Document npZ7ypjv7xpoDDjK33NjDonKz

iconocoj Interoffice Communication To All Plant Managers and Plant Safety Directors From David A. Kuhn Date July 5, 1978 subject Amendments to the OSHA Benzene Standard for Liquid Mixtures Attached is a copy of amendments to the OSHA Benzene Standard exempting from provisions of the standard, liquid mixtures containing 0.5% or less benzene for 3 years and thereafter, mixtures containing 0.1% or less benzene. Also exempted from labeling requirements are liquid mixtures packaged before 6/27/78, which contains 5% or less benzene. DAK/vm Att. TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1978 PART III . . . .. - --Xj*\. - ; --. - 'A DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration * EXPOSURE TO BENZENE; * LIQUID MIXTURES Occupational Safety and Heajth Standards OOOOl^92-4 Yi X 27962 RULES AND REGULATIONS [4510-26] THU 29--Labor BUS 4* *>f / i.-' a particular oil or gas field may vary (exhibit 29f, pp. 7-8). This petrochemi from well to welL . cal feedstock is used to produce ethyl From the wellhead, the reservoir, benzene. styrene monomer, cumene, fluid is delivered by flow lines or gath 'phenol, cyclohexane, and nitroben CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL ering lines to separation facilities (ex-, zene. SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINIS hlbit 29D1) or field treatment plants Processed refined petroleum prod TRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (exhibit 29f. p. 4) where It undergoes a number of production treatment steps ucts are distributed through market ing phann*!*, Including bulk terminals PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS Occupational Exposure to Benzene; necessary to produce marketable crude oil, condensates and natural gas streams, as well as a variety of Hydro carbons (exhibit 29f, p. 4). The benzene content of crude oil and bulk plants, to consumers. Initial distribution from the refinery storage faculties may be by pipeline, barge. marine Uoken, tank trucK or tank car (exhibit 29t. p. 11). These refined . Liquid Mixtures ranges from below detectable limits to products have numerous uses, such as AGENCY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Depart' ment of Labor. greater than 1 percent (exhibit 29f, p. 3). Condensates produced from natu ral gas liquids present In both crude oil and natural gas (exhibit 29f. pp. 2- fuels, extractants, processing aids, and solvents in paints, surface coatings, ad hesives and pesticides. Inks, etc. The benzene content of these products ACTION: Pinal rule.' * * 3) have a higher percentage of ben varies from leas than one-tenth to a SUMMARY: This document amends the recently issued occupational safety and health standard for exposure to benzene by: (1) Exempting from all the provisions of the permanent stand ard for ben2ene <29 CFR 1910.1028), for the first three years following the effective date of this amendment, liquid mixtures containing 0.5 percent or less benzene, and thereafter liquid mixtures containing 0.1 percent or less benzene; and (2) exempting from the labeling requirements liquid mixtures containing benzene which are already packaged and which contain 5.0 per cent or less benzene. The amendments are - in response to several petitions concerning the applicability of the benzene standard to liquid mixtures. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27,1978. zene than crude, with that percentage ranging from approximately 0.2 to 1.0 percent by volume (exhibit 29D1). The benzene In natural gas varies from 0 to about 4 percent (exhibit 29D1L From the .separation facilities or treatment plants, the crude olL con densates and liquid and gaseous hy drocarbons are delivered to refineries either by waterway or by pipelines (ex hibit 29D1; Comeaux). It is common practice fOF- liquids from a number of fields to be combined Into one pipeline stream for transportation do refineries (exhibit 29DL; Comeaux, p. 4). At the refineries, the crude oil and field condensate liquids are stored in holding tanks prior to processing (ex hibit 29f, p. 5). Typical petroleum re fining processes are many. Not all re fineries have all of these processes few percent (tr. 284, comment 53, 58, 21. 