[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9380-9383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9381]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915 and 1926
[Docket No. H-041]
Occupational Exposure to 1,3-Butadiene
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; Limited reopening of the rulemaking record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is reopening
the record for the proposed revision of the 1,3-Butadiene (BD) standard
to solicit public comment on a joint labor/industry agreement dated
January 29, 1996, recommending that OSHA reduce the permissible
exposure limits and expanding on some provisions that were addressed in
OSHA's 1990 proposal (55 FR 32736, August 10, 1990). In addition, OSHA
is seeking comment on possible changes in the medical surveillance
requirements, including reliance on a medical questionnaire that would
replace some of the proposed yearly medical examinations and reduce the
need for medical removal protection. Finally, the Agency is entering
into the rulemaking record four documents that have become available
since the submission deadline of December 13, 1991, set by the
Administration Law Judge following the rulemaking hearings.
DATES: Written comments must be postmarked by April 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket
Office, Docket No. H-041, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2634, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219-
7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less in length may also
be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided the original
and 3 copies are sent to the Docket Office thereafter.
Copies of the labor/industry agreement and submissions to the
record along with other information cited in this notice are available
for inspection and copying in the Docket Office. For electronic copies
of this notice, contact the Labor News Bulletin Board (202) 219-4784;
or OSHA's WebPage on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/. For news
releases, fact sheets, and other short documents, contact OSHA FAX at
(900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per minute.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne C. Cyr, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone
(202) 219-8148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. History
The present OSHA standard for BD requires employers to ensure that
employee exposure does not exceed 1,000 ppm determined as an 8-hour
time weighted average (TWA) (29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1).
In 1983, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) classified BD as an animal carcinogen based on a
National Toxicology Program (NTP) animal study showing that BD caused
cancer in rodents. The ACGIH recommended that employee exposures be
reduced to or below 10 ppm (8-hr TWA). In 1984, the United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America (URW), the Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers, and the American Federation of Labor and Congress
of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) petitioned OSHA to issue an
Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) of 1 ppm or less. OSHA denied the
petition for an ETS, but began collecting information in order to
institute rulemaking under Section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was also studying
the health hazards of BD. That agency's analysis found that BD was a
probable human carcinogen and that workplace exposures presented an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health. Because exposures to BD
occurred primarily in the workplace, EPA, in accordance with section
9(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, referred BD to OSHA to give
this Agency an opportunity to regulate the chemical under the OSH Act.
(50 FR 41393; October 10, 1985).
On August 10, 1990, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (55
FR 32736) to address the significant occupational risks of BD-induced
health effects. The proposed rule required employers to reduce
occupational exposure to BD to 2 ppm as an 8-hour TWA and 10 ppm as a
15-minute short term exposure limit (STEL), and to institute ancillary
measures, such as employee training and medical surveillance, for
further protection of BD-exposed workers.
OSHA convened public hearings in Washington, DC, on January 15-23,
1991, and in New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 20-21-1991. The post-
hearing period for the submission of briefs, arguments and summations
was to end July 22, 1991, but was extended by the Administrative Law
Judge to December 13, 1991, in order to give participants time to
review new data on low-dose exposure submitted by NTP and a
quantitative risk assessment done by NIOSH.
B. The Labor/Industry Agreement
To assist OSHA in issuing a final rule for BD, representatives of
the major unions and industry groups involved in the production and use
of BD submitted a voluntary agreement reached by the parties dated
January 29, 1996, on provisions that should be included in the
standard. The letter transmitting the agreement was signed by J.L.
McGraw for the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers,
Michael J. Wright for the United Steelworkers of America and Michael
Sprinker for the International Chemical Workers Union. The committee
that worked on the issues also included Joseph Holtshouser of the
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Carolyn Phillips of the Shell
Chemical Company, representing the Chemical Manufacturers Association,
Robert Richmond of the Firestone Synthetic Rubber and Latex Company,
and Louis Beliczsky (formerly of the URW) and James L. Frederick of the
United Steelworkers. OSHA is pleased that labor and industry have
joined together to recommend regulatory requirements that can lead to
lower and less frequent exposures for employees who work with or near
BD.
The agreement proposes a significant change in the permissible
exposure limits, additional provisions for exposure monitoring, and an
exposure goal program designed to reduce exposures below the action
level. It also proposes other modifications to the scope, respiratory
protection, communication of hazards, medical surveillance, and start-
up dates sections of the final rule. The agreement also assumes that
items not specifically addressed in the agreement will remain as
proposed. OSHA reprints the provisions below in order to allow the
public an opportunity to provide the Agency with comments.
1, 3-Butadiene
Recommended Revisions to OSHA's Proposed Standard Scope and
Application: Exclude [from the final rule's coverage]:
1. Products with BD concentration of 0.1% or less by volume unless
objective data shows exposure could exceed the
[[Page 9382]]
AL [action level] or STEL [short-term exposure level].
2. Storage, transportation, distribution or sale of BD in intact
containers or pipelines, except for labeling requirements and emergency
response provisions.
