construction does not require employers to establish regulated areas.
In lieu of regulated areas, paragraph (e) of the final standard for
construction, Competent Person, consists of a set of requirements
designed to provide most of the same protections as regulated areas in
general industry and shipyards, using a competent person instead of
demarcated areas to achieve these ends.
    The requirements to establish beryllium work areas and regulated
areas or designate competent persons serve several important purposes.
First, requiring employers to establish and demarcate beryllium work
areas in general industry ensures that workers and other persons are
aware of the potential for work processes to release airborne beryllium
or cause dermal contact with beryllium. Second, the required
demarcation of regulated areas in general industry and shipyards in
accordance with the paragraph (m) requirements for warning signs
ensures that all persons entering regulated areas

will be aware of the serious health effects associated with exposure to
beryllium. Similarly, assignment of a competent person to carry out the
provisions of paragraph (e) in the construction standard where
exposures may exceed the TWA PEL or STEL provides employees in
construction with a knowledgeable on-site authority to convey
information about the hazards of beryllium exposure. Third, limiting
access to regulated areas (general industry and shipyards) or areas
where exposures may exceed the TWA PEL or STEL (construction) restricts
the number of workers potentially exposed to beryllium at levels above
the TWA PEL or STEL. Finally, provisions for respiratory protection and
PPE ensure that those who must enter regulated areas (general industry
and shipyards) or areas where exposures may exceed the TWA PEL or STEL
(construction) are properly protected, thereby reducing the risk of
serious health effects associated with airborne beryllium exposure and
dermal contact with beryllium.
    The remainder of this section provides detailed discussion of each
provision in paragraph (e) of the final standards for general industry,
shipyards, and construction, as well as comments OSHA received on
paragraph (e) of the proposed standard, OSHA's response to these
comments, and the reasons for OSHA's decisions regarding the provisions
of paragraph (e) in each final standard.
    Beryllium Work Areas (General Industry). Provisions for the
establishment of beryllium work areas were included in the proposed
standard for general industry in paragraph (e)(1)(i). This proposed
provision required employers to establish and maintain beryllium work
areas where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed
to airborne beryllium. OSHA explained that it intended the provision to
apply to all areas and situations where employees are actually exposed
to airborne beryllium and to areas and situations where the employer
has reason to anticipate or believe that airborne exposures may occur.
The Agency further explained that--unlike the requirements for
regulated areas--the proposed requirements were not tied to a
particular level of exposure, but rather were triggered by the presence
of airborne beryllium at any exposure level. The provision was based on
a provision recommended by Materion Corporation (Materion) and the
United Steelworkers (USW) in their joint submission, (see previous
discussion in the Introduction to this Summary and Explanation
section).
    A number of stakeholders commented on the proposed definition of a
beryllium work area. Some commenters, such as NGK Metals Corporation
(NGK) and ORCHSE Strategies (ORCHSE), argued that the definition of a
beryllium work area is vague and requested that OSHA trigger the
requirement to establish and maintain beryllium work areas at a
measureable threshold, such as the action level (e.g., Document ID
1663, p. 1; 1691, Attachment 1, p. 15). Edison Electric Institute
(EEI), an industry association representing electric utility companies,
also did not agree with the beryllium work area definition (Document ID
1674, p. 13). Like NGK and ORCHSE, EEI recommended that OSHA tie the
beryllium work area requirements to a quantifiable exposure level, like
the action level or the PEL (Document ID 1674, p. 13). The Boeing
Company (Boeing) also recommended the use of a quantifiable trigger,
but suggested a much lower trigger of 0.02 [micro]g/m\3\ (Document ID
1667, p. 3). Boeing explained that not including a specific threshold
can lead to inconsistent results because it depends on the sensitivity
of the measurement method (Document ID 1667, p. 3).
    Other commenters supported the proposed standard's establishment of
beryllium work areas at any level of airborne beryllium exposure. For
example, AWE commented that its ``supervised beryllium workspaces''
align with the proposal's beryllium work areas (Document ID 1615, p.
1). NIOSH observed that the proposed approach is feasible and
appropriate for beryllium work settings where work such as production,
processing, handling, and manufacturing of beryllium products is
performed and areas where needed preventive controls can be relatively
easily demarcated (Document ID 1725, pp. 29-30). Materion and USW
reiterated their support for provisions related to beryllium work areas
``where operations generate airborne beryllium particulate'', which
were included in the recommended model standard they submitted to OSHA
(Document ID 1680, p. 3).
    The purpose of a beryllium work area is to establish a demarcated
area in which workers and other persons authorized to be in the area
are made aware of the potential for beryllium exposure and must take
certain precautions accordingly. OSHA finds that establishing beryllium
work areas where exposures are at the action level or above the PEL
would not adequately protect exposed workers operating outside
demarcated regulated areas, for which the applicable trigger is the TWA
PEL or STEL. Because, as discussed in Section V, Health Effects, there
is still a potential health risk to workers exposed to beryllium below
the action level, the establishment and demarcation of beryllium work
areas at any level of airborne exposure will provide additional
protection for these workers by ensuring that they are aware of the
presence of processes that release beryllium. OSHA similarly finds that
Boeing's suggested trigger of 0.02 [micro]g/m\3\ is not suitable
because OSHA has not established a level of exposure at which beryllium
does not pose a risk to workers (see this preamble at Section VI, Risk
Assessment). Therefore, OSHA finds that establishing and demarcating
beryllium work areas wherever processes or operations release beryllium
is more protective. OSHA also does not agree with those commenters who
find the trigger for establishing beryllium work areas vague. As
explained previously, OSHA has modified the beryllium work areas
provision in the final standard for general industry to specify that
the source of the airborne beryllium exposure and potential for dermal
contact triggering the requirement for a beryllium work area must be
generated from a process or operation within that area, not just the
fact that an employee may be handling an article containing beryllium.
An employer can (but is not required to) use air monitoring to
determine the presence of airborne beryllium in the area surrounding
the process, operation, or task that may be releasing beryllium or wipe
sampling to determine the presence of beryllium on surfaces that
workers may come into contact with. Affording the employer such
flexibility to comply with this performance-based provision does not
make it impermissibly vague. Accordingly, OSHA has decided to retain,
as modified, the requirement that beryllium work areas must be
established and maintained where there is a process or operation that
can release beryllium and employees are, or can reasonably be expected
to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any level. However, as
discussed below, OSHA has somewhat modified the definition of beryllium
work areas in response to comments from other stakeholders and NIOSH.
    Two electric utility companies, Southern Company and Ameren
Corporation (Ameren), argued that a work area requirement defined by
any level of airborne beryllium exposure was subjective and would
result in their entire facility falling under this

requirement (Document ID 1668, pp. 3-4; 1675 p. 5). The Aluminum
Association stated that there may be areas where airborne beryllium
exposures are present but have been found through exposure assessments
and monitoring to be insignificant; therefore, beryllium work areas are
overly broad as defined in the proposal and should be dropped from the
final standard (Document ID 1666, p. 2). The American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) also did not agree with
the proposed definition of beryllium work areas because it is not
specific to workplaces where beryllium is used or processed (Document
ID 1685, p. 2). ACOEM argued that airborne beryllium is essentially
ubiquitous at very low levels, and that the proposed definition of
beryllium work areas could be interpreted to apply to most worksites
regardless of work activity. Therefore, ACOEM suggested clarifying the
requirement using language that specifies ``worksites in which any
beryllium or beryllium-containing materials are or have been processed
using methods capable of generating dust or fume'' (Document ID 1685,
p. 2).
    OSHA did not intend a scenario where an entire facility becomes a
beryllium work area from environmental or other non-occupational
sources of beryllium. Nor did the Agency intend to cause the entirety
of any worksite covered by the rule to become a beryllium work area,
even where the amount of airborne beryllium is insignificant in the
sense that it is residually present at very low levels in areas of a
facility where work processes that release airborne beryllium do not
occur. (Note that the best available scientific evidence has not
identified a medically insignificant level of beryllium exposure; as
discussed in Section VI, Risk Assessment, beryllium sensitization has
been found among individuals whose exposures are below the action
level.) Such a situation might occur in a coal-fired electric
generating plant or a foundry where a very small amount of beryllium
may be detectable far away from the processes that released it. To
avoid these unintended consequences, OSHA has modified the beryllium
work areas provision in the final standard for general industry to
specify that the source of the airborne beryllium exposure and
potential for dermal contact triggering the requirement for a beryllium
work area must be generated from a process or operation within that
area. This modification is similar to ACOEM's suggestion to define
beryllium work areas as areas where beryllium or beryllium-containing
materials are or have been processed (Document ID 1685, p. 2). While
the trigger for beryllium work area is based on whether the beryllium
is processed by controlling the release of airborne beryllium from the
particular process, operation, or task, the employer can limit the size
of the beryllium work area and eliminate the likelihood of an entire
facility becoming a beryllium work area. OSHA believes this modified
definition of beryllium work areas addresses the concerns raised by
employers and ACOEM, while also maintaining the protective benefits
associated with beryllium work areas for beryllium-exposed employees.
    In addition to commenting on the level of exposure that should
trigger the establishment and maintenance of a beryllium work area,
NIOSH offered an opinion on the type of exposure that should trigger
beryllium work areas. Specifically, NIOSH argued that limiting the
definition of beryllium work area to employee exposure to airborne
beryllium omits the potential contribution of dermal exposure to total
exposure (Document ID 1725, p. 30). To support its point, NIOSH cited
to Armstrong et al. (2014), which reported that work processes
associated with elevated risk for beryllium sensitization had high air/
high dermal exposure, high air/low dermal exposure, or low air/high
dermal exposure indicating that dermal exposures should be considered
as relevant pathways (Document ID 1725, p. 30). OSHA agrees with NIOSH
and has modified the beryllium work areas section of the final standard
for general industry to include potential dermal exposure.
    OSHA also made two other minor, nonsubstantive changes to the
proposed provision to help streamline the final general industry
standard. First, instead of restating the definition of beryllium work
area in paragraph (e)(1)(i) (as in the proposal), OSHA has modified
final paragraph (e)(1)(i) in the proposal to merely refer to the term
as defined in paragraph (b) of the standard for general industry.
Second, the definition of beryllium work area in the final general
industry standard includes the qualifier ``where employees are, or can
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any
level.'' This is a modification from the proposed beryllium work area
definition wording ``where employees are, or can reasonably be expected
to be, exposed to airborne beryllium, regardless of the level of
exposure.'' Both of these changes were intended only to simplify the
language of the regulatory text and should not be read to suggest a
change in substantive requirements or the Agency's intent.
    The construction and shipyard sectors were not included in the
proposed standard. However, OSHA requested comments on Regulatory
Alternative #2a in the NPRM, which would apply all provisions of the
proposed standard to facilities in construction and shipyards,
including provisions pertaining to the establishment of beryllium work
areas. Following careful consideration of the comments OSHA received
from a variety of stakeholders and from NIOSH on this topic, OSHA has
concluded that the requirement to establish and maintain beryllium work
areas are not appropriate for construction or shipyards. The work
processes (primarily abrasive blasting), worksites, and conditions in
construction and shipyards differ substantially from those typically
found in general industry; as discussed further below, establishment of
beryllium work areas in these sectors is likely to be impractical.
However, OSHA has modified the standards so that most of the protective
measures related to beryllium work areas in the general industry
standard apply to operations in construction and shipyards, using
triggers more suitable for these sectors. Thus, OSHA believes the final
standards for construction and shipyards provide employees protection
similar to employees in general industry, but avoid the difficulties
associated with establishment of beryllium work areas in the context of
abrasive blasting operations in these sectors.
    NIOSH commented that while it supported triggering the requirement
to establish beryllium work areas at any level of airborne exposures,
it is not clear how such a requirement would work in an outdoor
environment (Document ID 1725, p. 30). It explained that it is possible
that even ambient conditions could cause an outdoor work environment to
qualify as a ``beryllium work area'' (Document ID 1725, p. 30). NIOSH
also noted that it was unclear how to delineate beryllium work areas in
an outdoor setting when abrasive blasting the outer hull of a large
ship and questioned how the beryllium work area trigger of any level of
airborne exposure to beryllium could be applied only to that specified
area (Document 1755, Tr. 21). NIOSH further explained that establishing
a beryllium work area for abrasive blasting in an outdoor environment
is difficult because outdoor blasting operations often involve large
structures and constant moving of the operation (Document ID 1755, Tr.
55).

    Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) similarly commented that since
beryllium is primarily encountered in shipyards as a trace element in
coal slag blasting media, the requirement to establish and maintain
beryllium work areas is not appropriate for shipyards. NNS stated,
``[i]t is relatively easy to control a work area to a stated number
such as a permissible exposure limit or an action level, but
controlling `regardless of level of exposure' for a trace contaminant
in dust is impractical'' (Document ID 1657, pp. 1-2).
    Recognizing the difficulties described by NIOSH and NNS, the Agency
decided not to require employers in construction and shipyards to
establish and maintain beryllium work areas. However, OSHA has modified
provisions associated with beryllium work areas in paragraph (f)(1) and
paragraph (h) of the proposed standard so as to provide employees in
all sectors with largely equivalent protective measures. For example,
employers in all sectors are required to create, implement, and
maintain a written exposure control plan that lists jobs and operations
where beryllium exposure may occur, and that documents procedures for
limiting cross-contamination and migration of beryllium (see Summary
and Explanation of paragraph (f)(1)). Similarly, whereas employers in
general industry are required under paragraph (f)(2) to take certain
steps to reduce airborne beryllium in beryllium work areas where
exposures meet or exceed the action level, employers in construction
and shipyards have a nearly identical requirement to take steps to
reduce exposures where exposures meet or exceed the action level. Thus,
the only provisions related to beryllium work areas that apply in
general industry but not in construction and shipyards are those OSHA
is persuaded add protective value in general industry but would be
unworkable or ineffective in the construction and shipyard contexts of
abrasive blasting and outdoor operations, e.g., certain housekeeping
provisions related to surface contamination (see Summary and
Explanation, paragraph (j), Housekeeping, for further discussion).
    Regulated Areas. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of the proposed standard
required employers to establish and maintain regulated areas wherever
employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne
concentrations of beryllium in excess of the TWA PEL or STEL. OSHA
explained that the requirement to establish and maintain regulated
areas would apply if any exposure monitoring or objective data indicate
that airborne exposures are in excess of either the TWA PEL or STEL, or
if the employer has reason to anticipate or believe that airborne
exposures may be above the TWA PEL or STEL, even if the employer has
not yet characterized or monitored those exposures. For example, if
newly introduced processes involving beryllium appear to be creating
dust and have not yet been monitored, the employer should reasonably
anticipate that airborne exposures could exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. In
this situation, the employer would be required to designate the area as
a regulated area to protect workers and other persons until monitoring
results establish that exposures are at or below the TWA PEL and STEL.
In the proposed standard, work in regulated areas triggered additional
requirements for medical surveillance (see Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (k)), PPE (see Summary and Explanation for paragraph (h)),
and hazard communication (see Summary and Explanation for paragraph
(m)). The construction and shipyard sectors were not included in the
proposed standard, but were included in Regulatory Alternative #2a in
the NPRM, which would extend all provisions of the proposed standard
for general industry to construction and shipyards, including
provisions pertaining to regulated areas. OSHA requested comments on
this proposed regulatory alternative.
    OSHA received relatively few comments on the proposed provisions
for regulated areas, which were largely similar to the regulated areas
provisions included in previous substance-specific standards. In
general, commenters did not oppose the concept of regulated areas.
Clive LeGresly with AWE noted that their organization establishes
``Controlled'' beryllium workspaces that align with the final
standards' regulated areas (Document ID 1615, p. 4). However, some
commenters suggested modifications to OSHA's proposed definition of
regulated areas. In their comments, the Sampling and Analysis
Subcommittee Task Group of the Beryllium Health and Safety Committee
(BHSC Task Group) and National Jewish Health (NJH) both supported the
concept of regulated areas but recommended they be established when
exposures are at or above the action level (Document ID 1655, p. 7;
1664, p. 3). Finally, the Department of Defense (DoD) argued that
having both beryllium work areas and regulated areas was confusing and
burdensome, and suggested that the final standard should include only
areas with airborne beryllium above the TWA PEL or STEL, which they
described as better defined and more enforceable than the provisions
for beryllium work areas in the proposed standard (Document ID 1684,
Attachment 2, p. 2). After carefully considering the record on
regulated areas, OSHA has decided to modify some of the provisions
associated with regulated areas to address commenters' concerns where
appropriate, but to retain paragraph (e)(1)(ii) as proposed in the
final standard for general industry. Thus, final paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
in general industry requires employers to establish and maintain a
regulated area wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to
be, exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL.
A detailed discussion of OSHA's decisions and reasoning follows.
    As applied to general industry, OSHA has not accepted the DoD's
suggestion that only work areas where exposures exceed the TWA PEL or
STEL need to be demarcated as limited-access or regulated areas.
Because employees who are exposed to airborne beryllium below the TWA
PEL and STEL and who have dermal contact with beryllium are at risk of
adverse health effects, OSHA finds that it is appropriate to establish
and demarcate beryllium work areas wherever work processes create such
exposures and are primarily located in indoor settings, as OSHA finds
is typical of operations in general industry. As discussed above, the
requirement for the establishment and maintenance of beryllium work
areas is necessary to alert workers to the presence of beryllium and to
trigger basic exposure prevention methods, such as hygiene facilities
and housekeeping. However, it is also appropriate to establish
regulated areas with more stringent requirements, such as respiratory
protection, limited access, and warning signs, where exposures may
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. OSHA concludes that beryllium work areas
and regulated areas serve distinct purposes, and each provides
important protections to employees. Therefore, OSHA has decided to
retain both beryllium work areas and regulated areas in the final
standard for the general industry standard. As explained elsewhere in
this section, OSHA finds that requirements to establish and demarcate
beryllium work areas are not appropriate to operations in construction
and shipyards, and that the objectives of regulated areas are better

achieved through the use of a competent person in construction.
    OSHA has also carefully considered the recommendation by the BHSC
Task Group and NJH to use the action level rather than the TWA PEL or
STEL to trigger the provisions of the proposed standard associated with
regulated areas, and finds that it has some merit. For example, in the
proposed standard, employees who work in regulated areas for more than
30 days in a 12-month period would be eligible for medical
surveillance. Because employees exposed to beryllium at levels below
the TWA PEL are at significant risk of material impairment of health as
a result of their exposure (Section VII, Significance of Risk), OSHA is
persuaded that the action level is a more appropriate trigger for the
provision of medical surveillance. Eligibility for medical surveillance
at the action level is also consistent with previous OSHA standards
where significant risk remains at the TWA PEL, such as the recently
published respirable crystalline silica standard. In addition, because
beryllium sensitization can occur from dermal contact with beryllium
regardless of whether airborne exposures are above or below the TWA PEL
or STEL, OSHA believes it is appropriate to apply PPE requirements much
more broadly than the proposed standard, which relied heavily on work
in regulated areas as a trigger for PPE.
    However, OSHA does not believe that all provisions associated with
regulated areas should apply at exposure levels below the TWA PEL and
STEL. Employers are required to restrict access to regulated areas,
thereby limiting the number of employees potentially exposed to
beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL and limiting others' risk
of serious health effects associated with such exposure. OSHA finds
that lowering the exposure trigger for regulated areas could lead to
the creation of large restricted areas, and therefore large numbers of
employees with access to restricted areas where exposures may range
anywhere between the action level and high above the final PEL. And, as
discussed previously, establishing and demarcating regulated areas
ensures that workers and other persons are aware of the potential
presence of airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL and
ensures that all persons entering regulated areas are made aware of the
dangers of exposure to beryllium at these levels. Moreover, in general
industry, the requirement to demarcate beryllium work areas triggered
by any level of beryllium exposure resulting from a process or
operation, provides awareness for the potential hazard of beryllium
contact or exposure at levels below the action level. For these
reasons, OSHA believes that it is appropriate to retain the proposed
standard's definition of regulated areas and related provisions for
restricted access and demarcation.
    In addition, OSHA finds that it is inappropriate to extend
mandatory provision and use of respirators (triggered by work in
regulated areas in the proposed standard) to all workers whose
exposures meet or exceed the action level. As discussed elsewhere in
this Summary and Explanation, OSHA's longstanding policy is to avoid
issuing standards that result in widespread use of respiratory
protection due to issues of health, safety, and effectiveness that can
occur with employees' regular use of respirators (see Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (f), Methods of Compliance, and paragraph
(g), Respiratory Protection).
    For the reasons described above, OSHA has decided to adopt more
protective triggers for some of the provisions associated with
regulated areas in the proposed standard. OSHA has expanded eligibility
for medical surveillance to employees who work for at least 30 days in
a 12-month period in operations where airborne beryllium exposures meet
or exceed the action level (previously, employees who work for at least
30 days in a 12-month period in a regulated area; see Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (k), Medical Surveillance). OSHA has also
expanded PPE requirements to all employees whose work involves dermal
contact with beryllium (see Summary and Explanation for paragraph (h),
PPE). These expanded PPE requirements in recognition of the dermal risk
posed by beryllium also are responsive to a request from Public Citizen
that beryllium work areas and regulated areas be broadly defined in
order to ensure ``appropriate protections against dermal exposure to
beryllium, and dermal sensitization'' (Document ID 1756, Tr. 176-77).
    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation of paragraph (a), Scope
and application, OSHA received comments from a variety of stakeholders
on Regulatory Alternative #2a presented in the NPRM, which extends all
provisions of the proposed standard to the construction and shipyard
sectors. Following careful consideration of these comments, OSHA
determined that it is appropriate to extend all provisions of the
proposed standard to cover facilities in construction and shipyards,
except where some provisions of the general industry standard may be
inappropriate due to the nature of workplaces or work processes in
construction or shipyards. OSHA has additionally reviewed comments
received on the topic of regulated areas in construction and shipyards,
to determine whether it is appropriate to modify the requirements for
regulated areas in these sectors. Based on its review, as well as
OSHA's previous experience regulating chemical exposures in these
sectors, the Agency has concluded that provisions for regulated areas
(as opposed to the larger beryllium work areas) are appropriate to
include in the final standard for shipyards. In construction, OSHA does
not find regulated area requirements to be appropriate but has decided
instead to require employers to meet the goals of the regulated areas
provisions using a competent person approach, which the Agency believes
will be more effective in construction work settings. OSHA's review of
the record and reasons for these decisions follow.
    In the NPRM, OSHA requested comment on whether the provisions of
the abrasive blasting substandard in the Ventilation standard for
construction (29 CFR 1926.57, paragraph (f)) and the standard for
Mechanical paint removers in shipyards (29 CFR 1915.34(c)) provide
adequate protection to employees exposed to beryllium from abrasive
blasting operations in these sectors. As discussed previously in the
Summary and Explanation for paragraph (a), Scope and application,
commenters argued persuasively that these abrasive blasting standards
do not adequately protect beryllium-exposed construction and shipyard
employees, and that OSHA should extend all provisions of the general
industry standard to these sectors (e.g., Document ID 1679; 1963).
However, the Abrasive Blasting Manufacturers Alliance (ABMA) stated
that the proposed provisions for regulated areas in general industry
would be inconsistent with regulations for abrasive blasting in
shipyards, which do not always require such designated areas (Document
ID 1673, p. 22). A similar concern could apply to requirements for
regulated areas in construction.
    In OSHA's view, the provisions of the abrasive blasting standards
in shipyards and in construction provide important baseline
requirements appropriate to any situation where abrasive blasting is
conducted in these sectors. However, the abrasive blasting standards
are not intended to provide comprehensive requirements for all abrasive
blasting operations, because some operations may involve hazards unique
to the particular process or blast media in use.