3ft). There are some substitutes for ben zene; however, most of the solvent substitutes themselves contain ben zene. As indicated below, the percent age of benzene in some substitutes may range up to 4 percent (18-45; tr. 304). Benzene is also derived from coaL Recovery of coal-derived benzene, pri marily as a by-product of the coking process in steel mills, accounts, howev er, for only 6 percent of the total U.S. production (43 FR 5918). The light oil, which is condensed from coke gases, contains up to 70 percent benzene. This light oil is distilled to produce ' benzene. Most light oil plants do not produce benzene but sell their light oil to petroleum refineries for further FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT*. Mr. Gall Brinkerhoff, Office of Com pliance Programs, OSHA, Third Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3112. Washington. D C. 20210, telephone 202-523-8034. since there is specialization, such as fuels, lubes. or petrochemical oper ations, within refineries (exhibit 29f, p. 5). At all refineries, however, addi tional benzene is generated during re fining by catalytic cracker, reformer and coker operations (exhibit 29f. p. 2:' tr. 284). processing. Only 10 light oil plants do produce benzene and these sell it to other users. _ IL History or Rtoulation . On February 10, 1978, a permanent occupational safety and health stand ard regulating occupational exposure SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petroleum refined products are to benzene was published in the Ftp- These amendments are issued pursu many and their benzene content varies OUT Racism (43 FR 5918) as 29 CFR ant to sections 4(b) and 6(b) of the Oc according'to the content of the crude 1910.1028. (A correction document was cupational Safety and Health Act of taken into the refinery, the nature or published on March 31, 1978, at 43 FR 1970 (the Act) (84 Stat. 1592. 1593; 29 the efficiency of the refining process, 13581). This standard required era* U.S.C. 653, 655), the Secretary of Labor s Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 250S9) and 29 CFR Part 1911. These amend ments appear at 29 CFR 1910.1028 (a)(2)(Ui) and at 29 CFR 1910.1028 and the balance of product demands . ployers to take prescribed measures to on the refinery. Thus, the benzene control employee exposure to benzene. content of product streams within a The standard applied to each place of single company may vary from refin employment where benzene in any ery to refinery or within a single refin - quantity was produced, reacted, re (k)<2Xill>. ery from year to year. The same prod leased, packaged, repackaged, stored, 1. Backgbotot 'X* t uct from different refineries or at dif- transported, handled or used. The fezent 'ttmea from the same refinery, standard contained no percentage ex Benzene is a naturally occurring - consequently, may have a different clusion and applied to work operations constitutent of crude oil and national benzene content (tr. 284-5). Motor gas involving any amount of benzene. gas produced from underground reser oline ranges from 1 to 3 percent ben The permanent benzene standard voirs and surfacing through wells. zene by volume (Bailey). Aviation gas . was developed, pursuant to sections There are approximately 630,000 wells oline, specialty naptha solvents and. 6(b) and 6(0 of the act, after exhaus in some 10.000 oil and gas fields In the naptha-based, (type B) Jet fuels may tive rulemaking which commenced U.S. (exhibit 29D1). One or more res exceed 1 percent benzene concentra with publication on May 3, 1977 of an ervoirs underlies each of these oil and tions, Heavier jet fuel (type A), light Emergency Temporary Standard for gas fields (exhibit 29f. p. 2). Since fuel oils and cutback asphalts may oc Occupational Exposure to Benzene (42 crude oil and natural gas vary in com casionally. exceed 0.01 percent ben FR 1516). The emergency temporary position and physical properties from zene. Petrochemical feedstock napthas. standard exempted liquid mixtures reservoir to reservoir (exhibit 29f, p. and certain aromatics, such as toluene, containing 1 percent or less of benzene 2), the benzene content of the fluid at may contain up to l percent benzene - volume, or the vapors released from piDMAi Morene. vol. u, no. --tvisoay. juni 27, 1*7* RULES AND REGULATIONS 27963 these liquids. On May 27.1977. OSHA 8, 1978. but. at the request of partici IV. FxmcxrAX. Issues Iwvolvxd 