Definitions: Objective Data means monitoring data or mathematical
calculations or modeling based on the chemical and physical properties
of the material, stream or product.
Limits:
1. Action level (AL) of 0.5 ppm [parts per million] (ppm) as an 8-
hour TWA.
2. Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1 ppm as an 8 hr TWA.
3. Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) of 5 ppm [sampled] for 15
minutes.
Exposure Monitoring:
1. Establish a baseline of at least 8 samples. The samples may be
taken in a single year, so long as at least one sample is taken in each
quarter, and no two are taken within 30 days of each other. The
employer may utilize monitoring data from the previous two years to
satisfy the initial monitoring requirement as long as [the] process has
been consistent.
2. After the baseline has been established, monitoring is
[required]:
a. Every 6 months if exposure exceeds PEL or STEL.
b. Annually if exposure is at or above the AL but below the PEL.
Additional Monitoring: May use direct reading instruments for any
spills, leaks, etc. to ensure that levels have returned to normal
following an emergency.
Employee Notification: Five (5) day [period for] employee
notification of sampling results.
Exposure Goal Program: The employer shall institute an ``exposure
goal program'' which attempts to limit exposure levels to or below the
action level. No exposure goal program is required if all exposures are
at or below the action level. The program shall include the following
controls, unless the employer can demonstrate that they will not be
feasible or effective.
a. A leak prevention, detection, and repair program.
b. A program for maintaining the integrity of local exhaust
ventilation systems.
c. The use of pump exposure control technology such as, but not
limited to, double-sealed or seal-less pumps.
d. Gauging devices designed to limit employee exposure, such as
magnetic gauges on rail cars.
e. Unloading devices designed to limit employee exposure, such as
vapor return systems.
f. Maintaining control rooms below the AL by use of engineering
controls.
Respirators:
1. Use when exposure may exceed PEL or STEL.
2. Fit testing as per ANSI standards.
3. Allow \1/2\ face negative pressure respirators for certain
applications.
Medical Surveillance:
1. Medical evaluations for all employees exposed above the PEL for
30 days or more, or above the AL for 60 days or more.
2. Medical evaluations for formerly-exposed employees whose work
history includes exposure as defined in (1) for 10 year or more, or
exposure above 10 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for more than 30 days in any past
year, so long as they continue to be employed by the employer
responsible for the exposure, or a successor owner.
3. An exam with respect to acute effects as quickly as possible in
the case of exposure from a significant release.
4. Appropriate exams for respirator wearers in accord with 29
C.F.R. 1910.134.
5. Medical evaluations include an update of medical history [and] a
CBC [complete blood count] including platelets. Additional tests are
deemed appropriate by the examining physician. Remove references to
fertility evaluations.
Communication of BD Exposure to Employees: Modify warning signs and
label requirements to eliminate reproductive/lung/kidney reference.
Employee Training: Required annually or with change of job when
exposure may reach PEL, STEL or AL.
Dates: Employer may take up to two (2) years from effective dates
to implement engineering controls.
Appendices: OSHA should also correct certain misstatements in
Appendices A and B:
Appendix A, Part IV(B): The sentence; ``Any clothing which becomes
wet with liquid BD should be removed immediately * * *'' should be
deleted. BD evaporates too rapidly to cause wet clothing.
Appendix B, Part II(A)(6): The statement that ``vapors of BD will
burn without the presence of air or other oxidizers'' is incorrect.
Appendix B, Part III(A)(3): The suggestion that spills of small
quantities of BD should be absorbed on paper towels is unnecessary, as
the BD will evaporate too quickly.
Appendix B, Parts VI (C) and (D): Sanitation requirements
concerning agents to remove BD from the skin, and separate lockers, are
unnecessary, since liquid BD evaporates rapidly and will not
contaminate skin or clothing for any significant time.
Not also the odor threshold discrepancy between Appendix B, Part
II(C) and Appendix D, Part 1.1.4. The correct value is 0.45 ppm, based
on the AIHA publication, ``Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with
Established Occupational Health Standards,'' (1989).
OSHA believes the agreement contains a number of provisions that
will greatly improve worker health and therefore should be included in
the final BD standard. However, prior to inclusion, the Agency must be
certain of the meaning and effect of the provisions and then translate
the recommendations into regulatory language. To this end, OSHA seeks
comment on the following issues addressed by labor and industry in
their agreement:
1. Definitions. When objective data are relied upon to exclude
products with a BD concentration of 0.1% or less, what should be the
source of the objective data? Should conditions be placed upon the
monitoring or modeling methods used to obtain or project exposure
levels in order to ensure accuracy?
2. Exposure Monitoring. OSHA is concerned that the taking of 8
samples to establish a baseline may not be an effective use of scarce
industrial hygiene resources in that the number of samples taken may be
far less important than the quality of the samples used to characterize
the exposure of BD employees. Are there other ways to improve OSHA's
traditional approach of monitoring at least the one most exposed
employee in each job classification on each shift? Please comment.
