Polyols

town exposures. The information sup- .18 .30 .36 plied by the various companies during '0.94 markup and AN pass-on costs. the course of the rulemaking has indi- 2ECI estimates from report. cated that downstream operations do ECI estimates incorporating SPI cost data. not, for the most part, represent a significant source of potential for AN ex- The table makes clear that based strate that the compliance cost to posure. Therefore, the omission of COVupon the cost estimates developed by reach the 2-ppm level in a "typical erage by ECI of downstream impacts is ECI, the price impacts of the proposed plant" would only represent 11 pernot expected to affect the overall cost AN standard of 2-ppm are all less than cent of the total capital of a new typiesitmates for the affected industries. 3.1 percent, even when the SPI cost cal ABS plant (Ex. 148). It is clear that data is incorporated. to the extent that the SPI figures are VIII. BENEFITS As was noted in the earlier discusoverstated, the projected impacts of sion of costs, SPI recalculated the the standard will also be overstated, The legislative history and language costs of compliance from the ECI data particularly as to SPI's dire projection of the Occupational Safety and Health using a smaller "typical plant" (deterfor the ABS pipe industry. Act, as distinguished from some other mined on the basis of a "survey" of its Nonengineering costs. The major environmental health and safety legismembers), and adding a 10-percent thrust of the economic impact assesslation, clearly indicate that Congress "return on investment" (ROI) figured ment was directed at evaluating the has already arrived at a judgment conon an aftertax basis. Even assuming impacts and costs of engineering concerning the balancing of cost and for the moment that the smaller trols to reach the permissible exposure benefit, with the result that worker "typical plant" was more accurate limits. However, the other elements of safety and health are to be heavily fathan that determined by ECI, we have the proposal, such as medical examivored over the economic burdens of serious difficulties in accepting the adnations, respiratory protection procompliance. Specifically, section ditional amount included for ROI, grams, and monitoring have also been 6(b)(5) of the Act provides: both in concept and in amount. As Dr. examined. OSHA has determined, Beale made clear at the hearing, ROI both from the ECI report and on the The Secretary, in promulgating standards was considered in the cost figures debasis of the companies' submissions to dealing with toxic materials or harmful veloped by ECI in their report. Therephysical agents under this subsection, shall the record, that virtually all of the afset the standard which most adequately asfore, the very inclusion by SPI of an fected employers have both the facilisures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of additional element of ROI represents ties and the resources necessary to imthe best available evidence, that no employdouble-counting. In addition, the use plement these other provisions. Most ee will suffer material impairment of health of 10 percent after taxes is not a of the affected companies have had or functional capacity even if such employproper application in this context. medical surveillance programs for ee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt To the extent, then, that the SPI esmany years, and should have no diffiwith by such standard for the period of his working life. Development of standards timates include a double amount of culty in providing the medical examiunder this subsection shall be based upon return on investment, one can connations called for by the final standresearch, demonstrations, experiments, and clude that the resulting cost estimates, ard. In addition, OSHA had detersuch other information as may be appropritogether with the projected impacts mined at the time of the ETS that ate. In addition to the attainment of the on prices of ABS/SAN products and there were then sufficient respirators, highests degree of health and safety protecmaterials, are considerably overstated. sampling pumps, and other materials tion for the employee, other considerations Even if the overstated SPI cost figavailable for compliance. Since the shall be the latest available scientific data ures for compliance capital were acin the field, the feasibility of the standards, scope of the final standard is, if anyand experience gained under this and other cepted, their own estimates demonthing, narrower than that of the ETS, health and safety laws. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45790 RULES AND REGULATIONS Thus, while feasibility is an appro- Parties to this proceeding have atweaknesses of both the assumptions priate consideration, the Secretary is tempted to use the du Pont epidemiand the results of such assessments. directed to set standards which attain ological data to indicate both the mag- Miller relied upon the du Pont epi- "the highest degree of health and nitude of the risk and the hypothetidemiological study as his source for safety protection for the employee cal "cost per worker protected" under data on cancer risk for employees exthe alternative sets of permissible exposed to AN. His first assumption was This does not mean, however, that a posure limits in the proposal (Ex. 92; that the du Pont cohort was exposed systematic evaluation of costs and 146). Where the health effectiveness to 20 ppm. This assumption, which is benefits is not to be encouraged within of alternative approaches is extremely the touchstone of his later use of the the limits of the estimation techuncertain and likely to vary from situ- "linear model," is severely flawed. It niques. In considering the issue of feaation to situation, OSHA believes it is must first be noted that the du Pont sibility in this rulemaking, as in appropriate to adopt the compliance Company itself has been unable to others, OSHA has carefully evaluated strategy which provides the greatest provide significant data on the expothe cost of compliance which may be certainty of worker protection within sure of its cohort. Miller's 20 ppm asincurred by the affected employers bounds of feasibility, even if the apsumption was based not on informaand their ability to comply. Additionproach carries with it greater economtion from du Pont, but, rather, on ally, OSHA believes that a standard ic burdens for the affected employers. what another company (Monsanto) for a substance which has been found The issue of whether traditional blindly estimated the cohort's expoto pose a cancer risk to workers, in "risk assessments" should be persures to be. Using the 20 ppm figure as this case acrylonitrile, must assure formed has been discussed at great a starting point for an evaluation of maximum benefit (i.e., prevention of length in this proceeding. Perhaps the risk, therefore, is highly questionable. serious illness or death) constrained most accurate discussion of the uncer- The 20 ppm assumption is also unonly by the limits of feasibility. tainties surrounding the regulation of supported by the data on AN expo- Acrylonitrile has been found to acrylonitrile was presented by Dr. sures which is available in the record. cause cancer in laboratory animals, Henry Beale, testifying for ECI, in re- Industry officials have frequently reand has been linked with excess incisponse to a question concerning ferred to the high acute toxicity of AN dence of cancer in employees. No ade- OSHA's policy determinations: in describing the reasons for their quate scientific basic exists, however, early activity in instituting control to determine a quantitative dose-re- If you recall (Dr. Cueto's) testimony. most measures in AN manufacturing and of it was centered around the issue of detersponse relationship at the lower levels polymerization operations. Indeed, exmining that acrylonitrile was a carcinogen; of AN exposures necessary to reduce posures have generally been well that is, simply establishing it. the risk as much as is feasible. The un- He alluded to the possibility also of develbelow the previous 20 ppm standard certainty in both the actual magnitude oping risk factors, dose/response relationfor many years. Twenty ppm is not far of expected cancers and in the theory ships and so forth. These, in terms of the below the level at which acute toxic of extrapolation from existing data to materials that I have seen, have not been effects are noted. The companies have the exposure level set in this standard developed for acrylonitrile. always recognized that AN is a danger- Now, I would draw a distinction between, places the estimation of benefits on ous chemical, even before evidence of in a slightly technical sense, the term "risk" "the frontiers of scientific knowledge." its carcinogenicity became available. If and the term "uncertainty." Risk is a situa- While the actual estimation of the tion of known probabilities. It is like if you a person could detect AN by odor (benumber of cancers to be prevented is were a bridge player and you were a good tween 13 and 19 ppm), that was a sign highly uncertain, the evidence indibridge player. You may be able to get a to leave the exposure area. Because cates that the number is likely to be count on a suit that is out against you and AN exposure is, in this range, selfappreciable. A dose-response relationknow after playing nine rounds that it limiting, it is most unlikely that embreaks four to one. And you have to finesse ship, that is, a lower incidence of ployees were exposed to TWA's as for the queen. You know the odds are four excess cancer at lower levels of expohigh as 20 ppm. (Vistron's assertion to one which person to finesse. Okay? That sure, is likely to exist at lower as well that the industry standard in the is risk. as higher levels of exposures to AN. If you do not have information, you just early 1950's was 50 ppm is unsupport- Therefore, reduction in exposure to don't know what the probabilities are, you ed and, in any event, does not serve as lower levels is accompanied by a reare operating under uncertainty. And to use evidence of the actual exposures at duced risk, even though a precise the bridge player analogy, getting a count that time). Therefore, Miller's use of quantitative relationship cannot be eson a suit is a fairly sophisticated operation. 20 ppm as an established exposure for A bridge player who is just a beginner would tablished. the du Pont cohort is highly questionguess, and he might even not finesse for the In general, widespread employee exable on this ground, as well. queen. posure to acrylonitrile did not begin That is uncertainty. The situation which The impacts of the 20 ppm assumpuntil the 1950's. In view of the latency prevails in terms of acrylonitrile is a situation on Miller's risk estimates become period usually associated with the intion of uncertainty. We do not know what apparent when one reviews the "linear duction of cancer, significant reducthe risk situation is. That sort of precludes model" which was used in the assesstions in mortality and morbidity may any additional attempts at quantifying furment. As Miller acknowledged on questher benefits (Tr. 421-422) (emphasis not be seen in the AN industry for tioning, if the actual exposures from added). many years after this standard is efthe du Pont study were, in fact, 10 fective. However, unless exposures are OSHA's experience with assessments rather than 20 ppm, the line between reduced now, OSHA believes that emof the impacts of health regulations the starting point and the origin ployees exposed to AN will be at inhas demonstrated to us the futility of would change in slope. He stated: creased risk of cancer for many years applying traditional cost-benefit anal- (T)he reduction in risk per unit reduction to come. ysis and methodology to the workin exposure would be twice that I have as- In light of the uncertainties connectplace health context. The basic assumed. So it would mean that the cost figed with risk determination and exsumptions of such approaches are ures per one reduction and by one chance in trapolation from animal studies and always subject to serious questioning, one thousand would be cut in half (Tr. human epidemiology, OSHA believes and the change in one variable can 1278-79). that it is required by the statutory result in major changes in the overall This acknowledgment by Miller is mandate to adopt a highly protective assessment. The analysis performed highly significant, particularly as it reposture in considering the evidence for by Dr. James Miller for Vistron demlates to the basic conclusions of his health benefits. onstrates clearly the limitations and study. Even using his 20 ppm assump- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45791 tion, Miller did conclude that a case In summary, then, OSHA is promulmately 5,130 exposed employees incould be made for a 2 ppm standard gating this final standard in light of volved in AN monomer production, (Tr. 1270). If, as noted above, a more the specific mandate provided by secprocessing, and use will be directly afreasonable 10 ppm assumption was tion 6(b)(5) of the Act: to provide the fected by the standard. The nature of substituted, a case would be estabgreatest protection for employees, this effect has been discussed in detail lished for an even lower standard, with consideration being given to the above. The general physical or natural purely on health grounds. latest available scientific data, feasibilenvironment external to the work. Taking Miller's study as it stands, we ity, and experience under the Act. place will not be significantly affected also believe that such an assessment IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT by the proposed action, in that emignores the element of externalities. The costs of illness and death due to ASSESSMENT ployers' efforts to comply with. the standard will not significantly alter occupational exposures to carcinogens In the preamble to the proposed current levels of environmental emisare only partially absorbed at present standard (43 FR 2608), OSHA stated sions from the affected industries. by the industries involved. Employees that it had made a tentative determi- The following paragraphs outline and former employees must presently nation that the AN standard would the major AN industry segments suffer most of the costs and losses rehave no significant environmental which will be affected by the standard, sulting from occupationally induced impact, and that preparation of an enin somewhat less detail than the discancer. The standard for AN will vironmental impact statement (EIS) cussions of technology and feasibility reduce mortality and morbidity among was not required. At that time, we soelsewhere in this preamble. Each segworkers, thus relieving them of these licited comments and data on this dement will be reviewed as to the major costs. In essence, then, the affected termination and information relevant sources of employee exposure to AN, companies are being called upon to into the issue of whether significant enternalize the types of costs which they ways in which such exposures may be vironmental impacts could be anticihad previously been able to externalcontrolled, and how control of: expopated. Written comments were reize. To the extent that the costs of illsures may impact the general environceived from several participants in the ment. ness and death related to workplace rulemaking proceeding in response to exposures would have been incurred, AN Monomer Production. Employee the proposal (1-5). the costs of protecting employees from exposures to AN in the monomer pro- The basic argument presented by all occupational diseases do not represent duction segment of the industry occur of the comments was that OSHA had new costs to be borne, but, rather, suberred in not preparing an EIS, because as a result of product sampling activistitute costs. Further, the costs of enties, process leaks, accidental spills, environmental impacts would occur as gineering controls may, in many cases, a result of the proposed regulation. storage and transport of AN monomer, be expected to cover more than one and fugitive emissions. Methods which The companies referred to general generation of employees in a given areas of impact, such as increased will be used by employers to reduce worksite. water usage, increased production of employee exposures include the fol- The "linear model" is a useful tool waste water, increased air emissions, lowing: more complete enclosure of only in those situations where one can and changes in solid waste disposal. systems to prevent release on AN into demonstrate a true dose-response rela- However, no specific examples or data employee work areas, the use of extionship for an exposed population. haust or dilution ventilation in areas quantifying the extent of these poten- This requires, by definition, a showing tial impacts were provided to support where leaks cannot be eliminated or of a known effect/no effect level. For the contention that significant imwhere system enclosure is impractical, AN, we have no data to indicate at pacts would occur. use of improved seals and gaskets to what point this level is reached. In In making the initial determination control employee exposures both this regard, if the cancers in the du that the proposal would result in no during normal operations and product Pont study are traced directly to AN significant environmental impacts, sampling, and immediate washdown of exposure, it is impossible to determine OSHA relied on the information avail- AN spills to prevent the generation of at what level of exposure these canable at the time, which indicated that persistent high concentrations of AN cers were actually induced. We cannot the standard would have little, if any, vapor in the workplace. rule out the possibility that employees impact on the current levels of air and Most, if not all, of these control with higher exposures did not, in fact, water pollution, and minor impact on methods are already in use to some have their cancers induced by lower waste disposal practices. extent in the