1- ' published a proposed permanent standard to control occupational expo* sore to (42 FR 27422). This proposed standard would also have exempted work operations where the only exposure to beneene was from mixtures i a percent (0.1 percent after 1 year) or lees of. benzene by volume, or the vapors re leased from these On the basis of the record developed in the rule- on the permanent bensene standard (Pocket H-459), OSSA con cluded that there was no consistent predictable relationship shown- -he-' tween the percentage of *>*"* in a. liquid mixture and the resultant air pants, was kept open until June 12, OTA-*,- - - - These amendments are based on a careful consideration -of the entire record of the informal rulemaking hearing, including the transcript, ex hibits, and prehearing and post-bear- in* written comments. Copies of the official.list of bearing exhibits, com ments, and notices of bxtent to appear at the hearing can be Obtained from the Docket Office, Docket H-059A. Room S6212, U.8.' Department of Labor, 3rd Street and Constitution Avenue 2TW, Washington, D.C. 20210. m. RZOTTLATORT AWAITS!* and the foDowtng is a of the - major Issues involved in the rulemak ing an the proposed percentage acta- _ sian and an analysis of the evidence submitted into the record. The exhibit numbers refer to the exhibit list of docket H-059A. The first number designates the particular ex hibit on that hst. Where the contains more than one Item, the second number references the perticu-. lar ttem of the exhibit. The designa tion "tr." refers to the tranaeript of the hearing on percentage unH indicates the pages of tran script which are referenced. Further more, the designation "PC" refers to borne exposure to benzene and that, consequently, the percentage proposed exclusion could not be supported <42 FR 5942). ~~ - f After promulgation of the final standard which contained no percent age exclusion, OSHA received requests from several employes and employer groups for an administrative stay of Emvixonmental Impact Since an economic impact statement for the permanent standard (43 FR 5918) was prepared by OSHA pursuant to Executive Orders 11821 and 11949, OSHA has not performed a separate regulatory analysis pursuant to Execu tive Order 12044 <42 FR 12661, March post hearing comments submitted by interested parties. All references are intended to provide examples of record support for the information stated. (i) wwgTMM woxx onmATioxa shoxtlo BX EEKIfFT rXOK f 1V10.10SS WHDUP OS SOLI OOCUFAXIONAL XXTOSOXZ TO the standard or other relief from the 24, 19781 'The economic analysis for provisions of the standard as It applied the permanent standard considered imam xs raou uqun> mixtures oowTAurmo lxss than a snamp to work operations where exposure to the eccpomic *TTrp*'** of on reBCXMTAQS or EARLUIS benzene .resulted from liquid mixtures containing small or "trace" amounts of benzene. For reasons set forth in its notice (43 FR 12890, March 28, 1978). OSHA proposed to amend the benzene standard to exclude from Its coverage work operations where exposure to benzene is from liquid mixtures con taining 0.1 percent or less benzene or the vapors from such liquids. Skin con tact with such mixtures would also be excluded from the standard. Fending final action on this proposed amend ment. OSHA stayed the application of the provisions of the benzene standard to such work operations (43 FR 12891). Since this stay was Immediately effec tive, OSHA commenced an expedited rulemaking to resolve percentage exclusion question so Out employers could know which, if any, of their op erations were.excluded from the per manent benzene standard. (A correc tion document was published on April 4, 1978. at 43 FR-14071). On April 28. employers with operations utilizing liquid mixtures containing any amount of benzene <42 FR 8934-5941). This amendment exempts from the permanent standard operations utiliz ing 08 percent or less benzene <0.1 percent or lees after 2 yean) and, . therefore, reduces the cost of compli ance with the standard. - In view of the fact that the amended. standard does not require that em ployer* reduce the amount of benzene in their products, costs involved in re ducing the percentage of benzene in liquid minLures in order to avoid cover age by this standard have not been at tributed to the amended