consider the special problems and        maintain all surfaces in
 costs to small businesses that up        beryllium work areas as free
 until now may not have had to provide    as practicable of beryllium as
 or manage the various parts of an        required by the written
 occupational health standard or          exposure control plan. Other
 program.                                 than requirements pertaining
                                          to eating and drinking areas,
                                          there are no requirements to
                                          maintain surface cleanliness
                                          in construction or maritime.
                                          These issues are discussed in
                                          the preamble at Section XVI,
                                          Summary and Explanation of the
                                          Standards, (f) Methods of
                                          Compliance and (j)
                                          Housekeeping. The adoption of
                                          Regulatory Alternative #20 in
                                          the PEA reduced the frequency
                                          of physical examinations from
                                          annual to biennial, matching
                                          the frequency of BeLPT testing
                                          in the final rule.
                                         These alternatives for medical
                                          surveillance are discussed in
                                          the Regulatory Alternatives
                                          Chapter, Chapter VIII and in
                                          the preamble at section XVI,
                                          Summary and Explanation of the
                                          Standards, (k) Medical
                                          Surveillance.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  Under the final standards, skin
 that small entities may lack the         exposure is not a trigger for
 flexibility and resources to provide     medical removal (unlike the
 alternative jobs to employees who test   draft version used for the
 positive for the BeLPT, and whether      SBAR Panel). Employees are
 medical removal protection (MRP)         only eligible for medical
 achieves its intended purpose given      removal if they are in a job
 the course of beryllium disease. The     with airborne exposure at or
 Panel also recommends that if MRP is     above the action level and
 implemented, that its effects on the     provide the employer with a
 viability of very small firms with a     written medical report
 sensitized employee be considered        confirming that they are
 carefully.                               sensitized or have been
                                          diagnosed with CBD, or that
                                          the physician recommends
                                          removal, or if the employer
                                          receives a written medical
                                          opinion recommending removal
                                          of the employee. After
                                          becoming eligible for medical
                                          removal an employee may choose
                                          to remain in a job with
                                          exposure at or above the
                                          action level, provided that
                                          the employer provides and 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, whichever
                                          comes first.
                                         OSHA discusses the basis of the
                                          provision in the preamble at
                                          Section XVI, Summary and
                                          Explanation of the Standards,
                                          (l) Medical Removal
                                          Protection. OSHA provides an
                                          analysis of costs and economic
                                          impacts of the provision in
                                          the FEA in Chapter V and
                                          Chapter VI, 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 final 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 final
 appropriate where exposure levels are    standard ties medical
 very low. In that context, the Panel     surveillance to exposures at
 recommends that OSHA should also         or above the action level for
 consider the special problems and        more than 30 days per year (or
 costs to small businesses that up        signs or symptoms of beryllium-
 until now may not have had to provide    related health effects,
 or manage the various parts of an        emergency exposure, or a
 occupational health standard or          medical opinion recommending
 program.                                 medical surveillance on the
                                          basis of a CBD or
                                          sensitization diagnosis).
                                          Thus, small businesses with
                                          exposures below the final
                                          action level 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
                                          the preamble at section XVI,
                                          Summary and Explanation of the
                                          Standards, (k) Medical
                                          Surveillance.
The Panel recommends that the Agency,    OSHA has reviewed the possible
 in evaluating the economic feasibility   effects of the final
 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 FEA
 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 test.

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 final
 use of objective data, in particular,    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. In
 Agency consider tiering the              addition, the scope of the
 application of ancillary provisions of   final 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 final
                                          standard (1) does not apply to
                                          beryllium-containing articles
                                          that the employer does not
                                          process; and (2) does not
                                          apply to materials that
                                          contain less than 0.1%
                                          beryllium by weight if the
                                          employer has objective data
                                          demonstrating that employee
                                          exposure to beryllium will
                                          remain below the action level
                                          as an 8-hour TWA under any
                                          foreseeable conditions.
                                         In the preamble to the final
                                          standard, OSHA has clarified
                                          the circumstances under which
                                          an employer may use historical
                                          and objective data in lieu of
                                          initial monitoring (Section
                                          XVI, Summary and Explanation
                                          of the Standards, (d) Exposure
                                          Monitoring).
                                         OSHA also considered 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 VIII of
                                          the FEA.
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 the preamble to
 employee exposure to beryllium. The      the final standard at Section
 Panel also recommends that OSHA          V, Health Effects, and Section
 consider to what extent a very low PEL   VI, Risk Assessment. They are
 (and lower action level) may result in   also reviewed in the preamble
 increased costs of ancillary             to the final standard at
 provisions to small entities (without    Section VII, Significance of
 affecting airborne employee              Risk, and the Benefits Chapter
 exposures). Since in the draft           of the FEA.
 proposal the PEL and action level are   As discussed above, OSHA
 critical triggers, the Panel             considered Regulatory
 recommends that OSHA consider            Alternatives #7 and #8, which
 alternate action levels, including an    would eliminate or reduce the
 action level set at the PEL, if a very   impact of ancillary provisions
 low PEL is proposed.                     on employers, respectively.
                                          These alternatives are
                                          discussed in Chapter VIII of
                                          the FEA.
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 the
 particularly the skin exposure           final standard, including
 trigger. In addition, the Panel          Exposure Assessment and
 recommends that OSHA clearly explain     Medical Surveillance. For each
 the basis and need for small entities    employee working in a
 to comply with ancillary provisions.     beryllium work area in general
 The Panel also recommends that OSHA      industry, and for each
 consider narrowing the trigger related   employee required to use
 to skin and contamination to capture     personal protective clothing
 only those situations where surfaces     or equipment in construction
 and surface dust may contain beryllium   and maritime, the employer
 in a concentration that is significant   must ensure that employees who
 enough to pose any risk--or limiting     have dermal contact with
 the application of the trigger for       beryllium wash any exposed
 some ancillary provisions.               skin at the end of the
                                          activity, process, or work
                                          shift and prior to eating,
                                          drinking, smoking, chewing
                                          tobacco or gum, applying
                                          cosmetics, or using the
                                          toilet. In addition, the
                                          potential for dermal contact
                                          with beryllium triggers
                                          requirements related to
                                          beryllium work areas, the
                                          written exposure control plan,
                                          washing facilities,
                                          housekeeping and training: For
                                          some ancillary provisions,
                                          including PPE and
                                          Housekeeping, the requirements
                                          are triggered by visible
                                          contamination with beryllium
                                          or dermal contact with
                                          beryllium.
                                         In Construction and Maritime,
                                          for each employee required to
                                          use personal protective
                                          clothing or equipment, the
                                          employer must ensure that
                                          employees who have dermal
                                          contact with beryllium wash
                                          any exposed skin at the end of
                                          the activity, process, or work
                                          shift and prior to eating,
                                          drinking, smoking, chewing
                                          tobacco or gum, applying
                                          cosmetics, or using the
                                          toilet. For Construction and
                                          Maritime, language involving