AN monomer production concentrations of AN. Since the proposal was published, we facilities operating in the United In the case of the acrylonitrile have reevaluated our determination State. The standard will result simply standard, the evidence in the record not to prepare an EIS. Although we in more agressive control of employee overwhelmingly demonstrates that the still maintain that the impact on the exposures than has been the estabcosts of compliance with a 2 ppm environment as a result of this standlished practice to date. The control standard will not be overly burdenard will be insignificant and that an methods will not result in an increase some to industry. Having determined EIS is not required, we are endeavorin the amount of AN released to the that the benefits of the standard are ing to present a discussion of the areas ambient air, and, in fact, may reduce likely to be appreciable, OSHA is not which could potentially be affected to the current levels of emissions someobligated to carry out further exerany noticeable degree. The control what. Such a reduction would result cises towards more precise calculations methods which will be used to limit from* the improved control. of., leaks of benefits which would not signifiemployee exposure to acrylonitrile are and other fugitive emission, sources cantly clarify the ultimate decision. more completely discussed in the secwhich presently expose employees and OSHA has, in the past, attempted to tion dealing with technological feasiwhich inevitably reach the extenal enobtain a more detailed quantification bility of the standard. The following is vironment. This reduction. of expoof benefits to be attained under proan assessment of the environmental sures may be highly significant insofar posed standards. Previous efforts in impact potential of the standard for as the health of employees is conthis direction as an aid to decisionoccupational exposure to AN. cerned, although the total amount of making have not been fruitful (41 FR 1. The proposed action was designed AN involved would be very small on an 46742), and have provided little, if any, to control occupational exposure to absolute scale. The total reduction in assistance in setting final health acrylonitrile. Only the workplace envipounds of AN released to the environstandards. ronment of 43 plants and the approximent would be expected, therefore, to FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45792 RULES AND REGULATIONS be insignificant in terms of overall enturing sector are exposed to AN pritute a major decrease in the total vironmental impact. marily from latexes containing residuamount of AN released into the envi- Washdowns of spills into process al and unreacted AN monomer which ronment. sewers to prevent employee exposure are transported throughout the manu- Nitrile elastomer production. Emto AN is already a common practice. facturing process. The highest potenployee exposures occur throughout Thus, no significant increase in the tial exposures occur around the floccuthe entire processing operation for niamount of water used for this purpose lation tanks, but other major exposure trile elastomer manufacture, including is anticipated. areas include the filtering, washing, the polymerization, coagulation, and In addition, washing down of liquid and drying processes. As with acrylic washing/drying operations. Further, AN serves to remove AN which would fiber production, exposures may also exposures can occur at AN monomer otherwise vaporize into the air. Thus, occur when AN monomer is transstorage and transfer points. Emissions whereas there might be an increase in ferred to or from storage tanks and reto the general environment presently the amount of AN into process waste action vessels. Methods which will be arise from these same emission water, there would also be a correused to control employee exposures insources. sponding decrease in emissions into clude additional enclosure of processes Methods which will be used by emthe air. or operations, ventilation of storage ployers to control employee exposures Treatment or disposal of contamiand process areas, washdown of spills, include the same procedures to be emnated waste water is already being acand control of leaks to prevent expoployed in the ABS/SAN industry, as complished by one of two methods sure to fugitive emissions. Further, adnoted above. Similarly, the nitrile elas- (biodegradation or deep-well injection) ditional stripping of monomer from intomer sector has also implemented at all five AN monomer production fatermediate polymer materials may be controls to some extent, as have the cilities. The OSHA standard for connecessary. other industry sectors. Some stripping trol of employee exposure will not The only control method which has is already being performed, and furaffect the waste water treatment the potential for increasing the total ther stripping is limited by the same methods currently practiced by the inamount of AN released into the envifactors present in the ABS/SAN industry, nor will it result in higher ronment is stripping. The additional dustry. levels of AN in the environment. amounts of monomer that can be The controls envisioned for nitrile Acrylic Fiber Production. Exposure stripped from the intermediate polyelastomer production are not expected of employees in acrylic fiber producmers are greatly limited by two facto result in any significant environtion occurs when the monomer is tors, however. First, some stripping is mental impacts. being transferred from storage tanks already being carried on by ABS/SAN 2. At the time that the proposal was to the reactors, during the extrusion producers; thus, the remaining published, it was thought that much of the fibers, and during the stretchamounts of residual AN are relatively additional stripping might be feasible ing, washing. and drying phases of the small. Second, extensive stripping, for employers in achieving exposure fiber production process. The latter beyond what is presently being done, limits below 2 ppm. As we have noted operations result in continuous release can result in degration of the final in our discussion of technological feaof residual monomer to the ambient product, as noted in the discussion of sibility, we have since determined that air and into process water, as well as technological feasibility elsewhere in the type of stripping necessary in the into employee work areas. this preamble. Where additional strip- ABS/SAN and nitrile elastomer indus- Methods which will be used by emping may be feasible, the amount of tries to reach a 1 ppm exposure limit ployers to control worker exposure to AN released from the ABS/SAN matecannot presently be considered feasi- AN include eliminating and controlrials is expected to be significant only ble. The reasons for this determinaling fugitive emissions at tank farm, from an employee exposure standtion were twofold. First, the materials loading, storage, and reaction areas; point (i.e. employee exposures will be to be stripped have a tendency to coventilation of monomer storage, samreduced), and will not result in large agulate prematurely, and can severely pling, and fiber production areas; and quantities of AN being released into clog the process machinery when furenclosure of extrusion, stretching, the general human environment. ther stripping is attempted. Second, washing, and drying operations. As Stripping is usually performed at an stripping which extends much further with the monomer production indusearly stage in the polymerization proc- -than present practices can result in try, spills and leaks of AN would be ess. The reason that a company strips severe degradation of the product. washed with water into process sewers its polymer products is to assure that Comments have been received confor treatment and disposal. residual monomer is not released to cerning the increased use of stripping, None of the exposure control methexpose employees during later stages stating that such stripping would reods cited above will result in an inin the process. It can be assumed, lease more AN. into the ambient air crease in the release of AN into the therefore, that much of the monomer and water, creating an adverse envienvironment. It should be noted that which is driven off by stripping would ronmental impact. In addition to the the amounts of residual AN present in otherwise have been released by the reasons expressed with regard to the the fibers and released during processpolymer at some point during manuindividual industry sectors, we believe ing are very small. Thus, although facturing. To this extent, stripping that there are two other bases for our these small amounts are important does not increase the total amount of determiniation that there will be no from the standpoint of employee pro- AN released into the environment, but adverse environmental impact from tection, controls will not involve rerather, removes at an early stage constripping. First, the amounts of residumoval of vast quantities of AN from centrations of AN which would have al AN contained in resins and elasthe general environment. Further, the been released in any event. tomers are usually less than 1 percent industry has chemical sewers already None of the control methods is exby weight. Thus, any amount which installed for the disposal of process pected to result in an increase in the can be stripped would be, quantitativewastes and spilled materials, and, amount of AN released to the general ly, very small, and, therefore, environtherefore, the washdown practices environment from the ABS/SAN mentally insignificant. In addition, of used for control of exposures should sector. Conversely, although the the small amount released, it is asnot affect waste water disposal pracamounts of AN to be controlled by the sumed that at least some of it would tices already in effect. additional engineering methods may have been released at some later stage ABS/SAN resin production. Employbe significant from the standpoint of of the process if not for the stripping. ees in the ABS/SAN resin manufacemployee health, they do not consti- Second, it is likely that employers FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45793 would make efforts to recover and reimpact on this problem. It is true that It is not anticipated that the incycle the stripped AN monomer if the EPA has conducted extensive studies crease in energy consumption as a amounts were sufficient to make recyof air and water emissions from AN result of this standard will result in cling feasible. production facilities (6,7,8). These significant environmental impacts. 3. Several commenters have stated studies were prompted by the fact Conclusions Examination of the enthat the proposed standard's requirethat AN is one of the highest volume vironmental impact potential of the ments for waste disposal would result organic intermediates produced in this proposed standard for control of occuin a complicated change to current country. Because of the size of the pational exposure to AN indicate that waste disposal practices, and, thus, an production operations involved and the effects of the proposal on the genadverse environmental impact. No supthe known toxicity of AN, EPA has eral human environment will not be porting data on this subject were probeen examining the extent of pollutsignificant, and preparation of an envivided in support of this position, howant release into the environment from ronmental impact statement is not reever. AN monomer manufacturing facilities. quired. OSHA does not believe that the pro- Findings published by EPA and re- REFERENCES: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT posed standard, if implemented as ferred to in the preamble to the prowritten, would significantly increase 1. Ex. 11:(27). posal have indicated that a number of the amount of solid waste for disposal 2. Ex 160. hazardous air and water pollutants are by AN affected employers, nor would 3. Exs. 11:(18); 155. emitted from AN manufacturing, such 4. Ex. 11:(13). ultimate disposal of AN-contaminated as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ni- 5. Exs. 11:(22); 71. waste be significantly affected. The trogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, but 6. Horn, D. A. and T. W. Hughes. Source sole purpose behind the proposed rethat the actual amounts of AN emit- Assessment: Acrylonitrile Manufacture (Air quirement to inclose AN wastes was to ted (the only substance to be regulat- Emissions). Monsanto Research Corp. EPAeliminate uncontrolled employee con- 600/2-76-032. Environmental Protection ed under the OSHA proposal) are relatact with AN. Provided that employees Agency. March 1977. 98 pp. tively small. EPA is attempting to decharged with further handling of 7. Schwartz, W. A., F. B. Higgins, Jr., J. A. velop standards and control methods Lee, R. Newirth, and J. W. Pervier. Engiwaste materials were properly protectto limit overall exposures to the high neering and cost Study of Air Pollution ed, the standard included no specific volume pollutants contained in the AN Control for the Petrochemical Industry, requirements for methods of disposal industry emissions. Vol. 2: Acrylonitrile Manufacture. Houdry once the waste materials were pack- Division, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., aged. As an example, EPA has found that EPA-450/3-73-006-b, Environmental Pro- As noted elsewhere in this preamble, uncontrolled ground level concentratection Agency, February 1975. we have revised the waste disposal tions from AN manufacturing reach 8. Lowenbach, W. and J. Schlesinger. provisions for the final standard retheir highest levels in the product Acrylonitrile Manufacture: Pollutant Prestorage areas (tank farms). The highdiction and Abatement. Mitre Technical moving the requirements for placing est uncontrolled emissions of AN re- Report MTR-7752, prepared under Contract AN and PAN waste in closed contain- No. 68-01-3188 with the Environmental Proers. The reasons for this change are corded in these areas were less than tection Agency, February 1978. not based upon any adverse environ- 0.1 ppm in 24 hours. This level was demental impact, but rest upon two basic termined using the assumption that SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION OF THE determinations as to the risk of emall sources were continuous when, in STANDARD ployee exposure posed by these matefact, the actual emissions from storage The following sections discuss the rials. "PAN scrap," in and of itself, tank areas are intermittent and probindividual requirements of the AN does not constitute a source of AN exably lower than the 0.1 ppm level. All standard. The sections include an posure unless it contains sufficient reother point sources of AN emissions analysis of the record evidence and sidual AN. In addition, packaging of are considerably lower than those the policy considerations underlying materials containing AN can result in from the storage area. the decisions as to the various provi- a high concentration of AN within the 5. The use of engineering methods sions of the standard. As discussed in container, thus posing a greater potensuch as exhaust or dilution ventilation the PEL section above, the final standtial for exposure of employees hanwill require the increased use of ard sets a permissible exposure limit dling the packages for disposal or furenergy in certain segments of the AN for acrylonitrile of 2 ppm as an 8-hour ther treatment. The waste disposal industry. Projected energy increases TWA, with a ceiling limit of 10 ppm as provisions as revised require deconwere estimated by Enviro Control, measured over any 15-minute period tamination by water washdown, venti- Inc., in the technology assessment and during the workshift. Engineering conlation, or other means, before disposal. economic impact statement it pretrols and work practices are required The revised provisions incorporate pared for OSHA in February 1978. Acwhere necessary to reach the PEL, and continued use of established methods cording to this document, annual written compliance plans must be deof handling and treating waste materienergy increase (in terms of barrels of veloped. Engineering controls must be als, while minimizing the risk of AN No. 6 fuel oil) would be approximately: in place by November 2, 1980, or 2 exposure among employees and other 131, 323 for the 2 ppm alternative years from the effective date of the persons handling the materials. Be- PEL, 222, 150 for the 1 ppm alternastandard. Other portions of the standcause established methods currently tive and 312, 591 for the 0.2 ppm alterard including those on respirators, in use are to be continued, the waste native PEL. protective clothing, hygiene facilities, disposal section of the final standard It was argued by industry represenexposure monitoring, and the exempdoes not result in any increased retatives that the figures for the 1 ppm tion provisions have been revised and lease of AN into the environment. and 0.2 ppm levels were underestimatclarified as described in detail below. 