standard. The final environmental impact statement published January 1978, prior to the Issuance of the permanent benzene standard concluded that the standard would have a beneficial Impact on the workplace environment and also that beneficial effects on the environment external to the work The majority of those responding recommended that the benzene stand ard be amended to exclude from Its coverage liquid mixtures containing leas than a .specified percentage of benzene. Reasons in support of this form of exemption varied. Some par ticipants argued that exposure to low levels of benzene does not result in any hazan^ particularly leuke mia <tr. 225.391. 313, and exhibits 18- 34, 63, 77, 84. 91). Other participants pointed out that they do not add ben zene to their products but that ben zene Is an unavoidable contaminant in all petroleum based products <tr. 68, 78. 88. 106. 107,120.129.132, 163. 168, 187, 215, and exhibits 18-41. 93. FC-5- 8). Oil and gas producers stressed that benzene Is a of crude oil and gas and that it Is techno logically infeasible to remove benzene at the wells (exhibits 18-77, 85.1, 19). Refiners contended that it Is economi cally prohibitive to remove benzene 1978, OSHA published a notice of. place may also be anticipated.' This from their process streams, particular hearing on the proposed amendment amendment to the permanent bensene ly within a short timeframe (exhibit (43 FR 18215). The public hearing on standard may result In employers 18-481 Moat Industry participants pre this proposal was held on May 23 and switching to other solvents (containing sented data Indicating that the low May 24 at Washington, D.C. Approxi lower' benzene contamination levels). levels of benzene in the liquid mix mately 40 individuals participated at However, the atmospheric Impact of tures present in their workplaces pro this hearing. Furthermore, more than such action is not expected to he sig duced airborne concentrations below 100 comments, arguments, and. views nificant. Where reformulation is ac the standard's permissible exposure were received from interested parties. complished to reduce organic solvent limit of 1 ppm. (This data Is jmtuwH The verbatim transcript of this hear* usage, the atmosphere wQl realize a re below under Issue 8.) ing, as well as the numerous com duction in total hydrocarbon load. As Objections to any percentage exclu ments, exhibits, and briefs submitted these types of actions were addressed. sion for airborne exposure were raised to OSHA before, during and after the in the final environmental Impact by the OIL Chemical A Atomic Work hearing, are part of this rulemaking statement, this amendment IS not ex-.` ers <tr. 400). OGAW argued that, even record, along with portions of the pected to alter the basic conclusions' where low percentages of benzene record in the earlier benzene proceed:. contained in that document Accord were present in liquid streams, refin ing which were relevant to the *--* ingly. it was concluded that no new en ery process units were subject .to fre herein. The rulemaking record was- vironmental impact statement was quent leaks resulting in employee ex originally scheduled to close on June necessary for this amendment posures above 1 ppm, OCAW coniend- PIOfRAL UOtSTtK, VOL 43, NO. 124--TUCSDAV, JUN6 27, 1978 MCD 000012926 27964 RULES AND REGULATIONS' ed that only where process units ere well maintained, can exposures be re duced to the permissible exposure limit, but that such high Quality main tenance cannot be guaranteed (tr. 402). The United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum Si Plastic Workers of America (URW) contended by way of comment that while reduction of the amount of ben zene in a liquid can result in reduction of airborne concentrations to conform with a PEL of 1 ppm. reduced levels cannot be attained in certain processes unless ventilation control is provided. URW also objected to permitting dermal contact with benzene mixtures where there has been no documenta tion of a "no-risk" health factor to benzene on skin contact, and recom mended that temporary variances be sought by Industry in situations where the use of protective clothing is a problem (exhibit 18-33). The Public Citizen Health Research Group opposes the proposed amend ment on the grounds that there is no safe level for