3. Exposure Goal Program. OHSA requests comment on whether the
requirements for specific engineering controls rather than a
performance approach could lead to situations in which (1) better
engineering controls are discouraged or ignored, (2) the required
controls may not be applicable, or (3) the required controls may not be
needed because work practices will achieve the necessary reduction. How
could these situations be avoided?
4. Respirators. ANSI does not have final protocols for respirator
fit-testing. OSHA is in the process of completing its generic
respirator standard that will include protocols for fit-testing. (OSHA
Docket No. H-049; 59 FR 5884, November 15, 1994). Do workers exposed to
BD need special provisions for respirator fit-testing? If so, what
provisions are necessary and why? What applications are appropriate for
half-mask negative pressure respirators? Should the standard specify
tasks or exposures where the respirators are or are not appropriate?
5. Medical Surveillance. OSHA is concerned that some at-risk
employees
[[Page 9383]]
will not be afforded the protection of medical surveillance because
eligibility for inclusion requires exposures of 60 days above the AL or
30 days above the PEL, requirements that are more restrictive than the
comparable requirements in OSHA standards for acrylonitrile, (any
exposure above the AL); benzene, (30 days above AL or 10 above PELs);
and cadmium, (30 days above AL). OSHA also seeks comment on whether the
medical requirements in the respirator standard for general industry,
29 CFR 1910.134(b)(10), may be inadequate to protect workers with
occupational exposure to BD. In addition, should each employee whose
exposure to BD requires the use of a respirator be included in the
medical surveillance program, regardless of duration of exposure?
Finally, by requiring employees whose former exposures were above the
action level for 60 days or the PEL for 30 days to have had 10 years of
exposure before being included in medical surveillance, would the
standard improperly exclude employees whose exposures occurred over a
lesser period of time, say 5 years, but whose risk may be comparable?
6. Communication of BD Exposure to Employees. OSHA is concerned
that eliminating the reference to potential reproductive hazard from
warning signs and labels would not provide sufficient information to
employees. Toxicological studies cited in the proposal indicate BD is a
potential reproductive hazard. For example, ovarian atrophy and
testicular atrophy were observed in mice exposed to BD. OSHA is
considering requiring the warning signs and labels to contain the
phrase ``Cancer and Potential Reproductive Hazard.''
C. Additional Issues
OSHA is also seeking comment on the following issues that were
neither addressed by labor and industry in their agreement, nor fully
aired at the rulemaking hearing:
1. OSHA proposed to define ``Emergency'' as:
* * * any occurrence such as, but not limited to, equipment
failure, rupture of containers, or failure of control equipment that
may or does result in an unexpected significant release of BD.
OSHA is considering limiting the emergency releases to those that are
uncontrolled, so that the last phrase of the definition would read: ``*
* * that may or does result in an uncontrolled significant release of
BD.'' Does this addition clarify what situations OSHA considers to be
emergencies? Does the term ``significant release'' give adequate
guidance to employers as to how much BD must be released in order to
constitute an emergency?
2. OSHA is considering the adequacy of a less burdensome medical
surveillance program for BD-exposed workers. The program would consist
of an initial medical examination, repeated every third year, and an
annual CBC along with a yearly questionnaire focusing on the
hematopoietic and reproductive systems. OSHA requests comment on
whether this approach is sufficiently protective. OSHA is also seeking
comment on whether medical removal protection provisions similar to
those contained in the Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028) are
appropriate for BD. Removal would be predicated upon a medical
determination that the employee should not continue to be exposed to
BD.
3. Where employers rely on objective data to exempt them from
monitoring responsibilities, OSHA is considering requiring these
employers to keep the data for as long as such data continue to be
relied upon. Is this the appropriate length of time to keep such data?
D. Additional Submissions to the BD Docket
OSHA is submitting the following reports to the BD Docket:
(1) Abstracts from International Symposium: Evaluation of Butadiene
and Isoprene Health Risks, June 27-29, 1995, Blaine, Washington; (2)
Delzell, E., N. Sathiakumar, M. Macaluso, M. Hovinga, R. Larson, F.
Barbone, C. Beall, P. Cole, A Follow-up Study of Synthetic Rubber
Workers, October 2, 1995; (3) Santos-Burgua, C., G. Matanoski, S.
Zeger, L. Schwartz, ``Lymphohematopoietic Cancer in Styrene-Butadiene
Polymerization Workers,'' American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 136,
1992, pp. 843-844; and (4) M. Sorsa, K. Peltonen, H. Vainio, and K.
Hemminki (eds.), Butadiene and Styrene Assessment of Health Hazards,
International Agency for Research on Cancer Scientific Publication No.
127, Lyon, France, 1993.
II. Public Participation
Comments
Written comments regarding the issues raised by this notice must be
postmarked by April 8, 1996. Four copies of these comments must be
submitted to the Docket Office, Docket No. HS-041), U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Written
comments limited to 10 pages or less in length may also be transmitted
by facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided the original and 3 copies are
sent to the Docket Office thereafter. All materials submitted will be
available for inspection and copying at the above address. Materials
previously submitted to the Docket for this rulemaking need not be re-
submitted.
III. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
20210. It is issued pursuant to section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 5th day of March, 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 96-5519 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M