4. One area of concern to some comed, because compliance by means of di- The language of the standard and menters involved the fact that the Enlution ventilation would require more the order of the various provisions is vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) than 40 changes of room air per hour consistent with the drafting in other was studying emissions from the AN and the Enviro figures did not account recent OSHA health standards, such monomer production industry. It was for this. Enviro stated that it felt that as the benzene final standard (43 FR contended that this indicated a comachievement of compliance by such 5913) and the arsenic final standard munity health problem with AN, and methods would be impractical and un- (43 FR 19584). OSHA believes that a that OSHA was remiss in not preparworkable so it did not estimate the similar style should be followed from ing an EIS to discuss the proposal's costs associated with such. standard to standard in order to lead FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45794 RULES AND REGULATIONS to uniformity of interpretation of simlease monomer into the headspace at Action level. The proposal contained ilar provisions. Section 6(b)(5) of the the top of their storage vessels. When alternative action levels of 1 ppm, 0.5 Act states that health standards shall the vessels are opened, the monomer ppm, and 0.1 ppm, corresponding to also be based on "experience gained escapes, with the potential of exposing the three alternative PEL's of 2, 1 and under this and other health and safety employees to AN. OSHA recognizes 0.2 ppm, respectively. The action level laws." that this can and will occur. However, triggers the monitoring and medical Scope and application: Paragraph the resultant low level exposures are surveillance requirements of the pro- (a). This standard applies generally to transient and do not represent a sigposal. The final standard sets an all occupational exposures to acryloninificant source of exposure. (It should action level of 1 ppm, in accordance trile (AN). Some of the industry secbe noted that other materials not with the 2 ppm PEL. tors where significant exposures to AN listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) may ex- The record contains little negative may occur are in the manufacturing of hibit this phenomenon as well. If the comment on the action level concept. AN monomer, the production of acrylmaterials would otherwise qualify for Most comments received were directed ic/modacrylic fibers, and in the polyexemption under the performance criat the various PEL's, and addressed merization of AN with other monteria in (a)(2)(ii) for TWA exposures, the action level primarily from the omers to produce resins, elastomers, the headspace release will not affect measurement and monitoring standand other materials. It should be their exemption.) point (Exs. 92; 11:(14)). noted, however, that not all work- Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) carries forward, In the absence of a demonstrated places where AN may be found will be with minor modifications, the persafe level of exposure for a carcinogen, subject to the AN standard. OSHA has OSHA has consistently required that formance criteria provided in paradetermined that the standard should graph (a)(2)(i) of the proposal. The employee exposure be limited to the be focused towards those workplaces maximum extent feasible by the use of criteria are applicable to all materials in which there is the greatest potenmade from and/or containing AN. engineering controls and work practial for AN exposure. This would intices. OSHA believes that it is also ap- This clarifies a problem area from the volve primarily the manufacturers of propriate to begin some protective ac- ETS and proposal, which referred only AN, the manufacturers of acrylic and tions under the standard prior to exto "products fabricated from PAN." modacrylic fibers, and producers of ceeding the PEL. The action level OSHA's interpretation of the ETS has ABS and SAN resins, nitrile elasserves such a purpose. Another purbeen that PAN itself and other materitomers, polymer polyols, and other AN pose of the action level is to help to reals made from AN should be allowed based polymers and materials. In a lieve the burden on employers by proan exemption if they meet the perlimited number of cases, downstream viding a cut off point for many of the formance criteria for AN release. processing, handling, and use of cerrequired compliance activities under The criteria for exemption under tain materials made from or containthe standard. paragraph (a)(2)(ii) involve the providing AN will be covered by the stand- From a pure health viewpoint, it ing of and reasonable reliance on obard. would not be unreasonable to require The exemption provisions of the jective data showing the following: some action to be taken wherever emthat the material is not capable of refinal standard contain both a listing of ployees may. be exposed to a carcinomaterials which are exempted, and leasing AN resulting in airborne congen. However, this approach would be two performance bases upon which centrations exceeding 1 ppm (as an 8- unduly burdensone both to the affectmaterials not specifically listed can be hour TWA) under the expected condied employers and to the Agency. exempted. The exemptions as drafted tions of processing, handling and use Nonetheless, the standard necessarily differ markedly in several respects which will cause the greatest possible will encompass some employers whose from those in the proposal. A detailed release. OSHA anticipates that the employees are exposed below the PEL. discussion of the changes that have manufacturer of the material will be We expect that the exemption provibeen made and the rationale for these in the best position to test his prodsions will greatly limit this group of changes are contained elsewhere in ucts and supply the necessary objecemployers. Where they are covered, the preamble to this standard. tive data. such employers are required to per- The first exemption provision, para- The "1 ppm release" referred to in form initial monitoring to determine graph (a)(2)(i), lists a number of "finthe exemption as proposed meant an the extent of their employees' AN exished polymers" which are to be 8-hour time-weighted average under posures. If, on the basis of the initial exempted from the AN standard. This expected conditions involving the monitoring results, an employee's exlisting reflects the data received in the greatest possible release of AN. The posure is below the action level; the record which shows the minimal po- Agency has interpreted the ETS in employer may discontinue monitoring tential for AN exposure to employees this manner, and is revising the final and all other compliance activities for during further processing, use and standard to refer explicitly to an 8- that employee except for training and handling of these materials. The term hour TWA. labeling. The action level concept thus "finished polymers" is not defined in The third exemption provision, paraprovides an objective means for an emthe standard. This is because it is not graph (a)(2)(iii), exempts the hanployer to determine what further acpossible to state as a general matter dling, use, and processing of solid mations are required for compliance with the area of the manufacturing at terials made from and/or containing the standard. which each polymer listed becomes AN if they are not heated above 170° The statistical basis for determining "finished." In most cases, this involves F. This is changed from the proposal the action level has been discussed in a drying step, after which the polyto set a temperature limit instead of connection with several proposed mers are packaged and/or stored. At the term "heating or melting." This OSHA standards (see, for example, this point, the polymers are no longer provision is included primarily to "Proposed Standard for Trichloroethbeing "manufactured." Further hancover future products made from AN, ylene" (Oct. 20, 1975, 40 FR 49032)). dling, including shipping, processing since most solid materials are already In brief, although all measurements and use, of the finished polymers, is exempted by the listing in paragraph on a given day may fall below the perexempt from the standard. (a)(2)(i). The term "solid materials" is missible exposure limit, some possibil- As is the case with most polymers, meant to clarify that the exemption ity exists that on unmeasured days, which contain some amounts of resid- (paragraph (a)(2)(iii)) does not apply the employee's actual exposure may ual monomer, some of the AN based to liquid AN, as defined in the standexceed the permissible limit. Indeed, polymers on the exempted list may reard. as various parties have noted, the ex- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45795 posures in the AN industry can vary ees from exposure to AN monomer. vals, and in such manner, as may be widely from day to day. Where expo- There is nothing to indicate that ponecessary for the protection of emsure measurements are above one-half lyacrylonitrile itself is harmful, other ployees. of the permissible exposure limit, i.e., than through its release of residual There are various reasons which the action level, the employer cannot quantities of AN. In addition, the defimake it appropriate for employers to reasonably be confident that his emnition of "PAN", as proposed, led to measure employee exposure to AN. ployees may not be overexposed. some confusion under the ETS. First, exposure monitoring informs (Leidel, N.A. et al., "Exposure Mea- Whereas the proposed standard was to the employer as to whether he is surement Action Level and Occupaapply only to PAN as limited in the meeting his legal obligation to keep tional Environmental Variability," definition (not to all generic polyacryemployee exposures below the permis- DHEW, PHS, DCD, NIOSH, DLCK lonitrile materials), some persons sible exposure limit. Second, exposure (August 1975)). Therefore, requiring thought that references to "PAN" monitoring evaluates the effectiveness periodic employee exposure measurethroughout the proposed standard of the installation of engineering and ments to begin at the action level promeant all polyacrylonitrile materials, work practice controls and informs the vides the employer with a reasonable regardless of potential for AN release employer as to whether additional degree of confidence in the results of and exposure. controls need to be instituted. Third, his measurement program. The standard has been revised to exposure monitoring is necessary in Definitions: Paragraph (b). For the read solely in terms of "AN" and order to determine whether respirapurposes of the final standard, "decon- "liquid AN." As noted in the discussion tory protection is required at all, and tamination" means treatment of liquid of the scope of the standard, the proif so, which respirator is to be selected. AN waste, protective clothing, work cessing, use and handling of most Fourth, section 8(c)(3) of the Act (29 surfaces, and other areas, usually by "PAN" materials have been expressly means of ventilation or water wash- U.S.C. 657) requires employers to exempted from the standard. The perdowns, to assure that the materials or notify promptly any employee who formance exemption has also been surfaces no longer release AN above 1 has been or is being exposed to toxic modified accordingly, to allow materippm. Unlike the exemption provisions, als made from or containing AN to be materials or harmful physical agents the decontamination provisions deal exempted if they meet the conditions at levels which exceed those prewith actual release of AN from a leak, set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(ii). The scribed by an applicable occupational spill, or other source of liquid AN, use of the phrase "products fabricated safety or health standard, and to rather than with the potential for refrom PAN," as contained in the proinform such employee of the correclease from a material during processposed exemption was too restrictive, tive action being taken. Exposure ing. Testing to assure nonrelease from since it did not, on its face, appear to monitoring is necessary in order to de- a decontaminated area, therefore, may allow PAN itself or other materials termine whether employees are being be performed by an area sample, promade from or containing AN to qualiexposed to AN at levels exceeding that vided that the probe is placed at least fy for exemption. prescribed by this standard and thereas close as any employee would get to A new definition for "liquid AN" has fore must be notified as required by the point of AN release. been added to the final standard. This the Act. Finally, the results of expo- The term "emergency", as used in definition is intended to assure that sure monitoring are part of the inforthe proposal, covered any release of all intermediate products of the polymation which must be supplied to the AN above the ceiling limit. The merization process are covered by the physician. breadth of this definition would have standard. The definition also provides The need to conduct exposure monirequired the employer to implement a differentiation between intermediate toring was generally accepted by parthe emergency procedures and notify latexes and other liquid polymer interticipants in the rulemaking proceedthe OSHA area office whenever the mediates created in ABS/SAN and niing. A major point of contention cenoeiling was exceeded. As was noted by trile rubber manufacturing, and final tered on the available methods of samseveral commentators, such a requireproduct latexes. Whereas final prodpling and analysis, as discussed below. ment would apply to many situations uct latexes may present an AN inhala- In addition, several employers noted which could not truly be deemed as tion problem in some cases, there is that they already conducted monitor- "emergencies" (Exs. 92; 149). In addinothing to indicate that they also pose ing on a more frequent basis than the tion, we recognize that this would tend a significant potential for skin expomonthly and quarterly periods includto lessen the employee's awareness of sure to AN. The skin and eye contact ed in the proposal (Exs. 11:(25); true emergency conditions if and when provisions, along with the concomitant 11:(27)). They contended, however, they did occur. protective clothing and equipment that the standard should only require "Emergency" has been redefined, as provisions, have therefore been draftemployee notification of the required in the vinyl chloride standard, to refer ed in terms of "liquid AN" monomer qurterly or monthly monitoring. The to a "massive release" of AN. The emand polymer intermediates. wording of the proposal, in their view, ployer is best able to determine if an Exposure monitoring and measurewould have required the employer to emergency exists in his facilities. His ment: Paragraph (e). The standard renotify the employee of any additional central obligation under the standard, quires each employer who has a place monitoring results that he might have which is to limit employees' exposures of employment where there is expoas a result of more frequent monitorto AN, is, therefore, supplemented by sure to AN as the result of the eming. It was argued that to require notithe requirement to take further action ployer's activities (except where fication of extra monitoring results when emergency situations arise. exempted under paragraph (a)(2)) to would discourage employers from con- The proposal defined "polyacrylonimonitor his employees' exposure to ducting more frequent monitoring trile," or "PAN" for the purposes of AN, and to determine an employee's than that required by the standard. the standard, as homopolymers or coexposure over an 8-hour period with- Section 8(c)(3) of the Act (29 U.S.C. polymers made from AN except for out regard to the use of respiratory 657) requires employers to notify materials exempted under paragraph protection. Section 6(b)(7) of the Act promptly all employees exposed above (a)(2). (29 U.S.C. 655) mandates that any the PEL. The final standard imple- This proposed definition of "PAN" standard promulgated under section ments section 8(c)(3) by requiring an has been deleted from the final stand- 6(b) shall, where appropriate, provide employer to notify each employee in ard for several reasons. The standard for monitoring or measuring employee writing of the employee's measurewas and is intended to protect employexposure at such locations and interment within 5 working days after the FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45796 RULES AND REGULATIONS receipt of the results of any required to the ETS, OSHA was most conand precision requirements set forth measurements. cerned about this situation, particulartherein. The testing that OSHA has OSHA recognizes that the standard ly in light of the industry recommenperformed, supplemented by the is intended to set only minimum monidations at that time that the standard NIOSH data, serves to demonstrate toring requirements for employers. It be set as low as 2 ppm. Therefore, testthat there is at least one method availis reasonable, then, that the standard ing was performed at the OSHA Anaable which meets those requirements. should only require the notification to lytical Laboratory in Salt Lake City, We are fully aware that there are employees when monitoring required Utah, to determine whether NIOSH many other methods in use throughby the standard is carried out. Addimethod S-156, which was the method out industry to sample for AN, as well tional actions by the employer in monused under the existing 20 ppm standas methods which are in varying itoring exposures, while certainly enard, could also be used in sampling stages of development. Such methods couraged by OSHA, are not required lower concentrations (see appendix D). include the use of porous polymer by the standard, and direct notifica- The test results clearly showed that tubes instead of charcoal tubes for coltion need not be given to employees. S-156 could be used for sampling and lecting the sample, gas bags, badge- The standard requires that measureanalysis below 1 ppm with sufficient type dosimeters, and the use of portaments be made by monitoring which is accuracy (Exs. 18; 18A). Testing was ble and fixed-point sampling devices representative of each employee's experformed in the presence of high huand systems, Considerable data has posure to AN over and 8-hour period midity (85 percent) and other monbeen submitted to the record by many without regard to respiratory protecomers, such as styrene and butadiene, companies concerning their experience tion. Exposure measurements for each to determine whether these elements with these methods. By demonstrating individual employee would, certainly, had any detrimental effect on the the availability and effectiveness of S- be an indication of that employee's exsampling and analysis. The effects of 156 as modified, we do not intend to posure. However, this may be unnecesthese factors was negligible. The Dishort-circuit any of the efforts by sarily burdensome in some instances. rector of the OSHA Laboratory, Floyd these companies