exposure to a carcinogen and that liquid mixtures containing 0.1 percent benzene have been shown to give rise to exposure levels in excess of the PEL of 1 ppm (exhibit 18-94). For different reasons, the American Petroleum Institute also urged that a percentage exclusion not be adopted, other than possibly for dermal expo sure. API's objections to a percentage exclusion were based on the view that the medium or matrix In which ben zene is found, the environmental con ditions of temperature, humidity, air movement, and physical volume of space, the physical nature ' of the system in which benzene is found-- namely whether in a closed or open system, and work practices are all critical to reduction of benzene expo sure. In lieu of a percentage exclusion. API proposed that OSHA limit the scope of the benzene standard by adopting appropriate triggering mech anisms for activation of individual pro* visions of the standard. Thus, Initial monitoring of airborne exposures should occur. In API's view, only when professionals, acting for the employer, have reason to believe that employee exposure is above the level which trig gers the monitoring requirement (tr. 353). Dr. Hervey B. Elkins testified on behalf of AISI that a percentage ex* emption would be appropriate inas much as naturally occurring benzene Is found as a contaminant In many liq uids employed in Industry, formula tion of many products will Involve In gredients which often contain benzene in small quantities, and many products are made by chemical reactions em ploying benzene as a raw material. Dr. Elkins indicated that to completely eliminate the last traces of benzene from these materials may be very dif ficult (PC 82). (3) WHETHER O.i PBCBCT BENZENE ZS THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE FOB EX EMPTION, OB WHETHER TBS PERCXNTAGS FIGURE SHOULD BE KJGHZB OB LOWER Some participants supporting a per centage exemption Indicated that 0.1 percent igould be of up significant benefit to them since the benzene con taminated mixtures they used con tained benzene In excess of that figure. They also argued that a higher percentage exemption would be appro priate since the airborne concentra tions arising from the higher benzene content mixtures did not generally exceed 1 ppm. -- Further, industry participants pro vided evidence that, at present, many suppliers cannot furnish the various benzene-contaminated materials used In their processes with a benzene con tent as low as 0.1 percent. (This evi dence Is discussed in detail in issue 5.) For example, tire manufacturers testi fied that the rubber solvents used In tire building could not be obtained with any confidence that the benzene content would not be up to at least 0.7 percent..^hey maintained, therefore, that a percentage exemption of at least 0.7 percent would be appropriate, especially to provide relief from the requirement for protective clothing which Is Infeasible In these operations (tr. 88. 87. 108.170. 188. 212,215). The Adhesives fc Sealant Council (tr. 224), Wllhold Glues (tr. 224), St. Clair Rubber Co. (tr. 280), Miracle Ad hesive Corp. (tr. 288), DuPont (tr. 313), the American Iron 8b Steel Insti tute (tr. 396), and others (exhibits 18- 16. 21. 61. 53, 55. 56. 45, 108) suggested that, because of the unavailability of low benzene solvents and the lack of potential for exposure above 1 ppm, that a L0 percent exemption would be appropriate. The B. F. Goodrich Co. Indicated that while they would be willing to comply with a 0.1 percent exemption as it would apply to genera tion of airborne concentrations, a spe cial action level of 0.5 percent for acti vation of dermal protection require ments would be-necessary for them to be. able to comply with the standard. Other participants argued that 0.1 percent is inappropriate since expo sures below 1 ppm occur tn such oper ations as oil and gas production with crude oll'and gas liquids containing up to 4 percent benzene (exhibit 18-71, PC 81). Industry participants endorsing a 0.1 percent exclusion did so primarily be cause the benzene containing materi als used in their operations generally contained less than 0.1 percent ben zene and they would thus be exempt from the standard (exhibits 18-29, 37, 46. 