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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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