to develop their own Monitoring which can be shown to be Madsen, appeared at the rulemaking monitoring procedures, some of which representative of an employee's expohearing and was questioned at length may prove to be even more accurate. sure would provide the necessary inby industry representatives concerning Industry representatives have formation and in many instances his testing procedures and results. In argued that it is essential for a method would require fewer samples. This is addition, representatives of SPI were to be "field validated" in order to be particularly true in manufacturing of permitted to visit the Laboratory after used for compliance with the AN AN and other 24-hour continuous the hearing. in order to talk with Mr. standard (Exs. 75; 83). Yet it should be processes. Madsen further concerning sampling noted that such representatives have The proposal required monitoring and analysis, in response to a direct realso stated that the range of field conmonthly for employees exposed above quest at the hearing by both SPI and ditions that may be encountered in the permissible exposure limit and Vistron. Although such a visit did, the AN industry is so wide and variquarterly for employees exposed beindeed, go beyond what is required of able that it would be necessary to tween the action level and the PEL. As the Agency during informal rulemak- "field validate" a method in each indinoted above, many employers have ining. OSHA determined that it was, in vidual workplace in order to show that dicated that they perform monitoring this limited circumstance, an appropriit was, indeed, a workable method on a more frequent basis. It is evident ate gesture toward developing a comacross the board (Tr. 933). It is evident that the higher the frequency of meaplete record on the sampling issue. that no single analytical method will surement, the higher the accuracy of Laboratory testing has also been work in every imaginable workplace the employee's exposure profile. The performed by NIOSH at their laborasituation, either for AN or for most companies involved with the manufactories in Cincinnati, also involving any other organic vapor. In addition, turing and polymerizing of AN indicatmethod S-156. Data submitted to the it is also clear that whatever method ed little, if any, disagreement with the record by Dr. Judd Posner of NIOSH an employer may choose to use to monitoring frequency in the proposal. also demonstrated that AN could be monitor for AN, he must validate it OSHA has carried forward these prosampled and analysed below 1 ppm for use in his particular plant. The visions to the final standard. We bewith accuracy (Exs. 43; 66). Since this need for such individual validation was lieve that in the industries affected by data was submitted during the course espoused by industry representatives this standard, monthly and quarterly of the hearing, Dr. Posner invited in- (Tr. 933). monitoring will reflect employee expoterested persons at the hearing to The method of "field validation" sure with sufficient accuracy to assure submit questions to him in writing, to proposed by Dr. Ward of Monsanto that suitable precautions will be taken which he would reply during the postpresents an interesting approach as needed to protect employees from hearing comment period. It is imporwhich shows promise (Ex. 136). Howexposure to AN. tant to note that no such questions ever, there is nothing to indicate that Industry representatives have conwere received. A complete write-up of a method is or has been in use in the centrated much of their criticism on the analytical method and sampling past to "field validate" sampling methwhat they have contended to be the technique used by NIOSH is available ods for AN or other organic vapors. In lack of a method of sampling and analin the record (see appendix D). In esaddition, Dr. Posner of NIOSH has ysis for AN in the range of 1 ppm and sence, it sets forth the same method submitted an analysis of Dr. Ward's below which will meet the accuracy utilized by the OSHA Laboratory, validation method which points up and precision requirements set forth with the major exceptions being the that it, too, is not without pitfalls in in the proposed standard. This issue use of a different desorbing solvent its implementation (Ex. 140). There is was brought to the surface by the and the use of flame ionization withno single accepted method of "field original NIOSH recommendations in out the nitrogen phosphorus detector. validating" a sampling method to September 1977 (Ex. 65). In those rec- OSHA does not require that any one obtain data which will support its use ommendations, NIOSH stated that specific method of sampling and analunder all workplace conditions. OSHA should issue a 4 ppm standard, ysis be used for compliance with the A detailed exposition of the range of based upon what they characterized as monitoring provisions of the standard. available methods of sampling and the limitations of existing sampling This provision is set forth in performanalysis for AN was contained in the and analytical methods for AN. As we ance language, and permits the use of written comments submitted by Monpointed out at length in the preamble any method which meets the accuracy santo (Ex. 11:(27)). Table A contains a FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45797 listing of five methods which were recovery (with methanol or carbon dieither validated by Monsanto (field sulfide) falls below 75 percent by deand/or laboratory validation) or, in veloping a "working curve," in lieu of the case of the gasbags, showed a dethe NIOSH protocol. They emphatection limit below 1 ppm. The field sized that appropriate validation techvalidation was, presumedly, carried niques are necessary for the use of all out under the protocol submitted by monitoring procedures in the work- Ward (Ex. 136). Although Monsanto place setting, whether charcoal tubes reported difficulty in using NIOSH or other means of sampling are used. method S-156, it is clear that they They have chosen to rely upon alterhave been able to develop or apply native systems, such as porous polyother methods of sampling and analymer adsorption/thermal desorption, sis to their many and varied opersince they consider them to be less ations. subject to the types of variables associ- Monsanto, in their written comated with charcoal-based systems. ments, discussed the various problems As was noted by Madsen in his testithat they had experienced with mony at the hearing, Monsanto con- NIOSH method S-156 (Ex. 11:(27)). curs that the use of a nitrogen-specific They noted that the only charcoal lot gas chromatographic (GC) detector which had shown satisfactory results has the potential of enhancing the dewas lot 107. This point was noted by tection limit of all of the methods Madsen in his testimony (Tr. 132). In listed in the table by a factor of 10 dealing with the problems of sample (Ex. 11:(27)). It is also important to "breakthrough" reported by various note that other methods which incompanies, including Borg-Warner volve gas chromatographic analysis, (Ex. 83), Monsanto noted that some have this same potential. companies are using two larger char- Monsanto has also reported using coal tubes, containing up to 1,000 mg., both the Century OVA 128 and Cenin series, to replace the 150-mg. tubes tury flare tubes at levels well below 1 generally used. They have concluded, ppm, noting only that "the methods however, that there is no evidence of are claimed to be selective." Century any effect of humidity or temperature Systems testified independently that at low AN burden. their instrumentation was capable of Monsanto noted that charcoal tube measuring AN at concentrations well methods can be used for AN at concenbelow 1 ppm as an 8-hour TWA (Tr. trations below 2 ppm even where AN 873-874). FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45798 RULES AND REGULATIONS TABLE B: ADDITIONAL METHODS OF MONITORING AND ANALYSIS FOR AN BELOW 1 PPM (Adapted from Monsanto comments (Exhibit (27))) Method Adsorption/Desorption/ Validation: Analysis concentration, detection limits 1. Monsanto Poropak-N field validated down to PoropaK-N (porous Thermal GC 0.1 ppm; detection limit polymer) approaching 0.02 ppm for a 3-liter air sample. 2. Modified 1 to 2% field validated at NIOSH Charcoal Acetone in/GC levels above 0.08 ppm P&CAM 127 CS₂ within ± 2 std. devs. for a TWA6. 3. NIOSH laboratory and field P&CAM 127 Charcoal/CS2/GC validated at and above 0.2 ppm for a TWAS; Reported loss of AN when desorbed sample is stored over time. 4. Passive Dosimetry Abcor R Acetone / GC laboratory validated 0.94 Gasbadge/in CS₂/ ppm; field tested at 0.8-3.8 ppm by reference to method no. 2 above. 5. Gas sample bags Gas bag/GC Detection limit of ca a 2.5 CC. gas sample. Reported memory effects at low AN levels. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45799 Monsanto was confident that "the The monitoring defined by the is certainly one approach toward decharcoal tube or passive dosimeter OSHA Laboratory involves the use of termining representativeness of expomethods could be practiced by downcharcoal tubes and personal sampling sure measurements. There are other stream processors with some guidance pumps, with subsequent analysis by approaches which would be suitable, from trained professional" (Ex. gas chromatograph with nitrogen as well. The employer has the burden 11:(27)). The record reflects that the phosphorus detector. Laboratory valiof showing, by whatever means at his employers covered by this standard dation data indicates that this method disposal, that his measurements are possess considerably more technical can be used with sufficient accuracy representative of each employee's excapability in this area than downand precision down to the 0.5-ppm posure to AN. stream employers would be expected level and below. Floyd Madsen was The rulemaking record, along with to have. The broadening of the exempquestioned extensively at the hearing experience under the ETS, indicate tion provisions will limit the scope of as to his findings by industry reprethat most affected employers have the standard to those companies best sentatives (Tr. 117-159). In addition, successfully implemented a monitorable to provide an effective monitoring several industry personnel visited ing method which gives satisfactory program which will produce meaning- Madsen at the Laboratory during the ful results. results in their operations, at concenposthearing comment period (Ex. 142). trations in the 1- to 2-ppm range. How- Companies such as Goodyear, Dow Neither the questioning at the hearing Badische, and Dow Chemical have ever, OSHA cannot ignore the difficulnor the laboratory visit have raised submitted details of the sampling and ties that various companies have reany significant questions as to Madanalytical methods that they have ported in demonstrating the required sen's findings. found valid for use in their respective accuracy and precision specified in The primary differences between operation (Exs. 138; 11:(17); 11:(25)). both the ETS and proposal at a (95 the NIOSH and OSHA variations on Still others have installed continuous percent confidence level, ±25 percent S-156 are the method of desorption monitoring systems which provide at or above 2 ppm, and ±35 percent (NIOSH does not use ultrasonic agitaarea measurements of airborne AN below 2 ppm) (Exs. 83; 159). We have tion of the sample), the desorbing solconcentrations (Exs. 11:(10); 11:(8)). determined that these criteria should vent (NIOSH use 1 percent acetone in As the record makes clear, there are carbon disulfide, whereas OSHA uses be made more flexible, in order to a number of adequate methods availamethanol), and the analytical equipassist employers who have encounble for sampling and analysis of AN ment (NIOSH uses flame ionization, tered unique sampling problems. concentrations at and below 1 ppm. whereas OSHA adds a nitrogen-phos- Therefore, the final standard permits OSHA recognizes that one method phorus detector). the use of methods with accuracy and may not work under all workplace con- Method S-156 and variations thereprecision at a 95-percent confidence ditions due to such variables as temon have been adopted and accepted for level, of ±35 percent at or above 2 perature, humidity, and other unique general use in field monitoring at the ppm, and ±50 percent below 1 and 2 factors. Regardless of the method se- 1- to 2-ppm level by several major comppm. The difference (35 percent VS. 50 lected, an employer must validate the panies that manufacture and/or use percent) reflects a recognition that acmethod that he intends to use under AN in their facilities. Workplace concuracy of monitoring decreases below the conditions present in the particuditions and other factors vary widely 2 ppm. lar workplace to assure himself that it among these companies (cf. Ex. 2:(22); The accuracy and precision requirewill be sufficiently accurate. It is for 11:(14); 138; Tr. 1196-1199). ments are intended to provide the emthis reason that the monitoring accu- The standard requires that the meaployer with a degree of confidence in racy and precision required by the surements be made by monitoring his sampling results. As noted earlier, standard are stated in performance which is representative of each emmonitoring is not carried out for its terms. The OSHA and NIOSH methployee's exposure to AN over an 8- own sake, but for the purposes of deods of monitoring employee exposures hour period without regard to the use termining what is required for compliare included as an appendix to the of respiratory protection. Exposure ance in a given operation. OSHA anfinal standard as a means of assisting measurements for each individual emticipates that the wide range of availathe employer in the selection of an apployee would, of course, be an indicable methods, combined with more propriate method for his workplace. tion of that employee's exposure. flexible criteria for the method em- It was also contended that because However, this may be unnecessarily ployed, will enable employers to perneither the OSHA nor the NIOSH burdensome in some instances. Moniform their required monitoring withvariations of method S-156 had been toring which is truly representative of out serious difficulties. "field validated" under all workplace an employee's exposure would provide The employee exposure measureinsults and exposure conditions, they the necessary information and in ments are to be made without regard could not serve as reference methods. many instances would involve fewer to the use of respiratory protection. This assertion totally misconstrues the samples. One commentator took issue with this true purpose of a so-called "reference In their testimony, the NIOSH panel provision, contending that the sammethod." The applicability of any expressed concern that OSHA did not pling does not reflect the actual expo- "reference method" was described specify a means of determining if an sure of the employee who is being promost accurately at the hearing by Dr. exposure measurement was "repretected by a respirator (Ex. 149). Ward: sentative" of an employee's exposure. Whereas this statement may be true, There is always a need for a reference They believed that this presented a it overlooks the fact that exposure method. However, the reference method potential for actually reducing the monitoring is not a single-purpose accannot serve under all applications. It can protection afforded to workers extivity. It is necessary to know employserve under laboratory conditions and it has posed to AN. OSHA believes that the ee exposure levels without the use of merit in that respect (Tr. 791). standard should require the desired respiratory protection in order to OSHA and NIOSH have both perperformance, i.e., a showing of repreevaluate the effectiveness of the reformed laboratory testing of their sentativeness, rather than specifying quired engineering and work practice variations of NIOSH method S-156 one method for determining it. We controls, and to determine whether and have found the method to be a recognize, however, that NIOSH has additional controls must be instituted. suitable reference method for use in published a document outlining a sam- In addition, monitoring is necessary to the range of concentrations covered by pling strategy which is directed at this determine which, if any, respirator the standard (Exs. 18; 18A; 43; 66). problem (Ex. 14:(157)). That strategy must be used by the employee. PEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45800 RULES AND REGULATIONS As noted by numerous participants those operations where exposures The alarm system required by parain this rulemaking proceeding, expowould be well below the permissible graph (i) of the standard will detect sure conditions vary throughout the exposure limit. AN concentrations which exceed the day in many operations. At least one The standard requires that whenceiling limit. When an alarm is soundsample is to be taken during each shift ever there has been a production, ed, the employer will have to take in order to assure that exposure meaprocess, or control change which may action to locate the source of the resurements represent exposures of emresult in new or additional exposures lease which is causing the high levels ployees on all shifts. Employees workto AN, or whenever the employer has of AN, and will then have to deconing in the same area doing different reason to suspect an increase in emtaminate the leak or spill area. In this jobs may have different exposures. ployee exposure, the employer shall regard, the weekly survey, as pro- Therefore, the standard requires samrepeat the required monitoring and posed, would be redundant. pling for each job classification, as measurements for those employees af- OSHA has determined, however, well. The proposed standard did not fected by such change or increase. that some form of leak detection procontain detailed procedures in this The redetermination procedure is gram should be required by the standregard. However, in order to assure acnecessary to assure that the most ard. The details of such a program, curate representative monitoring of recent monitoring results accurately however, should be left to the employemployee exposures, OSHA has deterrepresent the existing exposure condier, who is already under the obligation mined that the variability of expotions. This is necessary so that the emto control employee exposures to sures warrants such procedures. ployer may take appropriate actions within the permissible exposure limits. The standard requires that the inisuch as instituting additional engi- The leak detection program in the tial monitoring be conducted, and the neering controls and providing approfinal standard has been placed in the results thereof obtained, as of the efpriate respiratory protection. housekeeping section of the standard, fective date of the standard. OSHA be- The final standard also provides paragraph (k). lieves that this provides more than that employers may discontinue peri- Regulated areas and notification: enough time for employers to comodic monitoring for those employees Paragraphs (d) and (f). The final plete the sampling and obtain the refor whom two consecutive measurestandard requires the employer to essults. Moreover, the standard permits ments, taken at least 7 days apart, tablish regulated areas wherever AN employers who have monitored under show exposures to be below the action exposures exceed the PEL, and to the ETS, or since January 17, 1978, to level. Where employee exposure mealimit access to these areas to authorutilize these measurements for pursurements fall below the permissible ized persons. This requirement will poses of complying with the initial exposure limits but are at or above the help to limit exposure to AN by premonitoring requirements of the final action level, the employer may alter venting persons who are not authorstandard. Employers who have already the monitoring schedule for those emized from entering areas with AN exmonitored their employees' exposures ployees from monthly to quarterly posures above 2 ppm. It will also assist within this period will, therefore, not after two consecutive measurements in designating areas where precautionhave to conduct initial monitoring taken at least 7 days apart indicate ary signs are to be posted, while also unless, because of a process, control, the reduction in levels. designating areas where employees or personnel change, they are required Section 8(c)(3) of the act (29 U.S.C. will be subject to monthly exposure to redetermine exposures. 