70, 89.106,107). Dr. Hervey Elkina testified that, while it may not be possible to estab lish liquid percentage limits that will guarantee, with complete certainty in: every possible situation, airborne con centrations that win not exceed a specified level, it would be logical and* appropriate to accept a particular per centage exemption which would most likely, based on calculations of availa ble data, be consistent with a permissi ble exposure limit of 1 ppm. The cal culations provided by Dr. Elkins were' based on theoretical considerations, and on extrapolation from data in papers written by him. The mean of all values of benzene percentage limits in liquid mixtures consistent with a permissible exposure level of 1 ppm was calculated by Dr. to be 0.5 percent (PC 82). * (a) WHAT ZS THX CURRENT PERCENTAGE (OR RAMOS OF PERCENTAGES) OF BEN ZENE nr LIQUID PRODUCTS, SUCH AS panrnwo dobs. petroleum solvents SUITABLE FOR TTRS BUILDING, ADHE SIVES, SEALANTS, FADITS, COATINGS. DE TERGENTS, -TMSECTZCmm, DISINFEC TANTS. WAXES. FLOOR FINISHES. CRUDE OIL. PETROLEUM SOLVENTS OF VARYING GRADES. GAS LIQUIDS, LUBRICATING OILS, PETROCHEMICALS. GASOLINE IN REFINERY STREAMS, AND SIMILAR FEOD' UCTS Participants who furnished Informa tion on this Issue generally indicated that, since benzene is primarily a con taminant rather than an intended final Ingredient, the benzene content of liquid products would vary not only from supplier to supplier but also from the same supplier. The American Pe troleum Institute has Indicated that production factors, which cause vary ing benzene content In their products, include differences tn crude runs, the nature and efficiency of individual re finery process and the specific balance of final products produced at any point in time (PC 104). Tire manufacturers reported rubber solvents used In tire building ss con taining up to 1.0 percent benzene, wttb only one supplier claiming capability of supplying solvents with 0.1 powoi benzene or less. However, industry analysis of that company's shipment! indicated benzene content from 9.897 to 0.137 percent <tr, 88. 95, exhibits IV 45). Petroleum based solvents used ts the formulation of adhesives and gtuss was reported to vary from 0.3 peresas to 3 percent (exhibits 18-28), while tbs finished products and other prodbsta such ss paints, waxes, floor coaszsga and printing fafc* normally oensam benzene well below 0.1 percent. The benzene content of gasoline was re ported as covering a, range from J m 3.5 percent with most samples eowtsba ing less than 2.0 percent benasne *r 344). The American Petroleum !asM> tute submitted results of truly tar benzene on 1,007 samples of crude liquid condensate, natural gas ttemea and gas plant streams. A summery f FKDCRAL MOtSTtR, VOL 43, NO. 124--TUtSOAY, JUKI ivrs MOD 000012927 RULES AND "REGULATIONS 2796a fchla data reveals '49 percent of the samples containing leas' than 0.1 per cent benzene, 34 percent containing between 0.1 and 0.5 percent benzene, 10 percent containing between 0.5 and 1.0 percent benzene, 5.percent contain ing between 1.0 and 2.0 percent ben zene. and 2 percent of the samples containing greater than 2.0 ' percent benzene (PC 61). Rohm 4e Haas Co. re ported that none of their 2,768 prod ucts, primarily synthesized organic chemicals, contained greater than 0.1 percent benzene and that benzene was an unintended contaminant in all but 2 of those products (exhibits 18-31). (4) WHAT IS THE CPRRB<T PERCENTAGE (OR RANG! or PERCENTAGES) OP BEN ZENE IN OTHER SOLVENTS COMMONLY USED AS SUBSTITUTES FtR BENZENE. SUCH AS TOLUENE. XTLENl, HEXANE, AND SOLVENT NAPTHAS ^ _ Data provided on this issue came pri marily from companies not using ben zene as a raw material but using mate rials such as toluene and xylene and other solvents contaminated with ben zene. It was indicated, however, by the rubber manufacturers and adhesives and sealant manufacturers, that refor mulation or substitution of materials containing no benzene would be infea sible and could possibly diminish the integrity of the final product (tr. 101, 213.254.315). The benzene levels reported in other solvents were somewhat varied, again due to different suppliers, process con ditions and equipment used In their manufacture. As a result, it is difficult to identify specific percentages of ben zene content In substitute substances with ?ny degree of accuracy. For ex ample. the Adhesives 4c Sealant Coun cil. Inc., reported