Operations that use beryllium-containing blast media present unique
risks of beryllium sensitization and CBD to exposed employees (see
Section V, Health Effects), and thus require protective measures beyond
those of the abrasive blasting standards. As discussed above, regulated
areas and related provisions include requirements that are key to
protecting employees from the effects of beryllium exposure, such as
restricted access, respiratory protection, and warning signs. OSHA
concludes that provisions similar to the requirements for regulated
areas in the final standard for general industry will provide shipyard
employees necessary protection complementing that found in the shipyard
mechanical paint remover standard, and is not in conflict with the
provisions or intent of that standard.
    OSHA has similarly concluded that the beryllium standard should
apply to construction because it will better protect employees exposed
to beryllium while abrasive blasting than application of the
Ventilation standard alone. However, comments in the record and OSHA's
experience regulating chemical exposures in construction indicate that
the establishment of regulated areas is not the most effective way to
ensure that construction employees receive the protections associated
with regulated areas in the general industry standard. This decision is
chiefly based on the Agency's recognition that conditions at
construction worksites present challenges to establishing regulated
areas due to the varied and changing nature of construction work. Some
of these challenges were noted in the preamble to the recent respirable
crystalline silica standard (81 FR 16285) and also apply here. For
example, construction tasks, and specifically abrasive blasting, are
commonly performed outdoors. Exposure-generating tasks could be short
or long in duration and are typically performed at non-fixed
workstations or worksites. Moreover, construction tasks may move to
different locations during the workday. Such conditions could make it
difficult to establish and maintain regulated areas as required by the
general industry and shipyard standards.
    At the same time, OSHA finds that construction workers, like their
counterparts in general industry and shipyards, need to be made aware
of those locations in their workplace where airborne exposures are, or
can reasonably be expected to be, above the TWA PEL or STEL. Therefore,
OSHA has decided to adopt the method that was recently included in the
recent respirable crystalline silica standard for construction, as well
as in some prior construction standards. There, in lieu of establishing
regulated areas, the Agency included a requirement for a designated
competent person to implement procedures in the written exposure
control plan to restrict access to work areas, where necessary, to
limit exposures to respirable crystalline silica to achieve the primary
objectives of a regulated area. OSHA has concluded that a similar
approach is appropriate in this rulemaking. The Agency finds that this
flexible approach balances the unique conditions of the construction
industry with the need to protect construction employees.
    In summary, OSHA has decided to include regulated area requirements
in the final standards for general industry and shipyards. The
requirements to establish and maintain a regulated area wherever
employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne
beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL, can be found in
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of the standard for general industry and (e)(1) of
the standard for shipyards. Other requirements related to regulated
areas, e.g., the requirements to identify and limit access to regulated
areas, are discussed in more detail below. In addition, OSHA has
decided not to include requirements for regulated areas in the final
construction standard, but has provided analogous protections for
construction employees through the competent person provisions in
paragraph (e) of the final construction standard. The competent person
requirements are also discussed in detail below.
    In addition, NIOSH suggested that since demarcated areas may be
difficult to establish and maintain in some construction or maritime
settings, OSHA could consider alternative ways to provide the
protections associated with such areas to employees in these sectors.
For example, respiratory protection could be triggered by exposure to a
threshold airborne level, or dermal protections could be triggered
based on performance of tasks involving dermal contact with beryllium
(Document ID 1755, Tr. 21-22). OSHA has adopted NIOSH's suggestion to
tie certain protective measures to employee inhalation exposures or
dermal contact rather than using the intermediary step of establishing
demarcated areas where such areas are not required in the construction
or maritime sectors. For example, as explained below in the discussion
of competent person requirements, respiratory protection requirements
apply to employees in construction who have or may reasonably be
expected to have airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL. In
addition, requirements for provision and use of PPE are triggered based
on the potential for dermal contact with beryllium in all three
standards (see the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (h), Personal
protective clothing and equipment). Thus, PPE is available to all
employees whose work may involve dermal contact with beryllium,
irrespective of whether they work in an industry where demarcated areas
are required.
    Demarcation of regulated areas. Proposed paragraph (e)(2) included
the requirements for the demarcation of beryllium work areas and
regulated areas. Under proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i), employers were
required to identify each beryllium work area through signs or any
other methods that adequately establish and inform each employee of the
boundaries of each beryllium work area. OSHA explained that the
demarcation must effectively alert workers and other persons that
airborne beryllium may be present. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)
required employers to demarcate each regulated area in accordance with
the paragraph (m)(2) hazard communication provisions of this standard.
OSHA did not further specify requirements for demarcation, proposing
instead to offer employers flexibility in determining the best means to
demarcate beryllium work areas and regulated areas. The Agency
requested comment on each of these proposed provisions, including
whether the standard should specify what types of demarcation employers
must use or take a more performance-oriented approach. See 80 FR 47786.
    OSHA received several comments on demarcation in general industry
and maritime settings. First, NIOSH advocated the need for more
specification on how to demarcate regulated areas (Document ID 1671,
Attachment 1, p. 6). OSHA believes, however, that allowing employers to
choose how to best demarcate regulated areas (as well as beryllium work
areas) is consistent with its preference for performance-based
approaches where, as here, the Agency has determined that employers,
based on their knowledge of the specific conditions of their workplace,
are in the best position to make such determinations. For example, if
an employer knows that exposures in a particular work area might exceed
the PEL on one particular day only, that employer might choose a
temporary method of demarcation. Conversely, an employer might choose
to use a more permanent method of demarcation for a beryllium work area
that contains a

potentially beryllium-releasing operation that occurs daily. In some
workplaces employers might choose to use barricades, in others textured
flooring, roped-off areas, ``No entry''/``No access'' signs, or painted
boundary lines. OSHA generally approves of each of these methods,
provided that the particular method or methods the employer selects are
clear and understandable enough to alert workers to the boundaries of
the beryllium work area or regulated area. This may mean, for example,
including more than one language on a sign, if the inclusion of a
second language would make the sign understandable to a particular
workforce with limited English reading skills.
    OSHA has identified several factors that it considers to be
appropriate considerations for employers when they are determining how
to demarcate beryllium work areas and regulated areas. These factors
include the configuration of the beryllium work area or regulated area;
whether the beryllium work area or regulated area is permanent; the
airborne concentrations of beryllium in the beryllium work area or
regulated area; the number of employees working in areas adjacent to
any beryllium work area or regulated area; and the period of time the
beryllium work area or regulated area is expected to have hazardous
exposures. OSHA also notes that the use of a performance-oriented
approached to the demarcation of regulated areas is consistent with
previous health standards, such as respirable crystalline silica (29
CFR 1910.1053) and chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026).
    Moreover, although proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) allowed employers
to demarcate regulated areas in a variety of ways, it also contained
specific requirements for the posting and wording of a warning sign in
accordance with proposed paragraph (m)(2). OSHA included this
requirement in the proposal because it preliminarily found that
employees must recognize when they are entering a regulated area, and
understand the hazards associated with the area, as well as the need
for respiratory protection. Signs are an effective means of
accomplishing these objectives. Therefore, OSHA included a proposed
requirement for employers to post all entrances to regulated areas with
signs that bear the following legend:

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

Ameren, an electric power utility, objected to the proposal's
demarcation requirement. Specifically, Ameren stated that ``[c]onfined
space areas such as a boiler penthouse during abrasive blasting
activities would be hard to demarcate since the entrance to the
regulated area is small and would block access to the area for
personnel and equipment. It would also be difficult to establish areas
for activities such as cleaning fly ash off of plant piping or
structural steel.'' Ameren suggested alternate, training-based means of
informing employees of beryllium exposures, such as job planning and
job safety briefings (Document ID 1675, p. 11). OSHA disagrees that its
performance-oriented approach does not accommodate these circumstances.
As discussed above, demarcation requirements for beryllium work areas
and regulated areas allow employers maximum flexibility in designing
forms of demarcation that best fit the nature of their facilities and
processes. Forms of demarcation, such as tape, that do not block access
to areas and can be applied in areas where fly ash is cleaned are not
difficult to design or implement. Furthermore, training to inform
employees of the location of beryllium exposures is a valuable
complement to, but should not replace, demarcation in the final
standards. The reinforcement of training with demarcation is an
important protection to ensure that employees, who may work frequently
in beryllium work areas and regulated areas, are continually aware of
the location of beryllium exposures in their workplace. See summary and
Explanation for paragraph (m), discussing employee training
requirements. Also, requirements for demarcation ensure that persons
other than employees, who may enter the worksite but may not receive
training, are adequately informed of the presence of beryllium.
    Commenters also opined on the signage requirement in proposed
paragraph (e)(2)(ii). Specifically, the ABMA argued that the beryllium
specific signs required in the proposed standard for general industry
are not appropriate for use in shipyard abrasive blasting, since this
operation involves potential exposure to a number of hazardous
chemicals (Document ID 1673, p. 22). OSHA disagrees and is maintaining
the sign requirement in the final standards (with slightly altered
language, noted below). Beryllium specific signs are appropriate and
necessary to inform employees and others of the specific health hazards
associated with beryllium exposure. Although employees should also be
made aware of other hazardous chemicals they may be occupationally
exposed to, training and signage regarding these other chemicals must
necessarily be addressed elsewhere, and these concerns should not
preclude OSHA from requiring appropriate warning signs for beryllium
exposure. OSHA notes that in comments from the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, the committee
urged OSHA to implement ``demarcation (through postings of warnings) if
there is abrasive blasting with beryllium containing materials'' by
shipyard workers (Document ID 1672, p. 4).
    After carefully reviewing the record, OSHA finds that the proposed
approach for the demarcation of beryllium work areas and regulated
areas strikes a reasonable balance between the difficulties of
establishing and maintaining these areas with the need to alert those
exposed of the risks involved, to reduce the number of employees
exposed to beryllium, and to protect those employees exposed to high
levels of airborne beryllium. In particular, OSHA finds that the
general performance-oriented approach in the proposed requirements,
when coupled with the specificity of the signage requirements for
regulated areas, provides employers with a good balance of direction
and flexibility. The final standards do not require employers to
establish and demarcate beryllium work areas or regulated areas by
permanently segregating and isolating processes generating airborne
beryllium. Instead, the standards allow employers to use temporary or
flexible methods to demarcate beryllium work areas and regulated areas.
In sum, OSHA finds that these flexible, performance-based requirements
will accommodate open work spaces, changeable plant layouts, and
sporadic or occasional beryllium use without imposing undue costs or
burdens. Therefore, OSHA has decided to include paragraphs (e)(2)(i)
and (e)(2)(ii), as proposed, in the final standard for general industry
and to include regulated areas demarcation requirements in paragraph
(e)(2) of the shipyard standard identical to those of paragraph
(e)(2)(ii) of the general industry standard. However, OSHA notes that
the required legend for the signage has been amended slightly to
include the words ``REGULATED AREA,'' as discussed in the Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (m),