657) requires employers to promptly monitoring pursuant to paragraph (e). The final standard requires measurenotify an employee who is exposed in Employees in regulated areas willl be ment every 3 months for employees excess of the permissible exposure prohibited from smoking and eating in exposed between the action level and limit. The standard requires the emthese areas, and may be covered by the TWA limit, and monthly for) employer to notify each employee in writprotective clothing and equipment and ployees exposed above the TWA limit. ing of that employee's measurement hygiene requirements under other sec- The higher the measurement frewithin 5 working days after the retions of the standard. quency, the higher the accuracy of the ceipt of the results of any measure- The limitation on eating, smoking, employee exposure profile. The selecments required under paragraph (e). and applying cosmetics in regulated tion of an appropriate interval be- Notification in writing need not be an areas is necessary to prevent unnecestween monitoring efforts is judgmenindividual letter to the employee, but sary exposure to AN. Potential routes tal. OSHA has determined that requirmay be a notice prominently displayed of exposure to AN are ingestion, skin ing monthly and quarterly monitoring on a bulletin board or similar workabsorption, and inhalation. All' of for AN exposures will reflect employee place location. these routes must be limited by OSHA exposure with sufficient accuracy to OSHA has determined that the proin order to protect employees from the assure that suitable precautions will posed paragraph (e)(7), requiring a carcinogenic hazard posed by AN exbe taken as needed. weekly survey of operations involving posure. Periodic measurement is appropriate liquid AN, should be deleted from the Paragraph (d) of this standard rewhen exposures are in the 1-2 ppm monitoring provisions of the final quires the employer to notify the range because of the possibility that standard. The data in the record indi- OSHA Area Office within 30 days of minor changes in process, materials, or cates that the purposes of the weekly the establishment of regulated areas weather conditions may raise exposure survey (i.e., detection of leaks and in his workplace. This requirement is to above the TWA limit, and to comspills of liquid AN) can be achieved more limited than was proposed, in pensate for the possibility that such through a less elaborate and detailed order to concentrate on exposure conmeasurements are falsely low. leak detection program. ditions above the PEL. It enables the Periodic monitoring and measure- The unpredictable nature of fugitive Agency to be aware of facilities where ment are not required when initial emissions from valves, pumps, and the substantial exposure to AN exists. measurements are below 1 ppm. It is like, makes it unlikely that a survey Methods of compliance: Paragraph unlikely, when exposures are at this performed on a weekly basis will (g). The final standard requires that level, that minor fluctuations in procdetect all, or even most, of the leaks by November 2, 1980, engineering coness, materials, or weather or measureand spills that occur in liquid AN opertrols and work practices be used to ment accuracy would result in false ations. Further, such a weekly survey control employee exposure to acryloninegative readings below the TWA would add little to the exposure monitrile, except to the extent that the emlimit. It would not be appropriate to toring required by the standard, in deployer can show that they are not fearequire periodic measurements in termining employee exposure to AN. sible. If all feasible engineering and FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45801 work practice controls do not succeed except in circumstances where there is CFR 1910.1000(e) and with good indusin reducing exposure below the perno feasible alternative to more subtrial hygiene practice. missible exposure limit, they must be stantial reliance on respiratory protec- Many comments cited problems assoimplemented and supplemented by tion. ciated with respirators (Exs. 92; respiratory protection. OSHA's experi- Even in situations in which engineer- 11(27)). Respirators are to be considence has been that engineering coning controls will not succeed in reducered secondary to the objective of trols must be coupled with suitable ing exposure levels below the TWA limiting emissions at the source. work practices to maximize their effeclimit, it is still appropriate to require Proper facial fit is essential, but due to tiveness. Respiratory protection may all feasible engineering controls to be variations in individual factal dimenbe used only during the time period installed, even though they would sions, as well as facial hair, scars, or necessary to install engineering conhave to be supplemented by the use of growths, it is difficult to maintain. Fatrols, where engineering controls may respirators. The engineering controls, tigue and reduced efficiency may be inappropriate, such as during some by minimizing the amounts of AN in occur more rapidly among workers maintenance operations, or in those the workplace environment, will also wearing respirators due to increased cases when both engineering controls minimize the potential for overexpobreathing resistance, heat stress, and and work practices do not succeed in sure to AN resulting from poorly fitreduced vision. Additional problems reducing exposures below the permisting respirators, and will usually include the entanglement of hoses of sible exposure limit. Respirators are reduce the number of employees who air-supplied respirators, as well as limalso to be used in emergencies. will need to wear respirators at all. ited mobility resulting from hose This compliance strategy has been The standard places the burden on length and bulkiness of the apparatus. consistently OSHA's policy and has the employer for proving or disproving (Ex. 19). been followed in prior standards and feasibility. The employer is in the best It is clear, and generally agreed to proposed standards. This policy is position to gather evidence on feasibilby the affected employers, that respibased upon the view that the most efity in a particular workplace. He is rators cannot generally be considered fective means of controlling employee exposure is to contain emissions of most familiar with his own production as the primary means of employee processes and engineering modificahealth protection. It is also recognized toxic substances at their source tions which can be made. Further, it is by OSHA that there will be certain opthrough the use of mechanical means erations in which the use of respiracombined with work practices. This is the policy of the OSHA Act that emfar more effective than reliance on the ployers be required to take steps to intors will be necessary to protect emhighly variable human behavior so vestigate the feasibility of controls ployees from exposure to AN. This aspect was recognized in the preamble critical to the successful use of respiraand install them as necessary. to the proposal. tors. As discussed below, respirators In addition to the obligation to insti- OSHA has concluded that if the perhave many disadvantages which pretute engineering and work practice missible exposure limit is exceeded, clude primary reliance or coreliance controls, except to the extent that employees must use respirators. This on respiratory protection on an equal such controls are not feasible, the is necessary in order to provide the basis with engineering and work pracfinal standard also requires that each maximum amount of protection availtice controls. Furthermore, the burden employer establish and implement a able in situations where engineering of reducing employee exposure should plan for reducing exposures to within controls and work practices do not sucmore properly rest on the employer in the permissible exposure limits solely ceed in reducing exposures below perwhose establishment toxic substances by engineering and work practice conmissible levels. are released, rather than placing the trols. These written plans must be fur- The affected employers have indiburden of respirator use on the exnished upon request for examination cated that they have endeavored to posed employee. and copying to representatives of the determine, under the ETS, those job The Council on Wage and Price Sta- Assistant Secretary and the Director. positions for which respirator use will bility suggested a control strategy in- These plans must be reviewed and upbe necessary for a large part of the volving principal reliance on respiradated periodically to reflect the curworkshift, under a 2 ppm standard. tory protection, to reduce the cost of rent status of exposure control. The This achievement places the employcompliance (Ex. 27). However, the afwritten plan is an essential part of the ers in a position to develop a detailed fected companies themselves readily compliance program, since it will enrespirator program directed primarily acknowledge the many difficulties incourage employers to implement the at these employees. Items which herent in reliance upon respiratory necessary technology for reducing emmight be considered for such a deprotective devices (Exs. 11:(27); 92). ployee exposures. It also provides the tailed program include making availa- These difficulties were also discussed information to allow OSHA, the emble a greater variety of respirators by respirator expert Darell Bevis (Ex. ployers, and employees to examine the from which employees can choose, 19). Because of the difficulties in obcontrol methods chosen and the having a technician fully trained in taining and maintaining a proper fit extent to which these planned conrespirator use and selection, and orgaand seal of the respirator facepiece, it trols are being implemented in the nizing the work so that part of the day is difficult to know whether the respiworkplace. can be spent in clean rooms or control rators actually provide adequate pro- Respirators: Paragraph (h). The rooms where the exposure limits are tection. Respirators, by interfering standard requires that respirators be not exceeded. The nature of the work with vision, hearing, and mobility, can used only during the time period necin many monomer and polymer manucause safety problems. Some employessary to install or implement feasible facturing facilities, much of which is ees cannot wear respirators because of engineering and work practice conhighly automated, lends itself to this breathing difficulties. Finally, it is not trols, in operations in which such contype of program. The employer should appropriate to place the burden of trols are not appropriate, such as ceralso investigate the possibility for rescompliance principally on the employtain maintenance operations, in work pirators with microphones, should ee, as would be the case if respiratory operations in which such controls are communication on the job prove to be protection were the principal means of not feasible or are not yet sufficient to a problem. reducing employee exposure. Therereduce exposure to the permissible Respiratory protection also has a fore, OSHA retains in the standard limits, or in emergencies. These rerole during maintenance operations as the policy of principal reliance on enstrictions on the use of respirators are well as during emergency situations. gineering controls and work practices, consistent with the requirements of 29 We realize that respirators may be FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45802 RULES AND REGULATIONS needed in these types of operations, breathes. This may result in workplace ing proper protection to the employee. even over the long run. The standard air entering the facepiece through Whereas the qualitative fit test is subis designed to control AN workplace gaps and leaks in the facepiece seal, jective, relying upon the employee's emissions at the source, and, thus, to instead of passing through the sorbent sense of smell, the quantitative fit test minimize the need for general use of material. Obtaining a proper fit on uses instrumentation inside the facerespirators by employees. each employee may require the empiece to determine the integrity of the In the proposal, OSHA included a ployer to provide two or three differseal. One type of quantitative fit test proposed table of respirators for use ent mask styles. involves using a simple hood, sodium with AN. The primary basis for the se- The employee must be properly chloride vapor, and automated instrulection and evaluation of respirators in trained to wear the respirator, to know mentation. At least one such device is this table (Table I) was the NIOSHwhy the respirator is needed, and to commercially available at less than OSHA respirator decision logic. The understand the limitations of the res- $10,000. These tests can be performed protection factors supplied in the pirator. An understanding of the rapidly (10 to 20 minutes) and are relatable were based on qualitative fit testhazard involved is necessary to enable tively easy to perform. Since the ing, which involves only the facepiecethe employee to take steps for his or standard will apply almost exclusively to-face seal. (Ex. 19). In addition to her own protection. The respiratory to monomer and polymer producers, it the Table, several other requirements protection program implemented by is reasonable to assume that these for respirator usage were included in the employer must conform to that set the proposal, concerning approval of large companies can obtain the equipforth in 29 CFR 1910.134. This proviment for such testing. respirators, replacement of cartridges sion contains basic requirements for and/or canisters, and cleaning of respi- OSHA requested views, arguments, proper selection, use, cleaning, and and other comments on the issue of rators. maintenance of respirators. A number of changes have been quantitative fit testing in the course of Under § 1910.134, the employer must made from the proposed provisions, this rulemaking proceeding. The use check to see that the employees' respibased primarily upon the recommenrators fit properly and that leakage is of such testing has been endorsed by dations of Darell Bevis, an acknowlthe Z88.2 subcommittee of ANSI as at a minimum. A rapid simple fit test edged expert in the field of respiratory can be performed at the start of each noted by Bevis in his testimony (Ex. protection. These changes will be disshift by each employee wearing a neg- 19). The equipment has been develcussed below. ative-pressure respirator. This test can oped which makes quantitiative fit The proposal specified that where be either a positive pressure test, in testing relatively easy to carry out, air-purifying respirators were to be which the exhalation valve is closed and it is universally recognized that it used, they would have to be approved and in which the wearer exhales into provides greater assurance of proper by NIOSH specifically for use with the facepiece to produce a positive protection. We believe, therefore, that AN. NIOSH has since informed OSHA pressure, or a negative pressure test, it is appropriate for employers with that they will not grant such approval in which the inlet is closed and the significant numbers of employees because of AN's poor warning qualiwearer inhales so that the facepiece wearing negative pressure on respiraties. Since AN cannot be detected by collapses slightly. Employees must be tors to be required to provide quantiodor until concentrations reach the trained to perform this test. tative fit testing for those employees. 