that members whose hexane suppliers are located on the west coast show benzene levels of 0.3 percent or higher, while members in other parts of the country purchase hexane with benzene content typically below 0.1 percent. Ranges of benzene impurity reported by the Council in clude hexane 0.001-2.3 percent; to luene 0.005-0.24 percent; rubber sol vent up to l.o percent; naptha 0.1-1.0 percent; and mineral spirits up to 1.0 percent (exhibits 18-45). The National Association of Printing Ink Manufac turers, Inc., indicated the following range of benzene content: heptane 0.1 percent-0.75 percent; heptane ("aro matic free") 0.01-0.02 percent; toluene 0.02-0.1 percent; Iactol spirits 0.03-0.1 percent; xylene 0.13 percent; and ali phatic hydrocarbon blend 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent (exhibits 18-83). Other participants reported benzene at or below the 0.1 percent level In toluene, xylene, hexane and solvent napthas (exhibits 18-15. 28. 35. 38. 30, 48, 47, 58. 60, 88) while others reported levels In excess of 0.1 percent (exhibits 1635. 30, 61, 70, 84. 90) with one report of the benzene content'of toluene to be, 15 percent (cxhibtU^S-fll).-; ; ( a) TO WHAT levels'can thx percentage or BENZENE BE FEASXBXLY REDUCED . Those participants.-- such as the rubber manufacturers and the adhe sives and sealant manufacturers, who obtaip th^lr solvents from other sources, could not provide any detailed feasibility assessment .since they did not have knowledge of the technologi cal potential of their - suppliers to reduce the percentages further than present levels. Further complications Involved the refusal of solvent suppli ers to guarantee a; specific benzene level and the fluctuating benzene con tent found In a given solvent from sup plier to supplier. Some suppliers appear reluctant to certify particular solvents since they have not designed their processes with benzene content specification as -a consideration. The Manufacturing & Chemists Associ ation testified that a feasibility assess ment can be made only after their de termination of the benzene content of streams and products is complete (tr. 288),. Solvent purchasers generally in dicated that, if the solvent industry is capable of reducing the percentage of benzene over some period of time, they would support a graduated ex emption setting lower acceptable levels in the future to coincide with the technological ability of the solvent Industry to deliver those percentages In dependable volume shipments suffi cient to maintain production and em ployment (exhibit 18-41, 80). ~ The only specific projection relative to benzene content reduction was Izr terms of costs. Texaco estimated that benzene reduction in their refinery streams from present levels to 1.0 per cent would cost $85 million, a reduc tion to 0.5 percent would cost $506 mil lion. and a reduction to 0.2 percent would cost $1,381 million. Detailed analysis of how these figures were ar rived at however, was not made availa ble (exhibit 18-48). Another study, which addressed the economic Impact of reducing benzene content, Is the Arthur D. Little study on gasoline, prepared fot-iSPA In February of 1978 (exhibit 12b). <) WHAT AIRBORNE CONCENTRATIONS OF " BENZENE RESULT FROM THE PERCENTAGE OF BENZENE ZN BACH PRODUCT Comments and testimony presented on this Issue generally revealed that in the Industrial setting the benzene con tent of the liquid mixture plays only a part In the resultant airborne concen tration to which employees may be ex posed. The evidence regarding the other factors affecting airborne con centration are discussed under issue 7. Monitoring data submitted to the record has provided a reasonable de scription of expected exposure levels In the various industrial segments af fected by the proposed amendment. As ~ previously ~ discussed, Dr. Hervey Elkins submitted calculations Indicat ing that a 0.5 percent benzene content in liquid mixtures would appropriately be consistent with a 1 ppm permissible exposure limit. The monitoring data submitted tends, for most all cases, to support Dr.' Elkins' calculations. -For example. General Tire 4c Rubber Co. submitted data for tire building opetc atlons which indicated resultant ben zene exposures from rubber solvents containing greater 0.5 percent benzene did exceed 1 ppm. while sol vents with benzene