Communication of hazards, in this preamble. (OSHA is not including the
proposed demarcation provisions in the final standard for construction
because, as discussed above, the construction standard does not require
the establishment or maintenance of either beryllium work areas or
regulated areas.)
    Paragraph (e)(3) of the proposed standard required employers to
limit access to regulated areas. Because of the serious health effects
of exposure to beryllium and the need for persons entering the
regulated area to be properly protected, OSHA proposed that the number
of persons allowed to access regulated areas should be limited to: (i)
Persons the employer authorizes or requires to be in a regulated area
to perform work duties; (ii) persons entering a regulated area as
designated representatives of employees for the purposes of exercising
the right to observe exposure monitoring procedures under paragraph
(d)(6) of this standard; and (iii) persons authorized by law to be in a
regulated area.
    The first group, persons the employer authorizes or requires to be
in a regulated area to perform work duties, may include workers and
other persons whose jobs involve operating machinery, equipment, and
processes located in regulated areas; performing maintenance and repair
operations on machinery, equipment, and processes in those areas;
conducting inspections or quality control tasks; and supervising those
who work in regulated areas.
    The second group encompasses persons entering a regulated area as
designated representatives of employees for the purpose of exercising
the right to observe exposure monitoring under paragraph (d)(7). As
explained in the summary and explanation section on paragraph (d) for
exposure assessment, providing employees and their representatives with
the opportunity to observe monitoring is consistent with the OSH Act
and OSHA's other substance-specific health standards, such as those for
respirable crystalline silica (29 CFR 1910.1053), cadmium (29 CFR
1910.1027), and methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052).
    The third group consists of persons authorized by law to be in a
regulated area. This category includes persons authorized to enter
regulated areas by the OSH Act, OSHA regulations, or any other
applicable law. OSHA compliance officers would fall into this group.
    As discussed in the NPRM, limiting access to regulated areas
restricts the number of persons potentially exposed to beryllium at
levels above the TWA PEL or STEL, and thus reduces the risk of
beryllium-related health effects for employees and others who do not
need access to regulated areas. As explained previously in the Summary
and Explanation for paragraph (a), Scope and application, OSHA has
decided to extend all provisions of the general industry standard to
construction and shipyards except where the Agency finds that they are
not appropriate to construction and shipyard settings. OSHA did not
receive comments on this provision in the proposed standard, and did
not receive comments or evidence indicating that restricted access
areas are not appropriate in construction and shipyards. However, as
discussed previously, OSHA has determined that protections associated
with regulated areas in general industry will be more effectively
accomplished with a competent person provision in construction.
    OSHA has therefore decided to retain paragraph (e)(3) as proposed
in the final standard for general industry, and to add an identical
provision to the shipyard standard and an analogous provision to the
construction standard. Thus, final paragraph (e)(3) requires employers
in general industry and shipyards to limit access to regulated areas
to: (i) Persons the employer authorizes or requires to be in a
regulated area to perform work duties; (ii) persons entering a
regulated area as designated representatives of employees for the
purposes of exercising the right to observe exposure monitoring
procedures under paragraph (d)(6) of this standard; and (iii) persons
authorized by law to be in a regulated area. And paragraph (e) of the
construction standard requires the designation of a competent person,
who, among other things, will implement the written exposure control
plan under paragraph (f) of this standard. As discussed in more detail
below, paragraph (f)(1)(i)(H) of the construction standard requires
employers to establish and implement procedures to restrict access to
work areas when airborne exposures are, or can reasonably be expected
to be, above the TWA PEL or STEL, to minimize the number of employees
exposed to airborne beryllium and their level of exposure, including
exposures generated by other employers or sole proprietors.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(4) required employers to provide and ensure
that each employee entering a regulated area uses personal protective
clothing and equipment, including respirators, in accordance with
paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed standard. As discussed in the
NPRM, provisions for respiratory protection and PPE ensure that those
who must enter regulated areas are properly protected, thereby reducing
the risk of serious health effects associated with airborne beryllium
exposure and dermal contact with beryllium. As explained previously in
the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (a), Scope and application,
OSHA has decided to extend all provisions of the general industry
standard to construction and shipyards except where the Agency finds
that they are not appropriate to construction and shipyard settings.
OSHA did not receive comments on this provision in the proposed
standard for general industry, and did not receive comments or evidence
indicating that restricted access areas are not appropriate in
construction and shipyards. However, as discussed previously in this
section, OSHA has determined that protections associated with regulated
areas in general industry will be more effectively accomplished with a
competent person provision in construction.
    OSHA has therefore decided to retain paragraph (e)(4) as proposed
in the final standard for general industry, and to add an identical
provision to the shipyard standard and an analogous provision to the
construction standard. Thus, final paragraph (e)(4) of the general
industry and shipyard standards requires employers to provide and
ensure that each employee entering a regulated area uses respiratory
protection in accordance with paragraph (g) and personal protective
clothing and equipment in accordance with paragraphs (h) of the final
standard for general industry. Wherever employees are, or can
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at levels
above the TWA PEL or STEL in construction settings, paragraph (e) of
the construction standard requires the employer to designate a
competent person to ensure that all employees use respiratory
protection and PPE in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of the
standard.
    Competent Person (Construction). To balance the unique conditions
present in the construction industry with the need to protect
construction industry employees from high airborne exposures, OSHA has
chosen to adopt an approach in the construction standard for
restricting access to high-exposure areas similar to that used in the
recent respirable crystalline silica standard for construction. This
approach requires the employer to designate a competent person or
persons, who will, among other things, implement the written exposure
control plan, including procedures used to

restrict access to work areas when airborne exposures are, or can
reasonably be expected to be, above the TWA PEL or STEL; ensure that
all employees use respiratory protection in accordance with paragraph
(g) of this standard; and ensure that all employees use personal
protective clothing and equipment in accordance with paragraph (h) of
this standard. OSHA finds this approach offers construction employers a
flexible means of providing protection to their employees.
    The competent person requirement is a well-known and accepted
concept in OSHA standards; competent person provisions are included in
at least 20 of OSHA's construction standards, including OSHA substance-
specific standards for construction, such as lead (29 CFR 1926.62),
asbestos (29 CFR 1926.1101), cadmium (29 CFR 1926.1127), and respirable
crystalline silica (29 CFR 1926.1153). In addition, OSHA's general
safety and health provisions for construction require the employer to
initiate and maintain programs for accident prevention, as may be
necessary, and such programs require frequent and regular inspections
of job sites, materials, and equipment by a designated competent person
(29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1) and (2)).
    Competent person provisions are also commonly included in American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards for construction. NIOSH
and its state partners also routinely recommend the need for, and role
of, designated competent persons in investigation reports conducted
under NIOSH's Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation program. Thus,
OSHA finds that the use of a competent person is consistent with
current industry practices in that many construction employers are
already using a designated competent person.
    Moreover, although OSHA did not include a competent person
requirement in the proposed rule, stakeholders indicated that such a
requirement would be appropriate if the Agency chose to include the
construction industry within the scope of this rulemaking. For example,
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) testified that beryllium
construction work should be done under the supervision of a competent
person (Document ID 1756, Tr. 231-232). NABTU added that the most
important point of having a competent person designated in the standard
is to ensure there is an agent of the employer on site who has the
appropriate authority to correct hazards (Document ID 1805, Attachment
1, p. 4).
    Based on these comments and the reasons described above, OSHA has
decided to include competent person requirements in the final rule for
construction, instead of requiring regulated areas. In paragraph (b) of
the construction standard, OSHA defines competent person as an
individual who is capable of identifying existing and foreseeable
beryllium hazards in the workplace and who has authorization to take
prompt corrective measures to eliminate or minimize them. The
definition also specifies that the competent person must have the
knowledge, ability, and authority necessary to fulfill the
responsibilities set forth in paragraph (e) of the construction
standard.
    In order to craft an appropriate definition for this term, OSHA
considered stakeholder comments, including NABTU's above comments on
the need for a competent person in the construction standard, and the
definition of competent person in the safety and health regulations for
construction (29 CFR 1926.32(f)). Under 29 CFR 1926.32(f), competent
person is defined as a person capable of identifying existing and
predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions that are
unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees and who is authorized
to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them. OSHA's definition
for competent person in the construction standard is consistent with
the 1926.32(f) definition with several minor changes. For example, the
Agency tailored this definition to beryllium by specifying ``beryllium
hazards'' instead of ``unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous''
conditions. In addition, OSHA replaced the word ``one'' with
``individual,'' which is merely an editorial change. The Agency also
removed the phrase ``in the surroundings or working conditions'' and
changed it to ``in the workplace'' to make it specific to the
workplace. And the Agency removed the phrase ``to eliminate them'' and
changed it to ``to eliminate or minimize them'' to denote there may be
cases where complete elimination would not be feasible. Finally, OSHA
changed ``predictable'' to ``foreseeable'' to make the wording
consistent with the scope of this construction standard (paragraph
(a)).
    OSHA also decided that it was important to detail the necessary
characteristics and authority of a competent person in the standard to
ensure that he or she is truly competent to carry out the tasks
designated under paragraph (e). Thus, under paragraph (b) of the
construction standard, the competent person must have the knowledge,
ability, and authority necessary to fulfill the responsibilities set
forth in paragraph (e) of the construction standard. However, OSHA has
chosen not to specify particular training requirements for competent
persons. The Agency finds that it is not practical to specify in the
rule the elements and level of training required for a competent
person. And the Agency does not find it appropriate to mandate a ``one
size fits all'' set of training requirements to establish the
competency of competent persons in every conceivable construction
setting. Therefore, the training requirement for a competent person is
performance-oriented. This approach is consistent with most OSHA
construction standards, such as cadmium (29 CFR 1926.1127), lead (29
CFR 1926.62) and respirable crystalline silica (1926.1153), which
include a performance-based approach by not specifying training or
qualifications required for a competent person.
    Like the regulated area provisions in general industry and
shipyards, paragraph (e)(1) of the construction standard applies
wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to
airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL. As discussed in
more detail above with regard to the establishment and maintenance of
regulated areas in general industry and shipyards, OSHA finds that this
exposure level trigger is appropriate for provisions such as this one.
    Paragraph (e) of the standard for construction further specifies
that wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be,
exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL, the
employer shall designate a competent person to: (1) Make frequent and
regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment; (2)
implement the written exposure control plan under paragraph (f) of this
standard; (3) ensure that all employees use respiratory protection in
accordance with paragraph (g) of this standard; and (4) ensure that all
employees use personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance
with paragraph (h) of this standard. OSHA finds that these
responsibilities, together, offer construction employees similar
protection to those afforded to general industry and shipyard employees
while offering construction employers more flexibility to suit their
workplaces.
    Under paragraph (e)(1) of the construction standard, the competent
person must make frequent and regular

inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment. OSHA included this
requirement in order to ensure that the competent person has the
necessary information to carry out the rest of his or her duties. For
example, the competent person's second responsibility (as discussed
below) is to implement the written exposure control plan under
paragraph (f) of this standard. Among other things, the written
exposure control plan includes procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D)). In order to implement these
procedures on a construction worksite, the competent person may need to
know about the unique characteristics of the jobsite and the materials
and equipment used therein. Similarly, in order to carry out his or her
duty to implement the procedures used to restrict access to work areas
when airborne exposures are, or can reasonably be expected to be, above
the TWA PEL or STEL, and to minimize the number of employees exposed to
airborne beryllium and their level of exposure, including exposures
generated by other employers or sole proprietors, as required by
paragraph (f)(1)(i)(I), the competent person will equally need to be
familiar with the jobsite, materials, and equipment in order to know
where high exposures might occur.
    Under paragraph (e)(2) of the construction standard, OSHA is
requiring that the competent person implement the written exposure
control plan because the plan specifies what must be done to
consistently identify and control beryllium hazards on a job site. See
Summary and Explanation for paragraph (f), Written exposure control
plan. In construction, a competent person is needed to ensure that the
requirements of the written exposure control plan are being met under
variable conditions. The subjects that must be included in the written
exposure control plan for construction are consistent with the duties
of a competent person in past OSHA standards. Therefore, this
requirement should be familiar to construction employers covered by
this standard.
    In addition, under paragraph (f)(1)(i)(I) the written exposure
control plan must contain procedures used to restrict access to work
areas when airborne exposures are, or can reasonably be expected to be,
above the TWA PEL or STEL, to minimize the number of employees exposed
to airborne beryllium and their level of exposure, including exposures
generated by other employers or sole proprietors. By requiring the
competent person to implement these procedures, OSHA is offering
similar protection to construction employees as given to general
industry and shipyard employees through the regulated area provisions
in the general industry and shipyard standards.
    OSHA is cognizant that the written exposure control plan
requirement regarding the exposures generated by other employers or
sole proprietors is important in construction because at multi-employer
worksites, the actions of one employer may expose employees of other
employers to hazards. A competent person can help communicate hazards
to other employers. OSHA expects that the employers or their competent
persons will work with general contractors at construction sites to
avoid high exposures of employees working alongside others by
implementing administrative procedures such as scheduling high-exposure
tasks when others will not be in the area. However, if this does not
occur, the competent person has authority to implement other
administrative procedures that would be effective for protecting
employees in situations where an employer was not made aware that
another employer or sole proprietor would be conducting abrasive
blasting operations on the worksite. Upon encountering such situations
on a worksite, the competent person is expected to remind employees to
stay away from the abrasive blasting site and make sure that employees
he or she oversees are positioned at a safe distance from the abrasive
blasting activity
    In addition to limiting access to high exposure areas, the standard
for construction requires the competent person to ensure that employees
use respiratory protection and personal protective clothing and
equipment while in high exposure areas (paragraph (e)(3)-(4)). This is
an important requirement because without demarcated regulated areas,
employees would not have signs to remind them of the need to use such
protective equipment. It is therefore the competent person's
responsibility to provide the necessary warnings.
    OSHA is not requiring a competent person for the general industry
and shipyard standards. OSHA has determined that in most cases, general
industry scenarios are not as variable as those in construction. For
example, most work is performed indoors and therefore, not subject to
variables such as wind shifts and moving exposure sources that could
significantly affect exposures or complicate establishment of regulated
areas. Employers covered under the general industry and shipyard
standards are more likely to have health and safety professionals on
staff who could assist with implementation of the standard. Finally,
competent persons have not been included in other OSHA substance-
specific standards for general industry. For example, a competent
person requirement was included in the construction standard for
cadmium because of environmental variability and the presence of
multiple employers on the job site, but a competent person requirement
was not included in the general industry standard for cadmium (29 CFR
1910.1027; 29 CFR 1926.1127; 57 FR 42101, 42382 (9/14/1992)). A
competent person requirement was included in the construction standard
for respirable crystalline silica for similar reasons (81 FR 16811).
These factors explain and support OSHA's conclusion that there is no
regulatory need for including a competent person requirement in the
beryllium standards for general industry and shipyards.

(f) Methods of Compliance

    Paragraph (f) of the standards establishes methods for reducing
employee exposure to beryllium through the use of a written exposure
control plan and engineering and work practice controls. Paragraph
(f)(1)(i) of each of the standards requires employers to establish,
implement, and maintain a written exposure control plan and specifies
the information that must be included in the plan. Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)
establishes requirements for employers to review their plan(s) at least
annually and update it under specified circumstances. Finally,
paragraph (f)(1)(iii) requires employers to make a copy of the written
exposure control plan accessible to each employee who is, or can
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.
    Paragraph (f)(2) of the final standards requires employers to
implement engineering and work practice controls to reduce beryllium
exposures to employees. Where airborne exposure exceeds the TWA PEL or
STEL, the employer must implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce airborne exposure to or below the exceeded exposure
limit(s). Wherever the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to
reduce airborne exposure to or below the PELs by engineering and work
practice controls, the employer must implement and maintain engineering
and work practice controls to reduce airborne exposure to the lowest
levels feasible and supplement these controls by using respiratory
protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this standard. In
addition,

paragraph (f)(2) includes limited requirements for implementation of
exposure controls where operations release airborne beryllium exceeding
the action level. Finally, paragraph (f)(3) prohibits the employer from
rotating employees to different jobs to achieve compliance with the TWA
PEL and STEL.
    Paragraph (f)(1)(i) of the proposed rule would have required
employers to establish, implement, and maintain a written exposure
control plan for beryllium work areas, containing an inventory of
operations and job titles reasonably expected to have exposure at or
above the action level; an inventory of operations and job titles
reasonably expected to have exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL;
procedures for minimizing cross-contamination, keeping surfaces in the
beryllium work area as free as practicable of beryllium; minimizing the
migration of beryllium from beryllium work areas to other locations
within or outside the workplace, and removal, laundering, storage,
cleaning, repairing, and disposal of beryllium-contaminated personal
protective clothing and equipment, including respirators; and an
inventory of engineering and work practice controls required by
paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed standard.
    Several commenters offered broad support for the inclusion of
paragraph (f)(1)'s provisions in the final rule (e.g., Document ID
1681, Attachment 1, p. 9; 1689, p. 11; 1690, p. 1). For example, United
Steelworkers (USW) stated: ``[a] written plan will help to ensure that
exposure controls and safety practices are continually followed. This
will also provide workers and other stakeholders with information
necessary in evaluating the health and safety protections and
provisions provided by the employer'' (Document ID 1681, p. 9). The
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO) also supported the inclusion of written exposure control plan
requirements (Document ID 1689, p. 11). It argued that ``[r]equiring
employers to properly make use of a written plan is an essential tool
for continuously controlling exposures and using proper safety
practices'' (Document ID 1689, p. 11). The National Council for
Occupational Safety and Health (National COSH) agreed, stating that
``[a] comprehensive program to protect workers from these exposures,
that includes a requirement for a written beryllium control plan,
regular exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, medical removal
protection benefits, and training would provide much needed protection
for beryllium exposed workers'' (Document ID 1690, p. 1). Written
exposure control plan requirements were also included in the draft
proposed rule submitted to the Agency by Materion Corporation
(Materion) and United Steelworkers (USW) (Document ID 0754, p. 6).
    OSHA agrees with the opinions expressed by these commenters.
Requiring employers to articulate where exposures occur and how those
exposures will be controlled will help to ensure that they have a
complete understanding of the controls needed to comply with the rule.
Thus, OSHA expects a written exposure control plan will be instrumental
in ensuring that employers comprehensively and consistently protect
their employees. Consequently, the Agency has decided to include
written exposure control plan requirements in paragraph (f)(1) of the
final standards.
    In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA explained that adherence to
the written exposure control plan will help reduce skin contact with
beryllium, which can lead to beryllium sensitization, and airborne
exposure, which can lead to beryllium sensitization, CBD, and lung
cancer (80 FR 47787). Because skin contact and airborne exposure can
occur in any workplace within the scope of the standard, OSHA
preliminarily decided to require a written exposure control plan for
all employers within the scope of the standard.
    OSHA received comments regarding the proposed trigger for written
exposure control plan requirements. For example, NGK Metals Corporation
(NGK) argued that requiring employers to develop and maintain a written
exposure control plan for facilities where exposures are below the
action level is burdensome, and recommended that the written plan be
required only where exposures exceed the action level (Document ID
1663, p. 2). EEI asserted that a requirement for a written exposure
control plan should apply to areas where exposures meet or exceed the
action level or PEL, so as to be consistent with other health standards
(Document ID 1674, p. 13).
    OSHA has re-examined the provisions of (f)(1) in light of these
comments and reaffirms its preliminary decision to require all
employers within the scope of the standard to establish, implement, and
maintain a written exposure control plan. The Agency finds that the
requirements that apply where exposures are below the action level
(e.g., a list of operations and job titles reasonably expected to
involve airborne exposure or dermal contact with beryllium;
descriptions of procedures for handling beryllium-contaminated PPE and
respirators; and descriptions of procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination and migration of beryllium) are important to preventing
beryllium sensitization and CBD, and are not overly burdensome.
Moreover, many of the requirements in the plan are intended to
complement the housekeeping and hygiene requirements that all
facilities in the scope of the standard must already meet, and do not
create significant burdens for employers beyond documentation of their
procedures for meeting the requirements of other paragraphs in the
standards, such as (h) Personal protective clothing and equipment, (i)
Hygiene areas and practices, and (j) Housekeeping.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A)-(H) set forth the required contents
of the written exposure control plan. Under the proposal, the
employer's written exposure control plan was required to include: (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 limiting
beryllium contamination, including but not limited to preventing the
transfer of beryllium between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials,
and articles within the beryllium work area; (5) procedures for keeping
surfaces in the beryllium work area as 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
used by the employer to comply with paragraph (f)(2) of this standard;
and (8) procedures for removal, laundering, storage, cleaning,
repairing, and disposal of beryllium-contaminated personal protective
clothing and equipment, including respirators.
    Stakeholders offered comments on the proposed written control plan
contents. For example, the Boeing Company suggested that OSHA should
revise the proposed provision requiring ``procedures for keeping
surfaces in the beryllium work area as free as practicable of
beryllium'' to define specific surface contaminant levels (Document ID
1667, p. 4). The apparent advantage of providing a target surface
contaminant level is that employers could use surface sampling to
determine whether they are in compliance with the standard's
requirements for surface cleaning. However, as OSHA explained

in the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (j), Housekeeping, the
relationship between a precise amount of surface contamination and
health risk is unknown. Therefore, OSHA cannot find that a particular
level of contamination is safe. Rather, OSHA has determined that
keeping surfaces as clean as practicable is appropriate because
promptly removing beryllium deposits prevents them from becoming
airborne, thus reducing employees' inhalation exposure, and helps to
minimize the likelihood of skin contact with beryllium. Moreover, the
term ``free as practicable'' is accepted language and has been used in
previous standards, such as standards addressing exposure to lead and
chromium (VI). Consequently, OSHA has decided to retain the ``free as
practicable'' language in the final rule for general industry. (As
discussed in more detail below, the final standards for construction
and shipyards do not include this requirement.)
    After careful consideration of the record, OSHA reaffirms the need
for the written exposure control plan to contain each of the provisions
included in the proposal. This written record of which operations and
job titles are likely to have exposures at certain levels and which
housekeeping provisions and engineering and work practice controls the
company has selected to control exposures required in paragraph (f)
will make it easier for employers to implement monitoring, hygiene
practices, housekeeping, engineering and work practice controls, and
other measures. The provisions contained in (f)(1)(i)(D), (E), (F), and
(H) of the proposed rule will work to minimize the spread of beryllium
throughout and outside the workplace and to reduce the likelihood of
skin contact and re-entrainment of beryllium particulate.
    Therefore, OSHA has decided to retain the proposed contents of the
written exposure control plan in the standard for general industry,
with the following revisions. First, OSHA has modified the proposed
requirement to include an inventory of operations and job titles
reasonably expected to have exposure, including by dermal contact. As
discussed in detail in the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (h),
Personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE), OSHA finds that it is
important to protect employees from dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA
therefore finds that the written exposure control plan should inform
employees and others of jobs and operations where dermal contact with
beryllium is reasonably expected, and has added dermal contact with
beryllium to paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) of the final standards. Thus, the
final standard for general industry requires the employer to include a
list of operations and job titles reasonably expected to involve
airborne exposure to beryllium or dermal contact with beryllium in
their written exposure control plan(s).
    Second, OSHA modified the language of proposed paragraphs
(f)(1)(i)(A), (B), (C), and (G) by replacing the term ``inventory''
with the term ``list''. This change in wording does not imply a change
in the intent of the provision. Rather, OSHA made this change to
clarify the Agency's intent to require employers to simply identify
jobs, operations and controls that match the criteria of these
provisions, and that employers are not required to provide more
extensive description of such jobs and operations. Third, OSHA modified
(f)(1)(i)(D) by deleting ``but not limited to'' from the phrase
``including but not limited to preventing the transfer of beryllium'',
because the term ``including'' implies that the examples to follow are
not intended to be exhaustive. This change in wording does not imply a
change in the intent of the provision.
    Fourth, OSHA has edited the proposed text, which required an
``inventory'' of operations and job titles reasonably expected to
``have'' exposure; exposure at or above the action level; and exposure
above the TWA PEL or STEL. The final text requires a ``list'' of
operations and job titles reasonably expected to ``involve'' airborne
exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium; airborne exposure at or
above the action level; and airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or
STEL. This is an editorial change to provide greater clarity to better
describe the actual requirement, and does not change the intent of the
provision. Fifth, OSHA modified the proposed requirement to inventory
engineering and work practice controls required by paragraph (f)(2) of
this standard to include respiratory protection. This change ensures
that the respiratory protection requirement, which is included in
(f)(2)(iv) of the final standards, is treated in the same manner as the
engineering and work practices control requirements in (f)(2)(i) and
(f)(2)(iii).
    Finally, OSHA has included one additional provision in the final
rule for general industry that was not contained in the proposal.
Specifically, paragraph (f)(1)(i)(H) of the final rule requires
employers to include within their written exposure control plan a list
of personal protective clothing and equipment required by paragraph (h)
of this standard. This provision is added in recognition of the
importance of personal protective clothing and equipment in protecting
exposed employees, particularly those employees who may have dermal
contact with beryllium. With the addition of this new provision,
proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(H) (regarding procedures for removal,
laundering, storage, cleaning, repairing, and disposal of beryllium-
contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment, including
respirators) has been redesignated as paragraph (f)(1)(i)(I) of the
final rule for general industry.
    OSHA has incorporated most provisions of the proposed paragraph
(f)(1)(i) into the final standards for construction and shipyards, with
certain modifications due to the work processes and worksites
particular to these sectors. As explained in the Summary and
Explanation for paragraph (j), Housekeeping, OSHA has determined that
abrasive blasting operations are the primary source of beryllium
exposure in the construction and shipyard sectors and has chosen not to
include provisions related to surface cleaning in the final standards
for these sectors due to the extreme difficulty of maintaining clean
surfaces during blasting operations. OSHA has therefore decided to
exclude the provision regarding procedures for keeping surfaces as free
as practicable of beryllium (proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E)) from the
construction and shipyard standards. And due to the difficulty of
controlling contamination during blasting operations, OSHA has decided
to include a more performance-oriented provision on cross-contamination
in the standards for construction and shipyards than in paragraph
(f)(1)(i)(D) of the general industry standard. Employers are still
required to establish and implement procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination of beryllium in construction and shipyard industries.
However, the written exposure control plan provision on cross-
contamination simply requires ``procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination''; it does not specify ``procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination, including preventing the transfer of beryllium between
surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, and articles within beryllium
work areas'' as in general industry. OSHA has included the proposed
provision for minimizing the migration of beryllium in the standards
for construction and shipyards, but has removed the reference to
beryllium work areas since these are not established in construction