13-19 ppm range, it is not possible for The standard requires a qualitative Under the ETS, employers were rethe respirator wearer to detect leakage fittest at the time of initial fitting and quired to implement any practicable or breakthrough within the facepiece semiannually thereafter. Isoamyl acecombination of engineering, work until he is clearly overexposed. Under tate can be used to qualitatively test practices, and respiratory protective the respirator decision logic, the use of facepiece fit. If the employee can devices to lower their employees' AN air-purifying respirators should not be smell the isoamyl acetate while wearexposures below a 2 ppm TWA. Much permitted for AN, because of this ing the respirator, it can be concluded of the compliance activity under the factor. However, OSHA has deterthat the particular respirator will not ETS involved the implementation of mined that air-purifying respirators, provide suitable protection for that respiratory protection programs. when used in a rigidly controlled proemployee. Therefore, there should be no need for gram of proper fitting and frequent The proposal contained no specific a "transition period" for the implesorbent replacement, should be perrequirement for periodic fit testing. mentation of respirator programs mitted for protection against low con- However, as noted below, the issue was under the final standard. The standcentrations of AN, as prescribed in raised by OSHA in the proposal as to ard requires that the employees ex- Table I of the standard. When the whether the more sophisticated quanposed above the PEL as of the effecprotection factors in the respirator titative fit test should be generally retive date of the standard must be protable are followed, organic vapor carquired. We have concluded that the vided with and must wear appropriate tridges and canisters can provide properiodic qualitative fit test can serve respirators in accordance with the setection for employees. as a preliminary screening for all reslection criteria in Table I. Therefore, OSHA has revised its propirator users, to determine whether an The proposal provided for the reposal to permit organic vapor caremployee's face-to-face piece seal is placement of "filters" if an employee tridges and canisters to be used for sufficient to permit the use of respirareported breathing resistance. This AN. These sorbent containers must be tors designated in Table 1. provision has been deleted from the approved by NIOSH for use with or- The standard also requires that each final standard. As was noted at the ganic vapors. We must not however, employer with 10 or more employees hearing, organic vapor cartridges do that there are numerous factors which who must wear negative pressure resnot use "filters," which are generally affect the performance of air-purifypirators must provide quantitative fit used for protection against particulate ing respirators, including the sorbent testing for those employees at the hazards (Ex. 19). The vapor hazard asmaterial itself and the fit of the facetime of initial fitting and semiannualsociated with AN in the workplace piece on the wearer. Other important ly thereafter. In a quantitative fit test, should not present any breathing refactors include wearer acceptance and the level of leakage and degree of prosistance difficulties, since there is no training. tection are specifically measured by problem of clogged filters in this situa- Proper fit of the respirator is critisensitive instruments. These tests are tion. Therefore, the requirement is not cal. A negative pressure is created more accurate and provide greater asappropriate for a regulation on AN exwithin the facepiece when the wearer surance that the respirator is providposure. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45803 Perhaps the most controversial ele- On questioning, he elaborated on The alarm system will, in most cases, ment of the proposed respirator secthe practice of labeling used cartridges involve the installation of a continution involved the frequency of replaceas an alternative to replacement each ous monitoring system which will ment of cartridges or canisters. It was shift: detect AN concentrations at the ceilcontended by many in industry that the daily replacement of cartridges or It's my firm opinion that when using soring limits to activate the alarm. Such bent-type cartridges and canisters (,) the monitoring systems have already been canisters was wasteful, particularly if most conservative approach must be taken installed by some companies and are they were only used briefly during the I never recommend-in fact, I'm a crubeing used for generating area moniworkshift. A system of labeling of carsader against-reuse of sorbent type cartoring data in addition to detecting tridges, it was argued, would assure tridges and canisters because I don't feel ceiling concentrations of AN (Exs. that cartridges and canisters were rethat they can safely be reused (Tr. 191). 11:(10); 87). placed before the expiration of their We agree that in the limited use of The need for an alarm system has service life (Ex. 92). OSHA does not the sorbent-type air purifying respirabeen recognized by many of the affectagree with these contentions. As noted tors, the most conservative approach ed companies (Exs. 11:(10); 11:(14); earlier, the very use of organic vapor must be taken in order to assure the 11:(27)). cartridges and canisters for AN, which most protection from that device. Protective clothing and equipment: does not have good warning proper- As noted in the proposal, the wear- Paragraph (j). The standard requires ties, runs totally counter to the respiing of a respirator can result in facial the employer to provide and assure rator decision logic and to good indusirritation at the face seal surface. To that employees use protective clothing trial hygiene practice. However, OSHA prevent this irritation and to minimize and equipment wherever there is pohas determined that it is necessary to the discomfort of respirator use, the tential for exposure to liquid AN. This allow their use under a limited set of proposal would have permitted emprovision is considerably narrower in circumstances, provided that that use ployees to periodically "wash" their scope than that in the proposal. It reis very narrowly restricted. The lack of faces and respirator facepieces. This flects the determination that solid end-of-service-life indicators for organprovision has been modified in the PAN and other finished polymers do ic vapor cartridges used with AN final standard. It was noted at the not represent significant sources of masks it is necessary for OSHA to rehearing that an employee who AN exposure. The new provisions require the replacement of the sorbent "washed" his respirator facepiece quire appropriate protective clothing at the completion of each shift (Ex. might also wet the sorbent cartridge and equipment only for "liquid AN," 11:(16)). or canister, possibly rendering it inefas defined in the standard, including It should be noted, in addition, that fective or less effective. The employpolymer intermediates produced even changing the sorbent container ee's role, it was argued, was to make during the polymerization process. each shift may not assure protection. sure that he wore the facepiece prop- The protective clothing provisions of Testing data submitted by a respirator erly (Tr. 193-4). We believe that the the proposal elicited much comment manufacturer and by NIOSH indicate standard should reflect these conand testimony from interested perthat some organic vapor cartridges cerns. The provision in the final standsons. The detailed requirements for used for AN may not last for 8 hours, ard has, therefore, been clarified to providing, maintaining, and replacing and that they may last for only 4 allow washing of the face, but only a protective clothing and equipment hours under humid conditions (Ex. were criticized as not being sufficientwiping of the facepiece-to-face seal of 11:(12L); 11:(13L); 11:(14L)). This findly performance-oriented Some comthe respirator itself. Cleaning of the ing is particularly important in the ments noted that impermeable clothactive elements of the respirator context of this standard, since there ing was provided to the employee to should be in the hands of a trained are numerous monomer and polymer protect him from skin contact with person as part of a respirator program. production facilities which operate AN. Thus, when such AN-impermeable OSHA believes that if an employee under conditions of high humidity. It clothing became wet with AN, there receives training as to the purpose of is clear that where the service life of a was no need for the employee to his respirator and the proper method cartridge or canister is less than 8 remove the clothing immediately, as of wearing it, he will be less likely to hours, that cartridge or canister may the proposal would have required, bedo anything which will limit the prohave to be replaced again at some time cause there would be no skin exposure. tectiveness of the respirator program. during the workshift. The standard Dow Badische recommended that the Emergency situations: Paragraph (i). allows for such a situation by requirstandard provide separate require- The emergency provisions are substaning the employer to replace cartridges ments for the handling of impermetially unchanged from those of the or canisters before the end of their able clothing, such as rubber gloves proposal. However, the revised definiand suits, as opposed to coveralls and service life or at the completion of tion of the term "emergency" limits other permeable clothing (Ex. 149). each shift, whichever comes first. The the types and number of situations for employer has the obligation to ascer- We have determined that these sugwhich a written plan will be required. gestions have merit, and the final tain the service life of the cartridges OSHA has determined that not all instandard incorporates appropriate and canisters to be used in his workstances of release of AN above the ceilchanges. Where it is likely that imperplace, in order to assure that they are ing limit should be viewed as emergenmeable clothing has contacted liquid replaced as required by the standard. cies. Only the "massive release" of AN AN such clothing must be washed On the issue of frequency of replaceis termed an emergency under the down with water before being removed ment of the cartridges Bevis stated: final standard. by the employee. The employee may I am in full support of the change of the It should be noted that the standard then remove the clothing in the cartridge after each shift has ended, whethstill requires the installation of an change room and proceed to shower. er it has been, used for 15 minutes or 8 alarm system, to be activated by re- The clothing must then be placed in a hours, since it is virtually impossible to leases of AN above the ceiling. Alregulated area and decontaminated. assure how much air has been drawn though not an "emergency" per se as through that cartridge or canister or to de- A more complicated situation arises termine the specific minutes or hours of defined in the standard, the exceeding if an employee wearing AN-permeable life. The activated charcoal sorbents in the of the ceiling limit does necessitate clothing becomes wet with liquid AN. organic vapor cartridges will sorb not only the taking of protective action to Understandably, this should only organic vapors but also moisture, shortening assure that employees are not overexoccur in accidental spills and emergentheir service life (Ex. 19). posed. cies. In this situation, the employee FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45804 RULES AND REGULATIONS shall remove the wetted clothing and been sharply criticized as redundant monitoring systems and portable deshower immediately. The clothing with the permissible exposure limits, tection units will be used both for deshall then be placed in a regulated since the presence of even small tecting sources of AN and for deterarea and decontaminated in the same amounts of liquid AN on a work surmining whether an area has been demanner as impermeable clothing. face would result in exposures above contaminated. Clothing and equipment worn for the PEL (Exs. 148; 11:(13)). Other par- The proposal required that AN and protection from liquid AN must, of neties contended that the term "accumu- PAN waste materials be placed in a cessity, be impermeable to AN. The lations" needed to be defined more closed container, labeled, and disposed proposal would have required replaceprecisely. The use of wipe tests and of. The employer was required to ment of such clothing on at least a bulk liquid samples, it was argued, inform those persons handling the maweekly basis. We have noted, however, could lead to citations for the detecterials of the AN content and the hazthat the actual need to provide retion of "accumulations" of "nanogram ards of exposure to AN. These proviplacement varies greatly with the conquantities" of AN (Ex. 160). sions drew strong comment from interditions of use. We believe that the em- Other provisions of the housekeepested parties. It was contended that ployer should be required to replace ing section were found by some parties the enclosure of these materials conprotective clothing and equipment as to be unnecessary and not in accordstituted a fire and explosion hazard, necessary to assure its protectiveness. ance with OSHA's intention to use since AN might be concentrated Whereas this does not specify a given performance language wherever pracwithin the containers. It was also interval, it does require frequent inticable (Ex. 148). Vistron determined argued that the downstream handler spection of clothing to make sure that that the housekeeping section restrictof the materials would face a serious it remains impermeable. ed the use of water flushing to wash exposure potential when the container The washing down of impermeable down work surfaces. Such washing was opened (Ex. 149). suits, gloves, and the like before rewould take advantage of the solubility The record clearly reflects that the moval is intended to minimize the poof AN in water, as well as its capacity provisions in the proposal which dealt tential of skin contact with AN. The for biodegradation by bacteria (Exs. with waste disposal are not supported washdown should be sufficient to 92; 146). by the record and are inappropriate assure that the clothing will not re- In light of these comments, and in for the proper handling of AN. Therelease AN. The employee shall, noneorder to provide a more performance fore, these provisions have been retheless, shower at the end of the workoriented standard, OSHA has detervised accordingly. Waste materials shift. mined that there is no need for a decontaining or contaminated with The provision for decontamination tailed housekeeping section in the liquid AN are to be placed in a regulatof wetted protective clothing and final AN standard. Where there may ed area. The materials may then be equipment helps to resolve a major be skin or eye contact with liquid AN, treated in one of two ways: They may area of difficulty surrounding both the employer is already required to either be placed under ventilation, or the ETS and the proposal. The proprovide impermeable protective clothwashed with water into the plant's posal required protective clothing to ing and equipment to his employees. process waste water system. When the be placed in a closed container after The detailed requirements as proposed materials no longer release AN in airuse. This presented a problem of possiwould appear to add little, if any, proborne concentrations above the action ble skin contact with and inhalation tection to that provided by the permislevel, they may then be disposed of in exposure to AN by persons opening sible exposure limits. They would also the normal manner (clearly, if the mathese containers, as well as by persons have limited the use of water washterial is incapable of releasing AN who had to handle the clothing for downs of work surfaces, which the above the action level, there would be disposal or laundering. In addition, the final standard expressly requires in no need for the employer to carry out closing of the containers posed a pocertain circumstances, as a means of this washing or ventilation step on tential for fire or explosion due to the controlling the potential for AN expothat material). The purpose of this volatility of the AN within the consures. Recommended housekeeping acnew provision is threefold: First, it retainers. The final standard deals with tivities are contained in appendixes A duces the number of employees with these problems by ventilating and & B. potential for exposure to AN; second, washing down the contaminated cloth- The final standard requires the emit provides a means of dispensing with ing and equipment to remove their poployer to assure that surfaces are the detailed disposal and labeling retential to release AN above 1 ppm. maintained free of visible accumulaquirements contained in the proposal; Many maintenance operations, partions of liquid AN. In addition, the emand, third, it provides a way for the ticularly those involving reactor cleanployer must decontaminate (as defined employer to assure that the material ing, involve the potential of skin conin paragraph (b)) areas where spills will not expose downstream handlers. tact with liquid AN. The impermeable are detected. As with protective "clothing, many clothing requirements, along with res- The housekeeping provisions have waste materials will not release AN piratory protection requirements, are also been revised from the proposal to above 1 ppm, even without the types essential to the protection of employinclude a lead detection program for of treatment provided for in paraees engaged in these operations. operations involving liquid AN. OSHA graph (1). It is clear that the standard Housekeeping and waste disposal: has determined that it is appropriate does not require such treatment in Paragraphs (k) and (Z). The proposal to require direct action by the employthis case. contained detailed housekeeping reer to detect leaks and spills of liquid The discussion of the revised exempquirements for AN and PAN. As noted AN which may result in employee extion provisions of the standard makes above, the final standard removes all posure. The details and frequency of clear that solid polymeric materials references to PAN, since the new defisuch a program are not specified in are not considered to be a significant nition of "liquid AN" will cover any the standard, because of the wide varisource of AN exposure. Therefore, the polymers and polymer intermediates ation of workplace conditions and AN disposal of PAN scrap or debris, other deemed to carry a significant skin exsources among the affected employers. than for those materials defined under posure potential. However, the housekeeping provisions "liquid AN," does not require the spe- Paragraph (k)(1) of the proposal respecify that the employer must deconcial treatment prescribed under paraquired the employer to maintain work taminate those areas in which leaks graph (1). The deletion of the term surfaces free of "accumulations" of and spills are found. OSHA anticipates "PAN" has been made in this para- AN and PAN. This paragraph has that the use of real-time continuous graph, accordingly. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45805 Hygiene facilities and practices: tered, positive pressure air supply in trile (Exs. 128; 149). The purpose of Paragraph (m). The proposal referlunchrooms (Ex. 156). Second, the these requirements is to make an inienced § 1910.141 and its existing restandard already prohibits eating, tial medical assessment of each emquirements for hygiene facilities and drinking, and smoking in regulated ployee and to establish a baseline practices in all workplaces. In addiareas. Employees are not permitted to health condition against which future tion, the change room and shower fahave food, beverages, or smoking prodchanges in an employee's health may cility provisions, § 1910.141 (e) and (d) ucts in areas above the permissible exbe compared. (3), respectively, were specifically inposure limits. Third, the final stand- The medical surveillance provisions corporated into the standard. OSHA ard retains the requirement for emof the standard contain specific testbelieves that these provisions are parployees exposed above the TWA to ing requirements, with concentration ticularly important where there is powash before eating. Airborne concenon the peripheral and central nervous tential for contact with liquid AN, and trations above the PEL imply the consystems, respiratory system and gaswhere protective equipment and clothcurrent possibility of skin contact with trointestinal system. Based upon the ing may be required. AN. Even though the standard condata from the du Pont and MCA stud- The proposed shower provisions tains a separate requirement for emies of exposure to AN, these vital sites would have required all employees ployees who contact liquid AN to must be considered to be possible "exposed to liquid AN and PAN" to shower afterwards, OSHA believes target sites for AN-induced cancer. shower at the end of the work shift. that this additional precautionary However, due to the lack of site- This requirement has drawn considermeasure is appropriate in light of the specificity associated with AN-induced able comment from affected employnature of the AN exposure hazard. cancer, all systems must be examined ers. The term "exposure" caused con- Medical surveillance: Paragraph (n). thoroughly (Exs. 42; 89; 92; 160). siderable confusion, since it was un- The final standard, like the ETS and OSHA believes that these provisions clear what constituted exposure to AN the Proposal, requires that each emwill enable the examining physician to in these circumstances (Ex. 149). It ployer institute a medical surveillance detect and hopefully make possible was suggested that the term be program for all employees who are or early treatment for any cancers which changed to "contact or suspected conwill be exposed to AN at or above the may develop due to past exposures to tact." In addition, it was argued that action level. OSHA finds that a medi- AN. skin contact with PAN did not constical surveillance program is both neces- The standard requires fecal occult tute a significant risk of AN exposure sary and appropriate to most effectiveblood testing for workers over 40 years (Exs. 11:(14); 148). ly determine whether the health of of age. This is a nontraumatic, nonin- Several parties contended that the employees exposed to AN is adversely vasive procedure for the early detecrequirement for a shower at the end of affected by such exposure, and to detion of gastrointestinal disease which a shift would not provide sufficient velop information on occupational illis available and commonly used mediprotection for an employee who has nesses. The authority to include such cally as a screening technique. OSHA had skin contact with liquid AN. Such a provision in this standard is set forth has therefore deleted the provision reemployee should be required to in section 6(b)(7) of the Act. quiring the routine proctosigmoidoshower immediately after such con- The standard requires that the scopic examination of workers exposed tact, it was argued, because of the medical surveillance program provide to AN. However, should the results of rapid absorption of AN through the each covered employee with an opporthe fecal occult blood testing (as well skin (Exs. 11:(14); 149). tunity for medical examination. All exas other medical tests or examination) OSHA has determined that the aminations and procedures are reindicate that, in the judgment of the shower provisions should be revised to quired to be performed by or under examining physician, further testing is reflect the comments and data rethe supervision of a licensed physician, necessary, such additional testing ceived. The term "PAN", as has been and provided without cost to the emwould then be performed (cf. Exs. noted elsewhere, is being deleted from ployee. While the physician will usual- 14:(37); 42; TR. 704; 708; 710). this and other provisions of the standly be selected by the employer, the The standard requires that the emard. The list included in the definition standard does not so mandate, leaving ployer provide the physician with cerof "liquid AN" includes those materithe employer free to institute alternatain information. This includes the als containing or made from AN which tive procedures such as joint selection following: (1) A copy of the regulation; would be most likely to present a sigwith employee or selection by the em- (2) a description of the affected emnificant risk of skin exposure to AN. ployee. Clearly a medical examination ployee's duties as they relate to the The final standard contains a reis most appropriately conducted by a employee's exposure; (3) the results of quirement for employees who have licensed physician. However, certain the employee's exposure monitoring; had or are suspected of having had parts of the required medical surveil- (4) the employee's anticipated exposkin contact with liquid AN to shower lance program do not necessarily resure level; (5) whether any personal immediately after the contact is disquire a physician's specific expertise protective equipment has been or will covered. In addition, employees reand may be conducted by another be used; and (6) information from prequired to wear protective clothing to person under the supervision of the vious medical examinations of the afprevent skin contact with liquid AN physician (Ex. 141). As mandated by fected employee which is not otherare required to shower at the end of section 6(b)(7) of the Act, the medical wise readily available to the physician. the shift. These requirements recogexaminations and procedures required The purpose of making this informanize the nature of the skin exposure by OSHA standards must be provided tion available to the physician is to aid hazard, and effectively limit the need at no cost to the employee. in the evaluation of the employee's for showers to those employees who The standard requires that the health in relation to his assigned may have contacted liquid AN. medical examination include a work duties and fitness to wear personal The lunchroom provisions of the history, a medical history and a physiprotective equipment when required. proposal have also come under close cal examination of the affected em- The employer is required to obtain a scrutiny. OSHA has determined that ployees. The content of the examinawritten opinion from the examining lunchroom provisions are not required tion is based upon recommendations physician containing the following inin the final standard for several reafrom NIOSH (Exs. 42; (41) and upon formation: (1) The results of the medisons. First, because the airborne procedures presently followed by sevcal tests performed; (2) the physician's hazard involves vapor rather than pareral companies in their clinical evaluaopinion as to whether the employee ticulate, there is not a need for a filtion of employees exposed to acrylonihas any detected medical conditions FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45806 RULES AND REGULATIONS which would place the employee at in- It has been suggested that provision must, at the minimum, apprise the emcreased risk of material impairment of be made for medical surveillance to inployee of the specific hazards associathealth from exposure to AN; (3) any clude those employees who have a hised with his or her work environment. recommended limitations upon the tory of AN exposure but are no longer For this reason, the employer is reemployee's exposure to AN or upon actively working with AN (Ex. 11:(2)). quired to inform each employee exthe use of protective clothing and No such provision has been included in posed to AN of the nature of the relatequipment, such as respirators; and (4) the standard, as OSHA has detered health problems, the necessity for a statement that the employee has mined that the inclusion of past emexposure control, and the medical and been informed by the physician of the ployees in a medical surveillance proindustrial hygiene programs. Such an test results of the medical examinagram would be unnecessarily burdeneducational program will go far in astion and of any medical conditions some and administratively infeasible. suring that employees know the facts which require further examination or It would be extremely difficult, if not about AN and its proper handling. treatment. This written opinion must impossible, to determine which em- The content of the training program not reveal specific findings or diagployees may have been exposed to AN is intended to apprise the employees noses which are unrelated to occupaand for how long, and to locate many of several factors: (1) The hazards to tional exposure. A copy of the written such employees so as to inform them which they are exposed; (2) the action opinion must be provided to the afof the medical surveillance program. they can take to protect themselves, fected employee by the employer. In addition, where the employee has including avoiding exposure, using res- Commentors have objected to the reworked for more than one employer, it piratory protection and taking medical quirements for the physician's written would be difficult to determine which examinations; (3) their role in reducopinion as unnecessary and burdenemployer should bear the cost of such ing exposures; and (4) the contents of some (Exs. 11: (25) Ex. 148; 160). They medical surveillance. this standard. Section 6(b)(7) of the believe the requirements should be Medical removal protection. Medical Act makes it clear that these are aplimited to situations where the findremoval protection was raised as an propriate goals of an employee trainings are adverse (Exs. 73; 153). issue in the AN proposal. This requireing program, and the standard, there- These views are unacceptable to ment would maintain the rate of pay, fore, includes such provisions. OSHA. Since the employer has the ulseniority and other rights of an em- The employer is also required to protimate responsibility to assure the proployee who is transferred or removed vide, upon request, all materials relattection of the worker's health, where from his job to protect him from maing to the training program to the Asthe worker's health has not been adterial impairment of health, as a result sistant Secretary and the Director. versely affected, transmittal of the of an increased health risk from expo- This is intended to provide an objecdoctor's opinion serves to inform both sure to AN. tive check of compliance with the repatient and employer and provides OSHA's primary goal is to assure quirements of the standard. documentary evidence that the prethat no employee suffers material im- OSHA recognizes that AN may be scribed tests were performed and evalpairment of health or functional caone of many chemicals to which an uated. The requirement that the empacity. The Agency does not favor employee may be exposed simultaployee be provided with a copy of the transfer or removal as an alternative neously in the workplace. The educaphysician's written opinion will assure to controlling the level of a toxic subtion and training requirements in this that the employee is informed of the stance in the workplace environment. standard contain those elements results of the medical examination Moreover, once full compliance with which OSHA believes to be basic. The and may take any necessary or approthe permissible exposure limits is format of the training and informapriate action. This is consistent with achieved by engineering controls and tion program is not rigid. An employer those provisions of the Act which eswork practices, the need to transfer or may, if he chooses, incorporate the retablish and implement the employee's remove employees from exposure to quired information for AN into a total right to know about occupational haz- AN should arise infrequently. program of training and education ards and their effects. The purpose of Limited evidence on this issue was which is to be provided to his employrequiring that specific findings or direceived during this proceeding. OSHA ees (Ex. 11:(14)). agnoses unrelated to occupational exhas conducted extensive hearings on Signs and labels: Paragraph (p). The posure not be included in the written medical removal protection in connecrequirement of the standard regarding opinion is to encourage employees to tion with the development of a standthe posting of warning signs and affixsubmit to medical examination by reard for occupational exposure to lead. ing caution labels remains primarily moving the fear that employers may The final lead standard, including resthe same as that in the proposal. The find out information about their physolution of the question of medical rebroadening of the exemption proviical condition that has no relation to moval protection, is expected to issue sions of the standard will result in a their occupational exposures. shortly. Once the lead standard is minimum of products and materials It has been suggested that physical issued, OSHA will consider the extent which will be required to be labeled. In examinations are not necessary for to which the conclusions reached addition, the wording of the signs for people under 40 and in good health therein on medical removal protection regulated areas has been slightly (Ex. 160). This is contrary to the are appropriate for acrylonitrile, and changed. These requirements are conintent of medical surveillance. Workwill propose the inclusion of any apsistent with section 6(b)(7) of the Act, ers under 40 may already have been propriate provisions in the AN standwhich prescribes the use of labels or exposed to AN for 15 to 20 years. Since ard. other appropriate forms of warning to the carcinogenic response may vary Employee information and training: apprise employees of the hazards to widely depending to a great extent on Paragraph (o). The standard requires which they are exposed. individual susceptibilities the long lathe employer to provide a training Signs. The standard requires the tency periods associated with carcinoprogram for employees exposed to AN. posting of warning signs in regulated gens may also vary greatly among OSHA believes that an information areas. These signs are intended to supthose exposed to cancer-causing suband training program is essential for plement the training which employees stances. In addition medical surveilthe protection of employees, because are required to receive under the lance is intended to aid in the early dean employee can do much to protect standard. Even trained employees will tection of cancer and other chronic efhimself if aware of the nature of the need to be reminded of the locations fects so as to facilitate treatment of hazards in the workplace. To be effecof regulated areas and the dangers of these conditions. tive, an employee education system entering those areas. In addition, FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45807 other workers, such as employees of Only those materials which pose a sigthe final standard makes it clear that independent maintenance contractors nificant potential for exposing emthese specific products do not have to who are authorized to enter particular ployees to AN are required to be be labeled. Other than liquid AN regulated areas, need to be warned of labled under the standard. itself, OSHA does not anticipate that the hazard and reminded to use pro- The standard requires that the many products containing and/or tective equipment. OSHA believes that labels remain affixed when the AN made for AN will require labeling both signs and training are necessary and AN-based materials leave the emunder the final standard. This reflects to adequately apprise employees of ployer's workplace. Some comments the recognition that most AN-based the hazards of acrylonitrile exposure. questioned OSHA's jurisdiction to materials in downstream workplaces The standard specifies the wording impose such a requirement (Exs. 156; do not have a significant potential to of the warning signs for regulated 11:(14); 146). The purpose