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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Costs of Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.011

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.013

F. Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Determination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU15.015

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

Agency has concluded that costs are unlikely to threaten the economic
viability of an affected industry. The results of OSHA's threshold
tests for all affected establishments are displayed in Table IX-8. For
all affected establishments, the estimated annualized cost of the
proposed rule is, on average, equal to 0.11 percent of annual revenue
and 1.52 percent of annual profit.
    As Table IX-8 shows, there are no industries in which the
annualized costs of the proposed rule exceed one percent of annual
revenues. However there are three six-digit NAICS industries where
annualized costs exceed ten percent of annual profits.
    NAICS 331525 (Copper foundries except die-casting) has the highest
cost impact as a percentage of profits. NAICS 331525 is made up of two
types of copper foundries: sand casting foundries and non-sand casting
foundries, incurring an annualized cost as a percent of profit of 16.25
percent and 14.92 percent, respectively. The other two six-digit NAICS
industries where annualized costs exceed ten percent of annual profits
are NAICS 331534: Aluminum foundries (except die-casting), 13.65
percent; and NAICS 811310: Commercial and industrial machinery and
equipment repair, 10.19 percent.
    OSHA believes that the beryllium-containing inputs used by these
industries have a relatively inelastic demand for three reasons. First,
beryllium has rare and unique characteristics, including low mass, high
melting temperature, dimensional stability over a wide temperature
range, strength, stiffness, light weight, and high elasticity
(``springiness'') that can significantly improve the performance of
various alloys. These characteristics cannot easily be replicated by
other materials. In economic terms, this means that the elasticity of
substitution between beryllium and non-beryllium inputs will be low.
Second, products which contain beryllium or beryllium-alloy components
typically have high-performance applications (whose performance depends
on the use of higher-cost beryllium). The lack of available competing
products with these performance characteristics suggests that the price
elasticity of demand for products containing beryllium or beryllium-
alloy components will be low. Third, components made of beryllium or
beryllium-containing alloys typically account for only a small portion
of the overall cost of the finished goods that these parts are used to
make. For example, the cost of brakes made of a beryllium-alloy used in
the production of a jet airplane represents a trivial percentage of the
overall cost to produce that airplane. As economic theory indicates,
the elasticity of derived demand for a factor of production (such as
beryllium) varies directly with the elasticity of substitution between
the input in question and other inputs; the price elasticity of demand
for the final product that the input is used to produce; and, in
general, the share of the cost of the final product that the input
accounts for. Applying these three conditions to beryllium points to
the relative inelastic derived demand for this factor of production and
the likelihood that cost increases resulting from the proposed rule
would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
    A secondary point is that the establishments in an industry that
use beryllium may be more profitable than those that don't. This
follows from the prior arguments about beryllium's rare and desirable
characteristics and its valuable applications. For example, of the 208