and shipyards. The written exposure control plan provision on migration
in these sectors requires the plan to include ``procedures for
minimizing the migration of beryllium within or to locations outside
the workplace.''
    Because the requirements pertaining to surfaces contained in final
paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E) of the general industry standard do not appear
in the construction and shipyard standards, the numbering of the
provisions differs from that of the general industry standard. For the
construction and shipyard standards, requirements pertaining to the
migration of beryllium appear in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(E); requirements
for a list of engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory
protection are in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(F); requirements for a list of
personal protective clothing and equipment are in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i)(G); and requirements pertaining to removal, laundering,
storage, cleaning, repairing, and disposal of beryllium-contaminated
personal protective clothing and equipment, including respirators,
appear in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(H). Additional discussion of some of
these requirements may be found in this section of the preamble,
Summary and Explanation, at paragraph (h), Personal Protective Clothing
and Equipment; paragraph (i), Hygiene Areas and Practices; and
paragraph (j), Housekeeping.
    OSHA has also included paragraph (f)(1)(i)(I) in the construction
standard only, requiring employers in the construction sector to
establish, implement and maintain procedures to restrict access where
airborne exposures are, or can reasonably be expected to be, above the
TWA PEL or STEL. This addition is related to OSHA's decision, explained
in the Summary and Explanation of paragraph (e), not to include a
requirement to establish regulated areas in the construction standard,
and to achieve the protective benefits associated with regulated areas
by other means. In the general industry and shipyard standards, the
employer must limit access to regulated areas to persons who are
authorized or required to be in a regulated area to perform work
duties, observation, or other limited circumstances. OSHA has
determined that restricting access to areas where airborne exposures
exceed or may reasonably be expected to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL is
appropriate to reduce employees' and others' risk of adverse health
effects associated with airborne beryllium exposure. OSHA has therefore
established alternative methods to ensure that construction employees
do not enter such areas unnecessarily. To this end, the final standard
for construction includes paragraph (f)(1)(i)(I), which requires
employers to establish, implement and maintain procedures used to
restrict access to work areas when airborne exposures are, or can
reasonably be expected to be, above the TWA PEL or STEL, in order to
minimize the number of employees exposed to airborne beryllium and
their level of exposure, including exposures generated by other
employers or sole proprietors. Significantly, the construction standard
additionally includes paragraph (e), Competent Person, which requires
employers to designate a competent person to implement the written
exposure control plan. The competent person is therefore responsible
for ensuring that the procedures to restrict access are followed in the
workplace.
    National Jewish Health (NJH) submitted a comment to OSHA regarding
the importance of training, labeling, housekeeping measures, restricted
entry to beryllium-contaminated areas, and technologies such as sticky
mats and boot scrubbers in controlling employees' exposure to
beryllium. NJH requested that OSHA emphasize the importance of such
measures in paragraph (f) of these standards (Document ID 1664, p. 6).
OSHA agrees with NJH that all of these approaches are helpful, and in
some cases essential, to reducing employees' exposure. Training and
some forms of labeling and access restriction are specifically required
in other paragraphs of the standards. Specific tools such as sticky
mats and boot scrubbers are not required in the standards, but are
approaches employers should consider as part of their control
procedures. All of the methods mentioned by NJH are ways to limit
migration of beryllium and cross-contamination, and are therefore
appropriate for inclusion in an employer's written exposure control
plan(s).
    The final standards' paragraph (f)(1)(i) differs from the proposal
in that it requires a written exposure control plan for each facility,
whereas the proposal would have required a written exposure control
plan for beryllium work areas within each facility. In addition, OSHA
has removed the phrase ``in the beryllium work area'' from provision
(f)(1)(i)(E) of the final standard for general industry, so that it now
reads: ``Procedures for keeping surfaces as free as practicable of
beryllium''. OSHA made these changes because it changed the definition
of a ``beryllium work area'' in the proposed standard for general
industry. The proposed standard defined a beryllium work area to
include any area where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to
be, exposed to airborne beryllium, regardless of the level of exposure.
As discussed previously in the Summary and Explanation for paragraph
(e), the final standard for general industry defines a beryllium work
area to include only those areas containing a process or operation that
releases beryllium where employees are, or can reasonably be expected
to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any level or where there is the
potential for dermal contact with beryllium. Accordingly, OSHA made
these changes to the wording of (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(i)(E) to maintain
the intent of proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A), to require employers to
list all jobs and operations throughout their facilities involving
beryllium exposure, and paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E) to control dermal
contact with beryllium wherever airborne beryllium may settle on
surfaces in their facilities. If employers' procedures to prevent
migration of beryllium from work areas to other areas of the facility
are fully effective (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F)), further steps to keep
surfaces as free as practicable of beryllium will not be necessary.
However, if the employer is unable to consistently prevent transfer of
beryllium from work areas to other areas of the facility, the employer
must develop and implement additional procedures to keep surfaces
outside of the beryllium work areas as free as practicable of
beryllium.
    Paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule would have required the
employer to update the exposure control plan when: (A) Any change in
production processes, materials, equipment, personnel, work practices,
or control methods results or can reasonably be expected to result in
new or additional exposures to beryllium; (B) an employee is confirmed
positive, is diagnosed with CBD, or shows signs or symptoms associated
with exposure; or (C) the employer has any reason to believe that new
or additional exposures are occurring or will occur. OSHA did not
receive any comments on this provision. However, as noted in the
proposal, employers such as Materion and Axsys Technologies, who have
worked to identify and document the exposure sources associated with
cases of sensitization and CBD in their facilities, have used this
information to develop and update beryllium exposure control plans
(Document ID 0634; 0473; 0599). OSHA found that this process, whereby
an employer uses employee health outcome data to check and improve the
effectiveness of the employer's exposure

control plan, is consistent with other performance-oriented aspects of
these standards. Thus, after considering the record on this issue, OSHA
has decided to retain proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) in the final rule,
with the modifications discussed below, to ensure that the employer's
plan reflects the current conditions in the workplace.
    The first modification is that OSHA added a requirement to review
and evaluate the effectiveness of each written exposure control plan at
least annually. OSHA finds that an annual review is appropriate because
workplace conditions can change. In addition, by requiring employers to
check the effectiveness of their plans annually, the standards offer
employers the opportunity to better protect their employees by
reflecting on any lessons learned throughout the previous year. The
final annual review requirement is consistent with previous OSHA
standards, such as the standards addressing bloodborne pathogens (29
CFR 1910.1030) and respirable crystalline silica (29 CFR 1910.1053).
    Second, OSHA changed the proposed language of (f)(1)(ii)(B), which
would have required employers to update their written exposure control
plans when an employee is confirmed positive for beryllium
sensitization, is diagnosed with CBD, or shows signs or symptoms
associated with exposure. This change is related to another change from
the proposed standard, which would have required notification of
employers whenever an employee is confirmed positive for beryllium
sensitization. As explained in the Summary and Explanation for
paragraph (k), Medical Surveillance, OSHA has modified this provision
so that employers are not automatically notified of cases of
sensitization or CBD among their employees. However, employers will
receive a written medical opinion from the licensed physician that may
include a referral for an evaluation at a CBD Diagnostic Center (see
(k)(6)(iii)) or a recommendation for medical removal from exposure to
beryllium (see (k)(6)(v)). An employee may also provide the employer
with a written medical report indicating a confirmed positive finding
or CBD diagnosis. Final paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) has been revised from
the proposal to reflect the circumstances under the final standards
where an employer will be notified that an employee has, or may have, a
beryllium-related health effect. This includes when the employer is
notified that an employee is eligible for medical removal in accordance
with paragraph (l)(1) of the standard (i.e., when the employee provides
the employer with a written medical report indicating a confirmed
positive finding or CBD diagnosis, or the employer receives a written
medical opinion recommending removal from exposure to beryllium); when
the employer is notified that an employee is referred for evaluation at
a CBD Diagnostic Center, or when an employee shows signs and symptoms
associated with exposure. Third, OSHA further modified (f)(1)(ii)(B) to
clarify the Agency's understanding that signs and symptoms may be
related to inhalation or dermal exposure, as discussed in Section V,
Health Effects. Final paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) therefore refers to signs
and symptoms of ``airborne exposure to or dermal contact with
beryllium''. Fourth, OSHA modified the wording of (f)(1)(ii) to require
the employer to update ``each'' written exposure control plan rather
than ``the'' written exposure control plan, since an employer who
operates multiple facilities is required to establish, implement and
maintain a written exposure control plan for each facility.
    Paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the final standards thus requires the
employer to review and evaluate the effectiveness of each written
exposure control plan at least annually and update it when: (A) Any
change in production processes, materials, equipment, personnel, work
practices, or control methods results or can reasonably be expected to
result in new or additional airborne exposure to beryllium; (B) the
employer is notified that an employee is eligible for medical removal
in accordance with paragraph (l)(1) of this standard, referred for
evaluation at a CBD Diagnostic Center, or shows signs or symptoms
associated with airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium;
or (C) the employer has any reason to believe that new or additional
airborne exposure is occurring or will occur.
    Paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of the proposed rule would have required the
employer to make a copy of the exposure control plan accessible to each
employee who is or can reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborne
beryllium in accordance with OSHA's Access to Employee Exposure and
Medical Records (Records Access) standard (29 CFR 1910.1020(e)). As
discussed above and in the NPRM, access to the exposure control plan
will enable employees to partner with their employers in keeping the
workplace safe. OSHA did not receive comments specific to this
provision, and has decided to retain it in the final standard for
general industry and include it in the final standards for construction
and shipyards.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2) established a hierarchy of controls that
employers must use to reduce beryllium exposures. This paragraph
required employers to rely on engineering and work practice controls as
the primary means to reduce exposures. As a general matter, where
airborne exposure exceeded the TWA PEL or STEL, proposed paragraph
(f)(2) required employers to implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce airborne exposure to or below the PELs. Wherever the
employer demonstrated that it is not feasible to reduce airborne
exposure to or below the PELs through the use of engineering and work
practice controls, the employer would have been required to implement
and maintain engineering and work practice controls to reduce airborne
exposure to the lowest levels feasible and supplement these controls by
using respiratory protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this
standard. In addition, proposed paragraph (f)(2) included limited
requirements for implementation of exposure controls for each operation
in a beryllium work area.
    OSHA's long-standing hierarchy of controls policy was supported by
a number of commenters, including USW; the Sampling and Analysis
Subcommittee Task Group of the Beryllium Health and Safety Committee
(BHSC Task Group); AWE; AFL-CIO; 3M; and National Jewish Health (e.g.,
Document ID 1963, p. 12; 1655, pp. 8, 16; 1618, p. 8 (pdf); 1689, p.
11; 1625, p. 6 (pdf); 1664, p. 6). For example, the BHSC Task Group
stated that OSHA's mandate ``to assure safe and healthy workplaces
requires it to reinforce fundamental industrial hygiene tenets. Prime
among these is application of a hierarchy of controls'' (Document ID
1655, p. 16). Similarly, 3M indicated that it ``agree[d] with OSHA that
the hierarchy of controls--effective engineering and work practice
controls--should be the primary means to help reduce employee exposures
to beryllium and its compounds'' (Document ID 1625, p. 6 (pdf)). 3M
added that ``when engineering controls and work practices cannot reduce
employee exposure to beryllium to below the PEL, then the employer must
protect employees' respiratory health through the use of respirators''
(Document ID 1625, p. 6 (pdf)). NJH added that