of this reexpose employees to AN during proareas, in order to assure that the quirement is to assure that all employcessing use, and handling. proper warning is given to employees. ees, not only those of a particular em- Recordkeeping: Paragraph (q). Sec- Some participants in the rulemaking ployer, are apprised of the hazardous tion 8(c)(3) of the Act provides for the have suggested that the word nature of acrylonitrile exposure. It is promulgation of regulations requiring "Cancer" on the signs be replaced by OSHA's view that informing employemployers to maintain accurate rec- "Cancer-Suspect Agent", or "Toxic ees of the hazards to which they are ords of employee exposures to poten- Substance" (Exs. 146; 149). OSHA does exposed is an important element in retially toxic or harmful physical agents not believe that the use of the term ducing occupational disease and which are required to be monitored or "Cancer Hazard" overstates the injury, and one of the significant purmeasured. hazard. The reference to cancer proposes of the Occupational Safety and The standard provides that records vides the necessary warning as to the Health Act. Section 6(b)(7) of the Act, must be kept to identify the employee hazard associated with exposure to which explicitly provides for regulaand to accurately reflect the employacrylonitrile. tions which require the use of labels ee's exposure. Specifically, it must in- It has been further suggested that or other appropriate forms of warning, clude the following information: (a) the word "Danger" be replaced by the is broadly drawn. This section does not The names, social security numbers, word "Caution". OSHA feels that the limit the employer's obligation of inand job classifications of the employword "Danger" is appropriate in light forming employees of hazardous conees monitored; (b) the dates, number, of the evidence of carcinogenicity of ditions to the employer's own employduration, and results of each of the acrylonitrile. Furthermore, the word ees. When an employer manufactursamples taken, including a description "Danger" is used to attract the atteners, formulates, or sells a product conof the representative sampling procetion of workers, to alert them to the taining a toxic substance, that employdure and equipment used to determine fact that they are in a hazardous area, er is exposing not only his own ememployee exposure where applicable; i.e., an area where the permissible exployees, but also the employees of (c) the type of respiratory protective posure limit is exceeded, and to emother employers involved in handling, devices if any, worn by the employee; phasize the importance of the message transporting, or using the product. and (d) a description of the sampling to follow. The use of the word The extent of the obligation to inform and analytical methods used, and evi- "Danger" is consistent with recent should be commensurate with the dence of their accuracy. OSHA health standards dealing with extent of the exposure. This is espe- The standard also requires that the carcinogens. cially true where the manufacturer, employer keep an accurate medical The signs have been changed from formulater, or seller will, in many record for each employee who is subthe proposal to read "Respirators May cases, be the only employer capable, ject to medical surveillance. Section Be Required," instead of "Respirators through his knowledge of the product, 8(c) of the Act authorizes the promul- Required." The reason for this inof providing the information necessary gation of regulations requiring any volves the difference between the air for protection of employees. A narrowemployer to keep such records regardconcentrations in the regulated area er reading of the statutory authority ing the employer's activities relating and an employee's TWA exposure. would defeat the protective purposes to the Act as are necessary or appro- There are many areas in which AN of the Act by effectively preventing priate for the enforcement of the Act concentrations exceed 2 ppm, but the downstream employee from obor for developing information regardwhere the employee's TWA exposures taining adequate information as to the ing the causes and prevention of occuwill not exceed the permissible limits. hazard. Furthermore, the use of the pational illnesses. OSHA believes that Such an employee would not be relabels required by the standard will medical records (like exposure moniquired to wear a respirator, even alert other employers who utilize or toring records) are necessary and apthough the proposed sign would have handle the product and who would not propriate to both the enforcement of indicated otherwise. The final standotherwise know of the presence of the standard and the development of ard has been revised to provide a more acrylonitrile in their workplace, of information regarding the causes and appropriate warning to employees entheir obligation to comply with the prevention of illness. tering the regulated area. standard. OSHA, therefore, feels that As explained above, it is necessary to Labels. The standard requires the this requirement is necessary and aprelate employees' medical conditions use of warning lablels on all containers propriate to effectuate the purposes of with their exposures in order to develof liquid AN and materials made from the Act. op information regarding cause and and/or containing AN which are not The standard prescribes the legend prevention. Medical records are necesexempted from the standard under that must be included on the label. sary and appropriate for this purpose. paragraph (a)(2). This requirement This is to assure that employees are In addition, medical records are necesimposes upon the employer the obligaalerted to the fact they they are hansary for the proper evaluation of an tion to assure that all such containers dling acrylonitrile and to the hazards employee's health. For all of these within his workplace are at all times involved. reasons, medical records have been reproperly labeled, in order that his em- The issue of labeling was of great quired in the final standard. ployees be apprised of the hazard. concern as proposed, because' the The standard requires that employ- The revision of the exemption provinumber of products which potentially ees or their designated representatives sions in the final standard will greatly might have required lablels was subbe provided access to examine and relieve the burden of labeling of matestantial. The listing of exempted polycopy records of required monitoring. rials made from and/or containing AN. mer products in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of The purpose of this provision is to FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45808 RULES AND REGULATIONS assure employees that their exposure quiring these employers to implement should be construed as establishing a is being properly monitored and that the provisions of the standard. In admandatory requirement not otherwise they are working in a safe and healthdition, the standard permits monitorimposed by the standards, or as deful environment. Section 8(c)(3) of the ing results and medical examinations tracting from an obligation which the Act explicitly provides "employees or obtained under the ETS to serve as standard does impose. their representatives with an opportuinitial monitoring and initial medical The information contained in appennity to observe and to have surveillance under the final standard. dices A and B is designed to aid the access to the records thereof." Employers are required to reduce employer is complying with require- The final standard requires that ememployee exposures to the permissible ments of the standard. The informaployee medical records be made availaexposure limits solely by means of feation in appendix C primarily provides ble upon request for examination and sible engineering controls and work information needed by the physician copying by the affected employee or practices within 2 years of the effecto evaluate the results of the medical former employee, or a physician desigtive date of the standard, or November examination. It should be noted that nated by the affected employee or 2, 1980. The record reflects a wide paragraph (o) specifically requires former employee. The purpose of this range of present exposure situations that the information contained in approvision is to protect the employee's and capabilities of engineering develpendices A and B be provided to emhealth by authorizing his designated opment. Some companies have reportployees as part of their information physician to have access to medical ed that most of their opreations are aland training program. records which may be useful in the diready below 2 ppm (Exs. 11:(14); A new appendix D has been added to agnosis of illness. 11:(10); 2:(21)). One producer expects the final standard. This appendix The standard requires employers reto have engineering controls in place gives the details of NIOSH method S- lying upon objective data for exempshortly (Ex. 92). One major company 156, together with the NIOSH and tion under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to has predicted that the completion OSHA variations on that method, for maintain records of that data and of schedule for engineering projects to use in monitoring employee exposures the basis for their reliance on that reach 2 ppm may take 2 to 3 years (Ex. to acrylonitrile. Other methods of data. These records shall be main- 11:(27)). Other companies which have sampling and analysis are available in tained for the duration of the employdeveloped plans for engineering conthe record of the rulemaking, and may er's reliance on that data for exemptrols to reach 2 ppm have indicated be obtained from the OSHA Docket tion. that they will need leadtime, but have Office. Observation of monitoring: Paranot established any timetable for im- The contents of the appendices have graph (r). Section 8(c)(3) of the Act replementation (Tr. 1016-1017; 978). been revised to reflect changes from quires that employers provide employ- An SPI witness estimated that projthe proposal. In addition, efforts have ees and their representatives with the ect definition for engineering solutions been made to clarify those sections in opportunity to observe monitoring of to reach 2 ppm/10 ppm would take the appendices as proposed which employee exposures to toxic subabout 6 months, and that implementawere either inconsistent or unclear in stances or harmful physical agents. In tion of those solutions would take up relation to the standard. accordance with this section, the to 24 additional months (Ex. 74). AUTHORITY standard contains provisions for such OSHA has determined that a 2-year observation of monitoring of acryloniperiod for installation of engineering This document was prepared under trile exposures. To assure that the controls is reasonable for the AN inthe direction of Eula Bingham, Assistright to observe is meaningful, observdustry as a whole. Although some emant Secretary of Labor for Occupaers are entitled to receive an explanaployers will be able to complete impletional Safety and Health, U.S. Departtion of the measurement procedure, to mentation of controls well within the ment of Labor, Third Street and Conobserve all steps related to the mea- 2-year time frame, OSHA believes that stitution Avenue NW., Washington, surement procedure, and to record the certain sectors of the industry, primar- D.C. 20210. results obtained. ily resin and elastomer manufacturing, Accordingly, pursuant to sections The observer, whether an employee may require the full 2 years to comply. 4(b)(2), 6(b), 6(c), and 8(c) of the Occuor a designated representative, must While employers are not required to pational Safety and Health Act of be provided with, and is required to complete installation of engineering 1970 (84 Stat. 1592, 1593, 1596, 1599; 29 use, any personal protective equipcontrols until November 2, 1980, they U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), the specific statment required to be worn by employare required to develop a compliance utes referred to in section 4(b)(2), Secees working in the area that is being program which provides for compleretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 monitored, and must comply with all tion of controls by that date, and to FR 25059), and 29 CFR part 1911, part other applicable safety and health follow the schedule set out in the pro- 1910 of title 29, Code of Federal Reguprocedures. gram. Failure to develop an adequate lations, is hereby amended by deleting Effective date: Paragraph (s). The efprogram, or failure to implement the the emergency temporary standard for fective date of the standard is Novemprogressive steps set out in the prooccupational exposure to acrylonitrile ber 2, 1978, thirty days from publicagram to achieve compliance by Novemat § 1910.1045 and adding a new pertion. OSHA has determined that the ber 2, 1980, will subject the employer manent standard for occupational excircumstances of this rulemaking to citation. posure to acrylonitrile as $ 1910.1045, make it unnecessary to allow a longer Training programs are to be impleand by deleting the reference to acryperiod of time. Under the ETS, emmented within 60 days of the effective lonitrile from table Z-1 of $ 1910.1000. ployers were required to perform date of the standard. OSHA believes In addition, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) many of the activities, such as initial that this should provide sufficient of the act, OSHA has determined that monitoring, respiratory protection, lead time, particularly in light of the this new standard in $ 1910.1045 is and engineering control plans, which training requirements of the ETS. more effective than the corresponding are to be required under the final standards now in subpart B of part APPENDICES standard. Since the scope of the final 1910, and in parts 1915, 1916, 1917, standard is narrower than that of the Four appendices have been included 1918, and 1926 of title 29, Code of Fed- ETS, it is anticipated that all employin this permanent standard. These aperal Regulations. Therefore, these corers covered by the final standard were pendices have been included primarily responding standards are superseded also subject to the ETS. There should for purposes of information. None of by this new § 1910.1045. This determibe, therefore, no need for delay in rethe statements contained therein nation, and the application of the new FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45809 standard to the maritime and con- (i) ABS resins, SAN resins, nitrile having jurisdiction over the geographstruction industries, are implemented barrier resins, solid nitrile elastomers, ic area where the affected workplace is by revising paragraph (c) to § 1910.19. and acrylic and modacrylic fibers, located. In conjunction with the publication when these listed materials are in the (c) Permissible exposure limits. (1) of the emergency temporary standard form of finished polymers, and prod- Inhalation. (i) Time weighted average (43 FR 2586; Jan. 17, 1978), pursuant ucts fabricated from such finished limit (TWA). The employer shall to sections 4(b)(2), 6(c), and 8(c) of the polymers; assure that no employee is exposed to Act (84 Stat. 1592; 1996; 1599; 29 (ii) Materials made from and/or conan airborne concentration of acryloni- U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), title 29 of the taining AN for which objective data is trile in excess of two (2) parts acrylon- Code of Federal Regulations was reasonably relied upon to demonstrate itrile per million parts of air (2 ppm) amended by adding a new paragraph that the material is not capable of reas an eight (8)-hour time-weighted (c) to § 1910.19, and by deleting the leasing AN in airborne concentrations average. reference to acrylonitrile from table in excess of 1 ppm as an eight (8)-hour (ii) Ceiling limit. The employer shall Z-1 of $ 1910.1000. The authority for time-weighted average, under the exassure that no employee is exposed to these amendments pursuant to section pected conditions of processing, use, an airborne concentration of acryloni- 6(c) of the act has expired. These and handling which will cause the trile in excess of ten (10) ppm as averamendments are to be carried forward greatest possible release; and aged over any fifteen (15)-minute in accordance with the promulgation (iii) Solid materials made from and/ period during the working day. of the new permanent standard, as or containing AN which will not be (2) Dermal and eye exposure. The noted above, pursuant to sections heated above 170° F during handling, employer shall assure that no employ- 4(b)(2), 6(b), 6(c), and 8(c) of the act use, or processing. ee is exposed to skin contact or eye (84 Stat. 1592, 1593, 1596, 1599; 29 (3) An employer relying upon excontact with liquid AN. U.S.C. 653, 655, 657). emption under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) (d) Notification of regulated areas Signed at Washington, D.C., this 22d shall maintain records of the objective and emergencies. (1) Regulated areas. day of September 1978. These amenddata supporting that exemption, and Within thirty (30) days following the ments are effective on November 2, of the basis of the employer's reliance establishment of a regulated area pur- 1978 on the data, as provided in paragraph suant to paragraph (f) of this section, (q) of this section. EULA BINGHAM, (b) Definitions. "Acrylonitrile" or the employer shall report the follow- Assistant Secretary of Labor. "AN" means acrylonitrile monomer, ing information to the OSHA Area Office: Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of chemical formula CH,=CHCN. Federal Regulations is hereby amend- "Action level" means a concentra- (i) The address and location of each establishment which has one or more ed as follows: tion of AN of 1 ppm as an eight (8)- hour time-weighted average. regulated areas; 1. Paragraph (c) of 1910.19 is re- "Assistant Secretary" means the As- (ii) The locations, within the estabvised to read as follows: sistant Secretary of Labor for Occupalishment, of each regulated area;