. . . engineering and/or work practice controls are critical in
reducing beryllium exposure and we have consulted with clients on
this issue. In identifying controls, using the hierarchy of
industrial controls to start with elimination or substitution . . .
followed by engineering controls and process

controls such as enclosures, local exhaust ventilation, and wet
methods . . . is crucial (Document ID 1664, p. 6).

    After a careful review of the record, OSHA concludes that requiring
primary reliance on engineering and work practice controls is necessary
and appropriate because reliance on these methods is consistent with
good industrial hygiene practice, with the Agency's experience in
ensuring that workers have a healthy workplace, and with OSHA's
traditional adherence to a hierarchy of controls. The Agency finds that
engineering controls are reliable, provide consistent levels of
protection to a large number of workers, can be monitored continually
and inexpensively, allow for predictable performance levels, and can
efficiently remove toxic substances from the workplace. Once removed,
the toxic substances no longer pose a threat to employees. The
effectiveness of engineering controls does not generally depend to any
substantial degree on human behavior, and the operation of control
equipment is not as vulnerable to human error as is personal protective
equipment.
    OSHA has identified several key methods of reducing exposures: (1)
Substitution; (2) isolation (e.g., enclosures); (3) ventilation; and
(4) process controls (e.g. wet methods, automation). Substitution
refers to the replacement of a toxic material with another material
that reduces or eliminates the harmful exposure. When available,
substitution can replace a toxic material in the work environment with
a non-toxic material, thus eliminating the risk of adverse health
effects.
    Isolation, i.e., separating workers from the source of the hazard,
is another effective engineering control employed to reduce exposures
to beryllium. Isolation can be accomplished by either containing the
hazard or isolating workers from the source of the hazard. For example,
to contain the hazard, an employer might install a physical barrier
around the source of exposure to contain a toxic substance within the
barrier. Isolating the source of a hazard within an enclosure restricts
respirable dust from spreading throughout a workplace and exposing
employees who are not directly involved in exposure-generating
operations. Or, alternatively, an employer might isolate employees from
the hazard source by placing them in a properly ventilated space or at
some distance from the source of the beryllium exposure.
    Ventilation is another engineering control method used to minimize
airborne concentrations of a contaminant by supplying or exhausting
air. The primary type of ventilation system used to control beryllium
exposure is local exhaust ventilation (LEV). LEV is used to remove an
air contaminant by capturing it at or near the source of emission,
before the contaminant spreads throughout the workplace. If designed
properly, LEV systems efficiently remove contaminants and provide for
cleaner and safer work environments.
    Work practice controls involve adjustments in the way a task is
performed. In many cases, work practice controls complement engineering
controls in providing worker protection. For example, periodic
inspection and maintenance of process equipment and control equipment
such as ventilation systems is an important work practice control.
Frequently, equipment which is in disrepair or near failure will not
perform normally. Regular inspections can detect abnormal conditions so
that timely maintenance can then be performed. If equipment is
routinely inspected, maintained, and repaired or replaced before
failure is likely, there is less chance that hazardous exposures will
occur.
    Workers must know the proper way to perform their job tasks in
order to minimize their exposure to beryllium and to maximize the
effectiveness of control measures. For example, if an exhaust hood is
designed to provide local ventilation and a worker performs a task that
generates a contaminant away from the exhaust hood, the control measure
will be of no use. Workers can be informed of proper operating
procedures through information and training. Good supervision further
ensures that proper work practices are carried out by workers. By
persuading a worker to follow proper procedures, such as positioning
the exhaust hood in the correct location to capture the contaminant, a
supervisor can do much to minimize unnecessary exposure. Employees'
exposures can also be controlled by scheduling operations with the
highest exposures at a time when the fewest employees are present.
    Under the hierarchy of controls, respirators can be another means
of providing employees effective protection from exposure to air
contaminants. However, to be effective, respirators must be
individually selected, fitted and periodically refitted,
conscientiously and properly worn, regularly maintained, and replaced
as necessary. In many workplaces, these conditions for effective
respirator use are difficult to achieve. The absence of any one of
these conditions can reduce or eliminate the protection the respirator
provides to some or all of the employees. For example, certain types of
respirators require the user to be clean shaven to achieve an effective
seal where the respirator contacts the employee's skin. Failure to
ensure a tight seal due to the presence of facial hair compromises the
effectiveness of the respirator.
    Respirator effectiveness ultimately relies on employers educating
employees on the necessary good work practices and ensuring that
employees adopt those practices. In contrast, the effectiveness of
engineering controls does not rely so heavily on actions of individual
employees. Engineering and work practice controls are capable of
reducing or eliminating a hazard from a worksite, while respirators
protect only the employees who are wearing them correctly. Furthermore,
engineering and work practice controls permit the employer to evaluate
their effectiveness directly through air monitoring and other means. It
is considerably more difficult to directly measure the effectiveness of
respirators on a regular basis to ensure that employees are not
unknowingly being overexposed. OSHA therefore continues to consider the
use of respirators to be the least satisfactory approach to exposure
control.
    In addition, use of respirators in the workplace presents other
safety and health concerns. Respirators can impose substantial
physiological burdens on employees, including the burden imposed by the
weight of the respirator; increased breathing resistance during
operation; limitations on auditory, visual, and olfactory sensations;
and isolation from the workplace environment. Job and workplace factors
such as the level of physical work effort, the use of protective
clothing, and temperature extremes or high humidity can also impose
physiological burdens on employees wearing respirators. These stressors
may interact with respirator use to increase the physiological strain
experienced by employees.
    Certain medical conditions can compromise an employee's ability to
tolerate the physiological burdens imposed by respirator use, thereby
placing the employee wearing the respirator at an increased risk of
illness, injury, and even death. These medical conditions include
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (e.g., a history of high blood
pressure, angina, heart attack, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, asthma,
chronic bronchitis, emphysema), and reduced pulmonary function caused
by other factors (e.g., smoking or prior exposure to respiratory
hazards), neurological or

musculoskeletal disorders (e.g., epilepsy, lower back pain), and
impaired sensory function (e.g., a perforated ear drum, reduced
olfactory function). Psychological conditions, such as claustrophobia,
can also impair the effective use of respirators by employees and may
also cause, independent of physiological burdens, significant
elevations in heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate that can
jeopardize the health of employees who are at high risk for
cardiopulmonary disease (see 63 FR 1152, 1208-1209 (1/8/98)).
    In addition, safety problems created by respirators that limit
vision and communication must always be considered. In some difficult
or dangerous jobs, effective vision or communication is vital. Voice
transmission through a respirator can be difficult, annoying, and
fatiguing. In addition, movement of the jaw in speaking can cause
leakage, thereby reducing the efficiency of the respirator and
decreasing the protection afforded the employee. Skin irritation can
result from wearing a respirator in hot, humid conditions. Such
irritation can cause considerable distress to employees and can cause
employees to refrain from wearing the respirator, thereby rendering it
ineffective.
    These potential burdens placed on employees by the use of
respirators were acknowledged in OSHA's revision of its respiratory
protection standard, and are the basis for the requirement (29 CFR
1910.134(e)) that employers provide a medical evaluation to determine
the employee's ability to wear a respirator before the employee is fit
tested or required to use a respirator in the workplace (see 63 FR at
1152). Although experience in industry shows that most healthy
employees do not have physiological problems wearing properly chosen
and fitted respirators, nonetheless common health problems can cause
difficulty in breathing while an employee is wearing a respirator.
    For these reasons, all OSHA substance-specific health standards
have recognized and required employers to observe the hierarchy of
controls, favoring engineering and work practice controls over
respirators. And the Agency's adherence to the hierarchy of controls
has been successfully upheld by the courts (see Section II, Pertinent
Legal Authority for further discussion of these cases).
    Therefore, OSHA has decided to require the use of the long-
established hierarchy of controls in this standard. Because engineering
and work practice controls are capable of reducing or eliminating a
hazard from the workplace, while respirators protect only the employees
who are wearing them and depend on the selection and maintenance of the
respirator and the actions of employees, OSHA holds to the view that
engineering and work practice controls offer more reliable and
consistent protection to a greater number of employees, and are
therefore preferable to respiratory protection. Thus, the Agency
continues to conclude that engineering and work practice controls
provide a more protective first line of defense than respirators and
must be used first when feasible.
    The provisions related to engineering and work practice controls
begin in paragraph (f)(2)(i). Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of the proposed
rule stated that, for each operation in a beryllium work area (i.e.,
any work area involving airborne beryllium exposure), the employer
shall ensure that at least one of the following engineering and work
practice controls is in place to minimize employee exposure: (1)
Material and/or process substitution; (2) ventilated partial or full
enclosures; (3) local exhaust ventilation at the points of operation,
material handling, and transfer; or (4) process control, such as wet
methods and automation. Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B), an
employer would be exempt from using the above controls to the extent
that: (1) The employer can establish that such controls are not
feasible; or (2) the employer can demonstrate that exposures are below
the action level, using no fewer than two representative personal
breathing zone samples taken 7 days apart, for each affected operation.
    Because OSHA recognized that these proposed provisions are not
typical for OSHA standards, which usually require engineering controls
only where exposures exceed the PEL(s), the Agency asked for comments
on the potential benefits of including such provisions in the beryllium
standard, the potential costs and burdens associated with them, and
whether OSHA should include these provisions in the final standard (80
FR 47789). In addition, the Agency examined and asked for comment on
Regulatory Alternative #6, which would exclude the provisions of
proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) from the final standard.
    Comments on these provisions focused mainly on the trigger for
proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) or the action level exemption in proposed
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B)(2) and fell into one of two categories. The
first group of stakeholders argued that the engineering and work
practice controls requirement in proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) was too
broad. Specifically, they objected to the inclusion of a requirement
for controls where exposures do not exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. For
example, NGK argued that ``this provision essentially halves the PEL by
requiring engineering controls above the action level'' (Document ID
1663, p. 2). NGK asserted that engineering controls should only be
required where exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL, concluding that
the ``mandatory use of certain engineering controls'' should be removed
(Document ID 1663, p. 4). Similarly, Ameren disagreed with the proposed
requirement to use at least one engineering control in areas where, it
stated, there may be only minimal exposures and thus no benefit to be
gained from installing additional controls (Document ID 1675, p. 5).
    The second set of commenters argued that the engineering and work
practice controls requirement in proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) was too
narrow. These commenters objected to the exemption in proposed
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B)(2), which exempted employers from using one of
the controls listed in (f)(2)(i) to the extent that the employer could
demonstrate that exposures are below the action level, using no fewer
than two representative personal breathing zone samples taken 7 days
apart, for each affected operation. USW commented that the only
legitimate reasons not to require engineering controls below the action
level are if such a requirement is technologically or economically
infeasible (Document ID 1681, p. 10). The AFL-CIO and National COSH
similarly recommended that the final standard require engineering and
work practice controls wherever airborne beryllium is present (Document
ID 1689, p. 11; 1690, p. 3). The AFL-CIO based their recommendation on
the capacity of beryllium at very low concentrations to cause beryllium
sensitization and its carcinogenicity (Document ID 1689, p. 12).
    OSHA has carefully reviewed the opinions and arguments of these
commenters, and has concluded that the requirement to implement at
least one form of exposure control on beryllium-releasing processes
will serve to reduce the significant risk of both CBD and lung cancer
remaining at the TWA PEL (see Section VII, Significance of Risk), and
will also reduce the likelihood of exposures exceeding the PEL in the
absence of any engineering or work practice control. OSHA therefore
disagrees with Ameren's argument that the requirements of (f)(2)(i)
will not benefit workers, and with NGK's position that engineering
controls should not be required below the TWA

PEL and STEL. OSHA also disagrees with NGK's characterization of the
list of controls provided in (f)(2)(i) as a ``mandatory use of certain
engineering controls'' (Document ID 1663, p. 4). Rather, the list
includes a broad range of possible approaches to eliminate, capture or
control beryllium emissions at the source so as to reduce employees'
exposure to airborne beryllium, and provides employers great
flexibility in selection of at least one such approach where required
by the standards.
    However, while the Agency upholds the importance of requiring at
least one engineering or work practice control where operations release
beryllium, it disagrees with comments that such controls should be
required wherever there is airborne beryllium at any level. OSHA
recognizes that a significant risk of developing beryllium-related
adverse health effects remains at the action level. But the Agency
finds that an exemption from the requirement to implement at least one
of the controls listed in proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) when
exposures are demonstrably below the action level strikes a reasonable
balance between providing additional protection for employees who are
at risk and the burdens associated with implementing controls that may
provide little or no benefit (i.e., where airborne exposures are
minimal). The action level serves as a reasonable and administratively
convenient benchmark for a number of provisions in the standards (e.g.,
periodic exposure monitoring, medical surveillance); OSHA finds that
the action level serves a comparable purpose with regard to the
requirement to implement at least one of the controls listed in
proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) as well.
    Moreover, as discussed in the NPRM, the inclusion of the
engineering and work practice control provision in proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(i)(A) addresses a concern regarding the proposed PEL. OSHA
expects that day-to-day changes in workplace conditions might cause
frequent excursions above the PEL in workplaces where periodic sampling
indicates exposures are between the action level and the PEL. Normal
variability in the workplace and work processes, such as workers'
positioning or patterns of airflow, can lead to excursions above the
PEL. Substitution or controls such as those outlined in proposed
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) provide the most reliable means to control
variability in exposure levels. And, as noted above, they have the
added benefit of further reducing beryllium exposures to employees
where such means are feasible, and so reducing the significant risk of
beryllium-related adverse health effects associated with airborne
exposures at the TWA PEL and the action level (see Section VII,
Significance of Risk). In addition, OSHA finds that the exemption in
proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B)(2) will reduce the cost burden on
employers with operations where measured exposures are below the action
level, and therefore less likely to exceed the PEL in the course of
typical exposure fluctuations. OSHA notes that this exemption is
similar to a provision in 1,3-Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), which
requires an exposure goal program where exposures exceed the action
level. Therefore, OSHA has retained the proposed provisions of
paragraph (f)(2)(i) and the proposed exemptions. The Agency also
revised the enumeration of the paragraphs for clarity in the final
standards.
    OSHA has made a number of clarifying changes to the language of
proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i), none of which is meant to change the
meaning of the proposed language. First, OSHA revised the proposed
language of (f)(2)(i)(A) (paragraph (f)(2)(i) in the final standards)
by specifying that this provision applies to each operation in a
beryllium work area ``that releases airborne beryllium.'' The proposed
language could have been interpreted to require controls on operations
that do not release airborne beryllium, if such operations happened to
be performed in a beryllium work area; it was not OSHA's intent to
require employers to apply controls to any operations that do not
release beryllium. Second, OSHA added the term ``airborne'' preceding
``exposure'' in proposed (f)(2)(i)(A) and (f)(2)(i)(B)(2) (paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii)(B) in the final standards) to clarify the type
of exposure addressed by these provisions. Third, OSHA removed the
phrase ``engineering and work practice controls'' preceding the list of
controls provided in proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) (paragraph
(f)(2)(i) in the final standards) for brevity. Fourth, OSHA modified
the language of proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) (paragraph (f)(2)(i) in
the final standards) to require employers to ``reduce'', rather than
``minimize'' airborne exposure because ``reduce'' is more consistent
with the requirement; employers are not required to implement more than
one such control unless exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. OSHA has
included a non-mandatory appendix presenting a non-exhaustive list of
engineering controls employers may use to comply with paragraph
(f)(2)(i) (see Appendix A).
    The fifth and sixth clarifying changes to proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(i) address the types of control measures that are acceptable for
complying with the provision. The Southern Company suggested that
isolation/containment should be considered for inclusion in the listed
controls in proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) (Document ID 1668, p. 5).
OSHA agrees that isolation is an appropriate method of exposure
control, and proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A)(2) listed ``ventilated
partial or full enclosures'', which are forms of isolation. Paragraph
(f)(2)(i)(B) of the final standards indicates ``isolation, such as
ventilated partial or full enclosures'' to make clear that alternative
forms of isolation are also acceptable. In addition, USW and Materion
recommended that proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A)(3), which read ``local
exhaust ventilation at the points of operation, material handling, or
transfer'' be revised to read ``local exhaust ventilation such as at
the points of operation, material handling, or transfer'' to broaden
the applicability of the provision (Document ID 1680, p. 4). OSHA
agrees that the suggested revision more accurately describes acceptable
control measures, and has adopted the recommended change in the final
standards (now designated as paragraph (f)(2)(i)(C)).
    The seventh and final clarifying change to proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(i) pertains to the proposed requirement for employers to
demonstrate that airborne exposures are below the action level using
personal breathing zone samples taken 7 days apart. In response to a
comment from Ameren Corporation, which stated that some operations are
short in duration and taking samples precisely 7 days apart may not be
possible (Document ID 1675, p. 5), OSHA changed the text of the
standards to ``at least 7 days apart'', which was the Agency's
intention.
    With these changes, final paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the general
industry standard requires that, for each operation in a beryllium work
area that releases airborne beryllium, the employer must ensure that at
least one of the following is in place to reduce airborne exposure: (A)
Material and/or process substitution; (B) isolation, such as ventilated
partial or full enclosures; (C) local exhaust ventilation, such as at
the points of operation, material handling, and transfer; or (D)
process control, such as wet methods and automation. Final paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) allows that an employer is exempt from using the above
controls to the extent that: (A) The employer can establish that such
controls are not feasible; or (B) the employer can demonstrate that
airborne exposure is below the action level, using

no fewer than two representative personal breathing zone samples taken
at least 7 days apart, for each affected operation.
    Final paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the construction and shipyard
standards also requires employers to ensure that one of the four
enumerated types of control is in place to reduce airborne exposure and
exempts employers who can establish that such controls are not feasible
or demonstrate that airborne exposure is below the action level, using
no fewer than two representative personal breathing zone samples taken
at least seven days apart, for each affected operation. However, the
triggers in construction and shipyards differ from that in general
industry: whereas the general industry standard requires employers to
put one of the controls in place for each operation in a beryllium work
area that releases airborne beryllium, the construction and shipyard
standards do not require the establishment of beryllium work areas. In
lieu of that trigger, the construction and shipyard provision requires
the placement of a control where exposures are or can reasonably be
expected to be at or above the action level. OSHA selected the action
level as a trigger for this requirement because, as indicated above,
the Agency finds that an exemption from the requirement to implement at
least one of the controls is appropriate when exposures are below the
action level.
    Congressman Robert C. Scott, Ranking Member of the House Committee
on Education and the Workforce, recommended that the final standards
should require abrasive blasting (the primary source of beryllium
exposure in construction and maritime) to be conducted within
containments whenever feasible (Document ID 1672, p. 4). OSHA agrees
that containment is an effective approach to limit exposures outside of
the blasting operation, and is protective of workers in nearby areas or
performing ancillary activities. However, because abrasive blasting is
performed in a wide variety of occupational settings and alternative
methods of exposure control (for example, use of wet methods) may be
effective in some settings, OSHA does not require the use of
containment whenever feasible in blasting operations. Rather, paragraph
(f)(2) is intended to provide employers flexibility to determine an
appropriate approach to maintain airborne exposures below the TWA PEL
and STEL and, in accordance with (f)(2)(i), reduce airborne exposures
that exceed the action level.
    If exposures exceed the TWA PEL or STEL after the employer has
implemented the control(s) required by paragraph (f)(2)(i), paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) requires the employer to implement additional or enhanced
engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposures to or below
the PELs. For example, an enhanced engineering control may entail a
redesigned hood on a local exhaust ventilation system to more
effectively capture airborne beryllium at the source. The employer must
use engineering and work practice controls, to the extent that such
controls are feasible, to achieve the PELs.
    Whenever the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to
reduce exposures to or below the PELs using the engineering and work
practice controls required by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii),
however, paragraph (f)(2)(iv) requires the employer to implement and
maintain engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposures to
the lowest levels feasible and supplement these controls by using
respiratory protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this
standard. As indicated previously, OSHA's long-standing hierarchy of
controls policy was supported by a number of commenters (e.g., Document
ID 1963, p. 12; 1655, pp. 8, 16; 1618, p. 8; 1689, p. 11; 1625, p. 6;
1664, p. 6). Paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iv) in the final
standards are substantively consistent with the proposal, with minor
changes to clarify that the provisions address only airborne exposures,
and that paragraph (f)(2)(iii) applies to both the TWA PEL and STEL.
    Finally, paragraph (f)(3) of the proposed rule would have
prohibited the employer from rotating workers to different jobs to
achieve compliance with the PELs. As explained in the NPRM, worker
rotation can potentially reduce exposures to individual employees, but
increases the number of employees exposed. Because OSHA has determined
that exposure to beryllium can result in sensitization, CBD, and
cancer, the Agency considers it inappropriate to place more workers at
risk. Since no absolute threshold has been established for
sensitization or resulting CBD or the carcinogenic effects of
beryllium, it was considered prudent to limit the number of workers
exposed at any concentration by prohibiting employee rotation.
    This provision is not a general prohibition of worker rotation
wherever workers are exposed to beryllium. It is only intended to
restrict its use as a compliance method for the PEL (e.g., by exposing
twice as many workers to beryllium for half the amount of time). It is
not intended to bar the use of worker rotation as deemed appropriate by