content below 0.5 percent did not (exhibit 18-41). Expo sures reported by B. F. Goodrich re sulting from up to 0.3 percent benzene content'lndicate that the companion air levels of benzene were below 0.5 ppm in 95 percent of the cases end only one out of 255 samples was as high as 1.1 ppm (exhibit 18-75). While the Goodyear data tended to support the proposition that exposure levels. In practice, will generally not exceed 1 ppm with -low benzene content liquid mixtures, Goodyear's data from one tire manufacturing plant using from 0.263 to 0.280 percent benzene content rubber solvents indicated exposures between 1.11 and 1.98 ppm. Goodyear attributed these exposure levels to In adequate ventilation since other moni toring data they submitted from other tire building plants using up to 0.4 per cent benzene rubber solvents showed exposure levels not in excess of 0.4 ppm. The adhesive and sealant manu facturers reported that, with liquid mixtures containing up to 1.0 percent benzene, exposure levels never exceed ed 1 ppm (exhibit 18-45). Printing tnfe manufacturers submitted data lixttcat- ing that, while solvents used contained In some cases In excess of 0.1 percent benzene, exposure levels never exceed ed 0.3 ppm (exhibit 18-83). DuPont provided results of tests from paint spraying operations showing that the use of liquid mixtures of 1 percam benzene will not result In airhems concentrations of benzene greaur than 5 ppm, in most cases less than M ppm. Tests were performed with DuPont topcoat paints with 0A0 per cent, 0.1 percent, and 1.0 rtrssnt ben zene added. Benzene was IntentXian? added to the paints in an attempt te correlate benzene levels in the with airborne benzene cone The highest benzene level was 4.3 ppm with a 1.0 per zene spike. Averaged over an 8-1 day. DuPont estimates that spraying operations with paint will result In employee sures below 1 ppm. Other Involving *i*enny of 0.2 to U parvaat benzene in gasoline and 0.19 ( la percent benzene In a p-xylene praams stream resulted in time-weighted ** FHKRAl RCOISTCR, VOL 4$, NO. 124--TUISDAY, JUNt V, 1f78 Mod 0000^28 27966 ftIXES AMD AMULAUON*' age* up to 0.38 ppm and QJ5- ppm re spectively (exhibit 18-38). _ Edison Electric Institute reported that exposures resulting from han dling fuel oils containing 0.003 to 0.005 percent benzene resulted in exposures Jess than 0.2 ppm (exhibit 18-501. Husky Oil . Co. reported refinery streams with 0.71 percent benzene and finished gasoline with. 0.35 percent benzene as producing exposures of less than o.il ppm and 0.043 ppm respec tively (exhibit 18-84). Earlier data sub mitted by NTOSH indicated that fuel oil containing less than 0J. percent ' benzene gave rise to benzene concen trations of 60 ppm under conditions of elevated temperature, confined space and possibly inadequate ventilation* NTOSH indicated, however, that the campling was done with detector tubes which are relatively Inaccurate and subject to numerous interferences, (tr. 753-755. July 35,1877, hearing) . While other participants (exhibits 18-24. 35. 49. 84, 87) supported the proposition that benzene levels In liquid mixtures greater than 0.1 per cent would still not generally produce exposures to benzene above 1 ppm, some participants provided data to the contrary. The United Rubber. Cork li noleum & Plastic Workers of America (URW) (exhibit 18-33) referenced tes timony presented by Dr. Robert THarris, of the University of North Carolina at the public hearing on the proposed benzene standard (docket H058). in which Dr. Harris stated that bulk solvent percentages of benzene from 0.5 to L07 percent can. produce exposure levels below and above 1 ppm. some as high as 12 ppm. The reli ability of the results of this study were questioned by Dr. Curtis smith of the Manufacturing Chemists Association who indicated that the findings as to the presence of benzene in the ambi ent air could have been artificially high because of interference of ke tones which are present in the ambi ent air around rubber plants (tr. 299). URW submitted other exposure data from an Armstrong tire manufactur ing facility (the "Harvard study") also indicating exposure levels above 1 ppm with solvents "^nte^n^g low levels of benzene. A number of participants. In cluding Armstrong, questioned the re liability of the Harvard study (PC 89, 90, 91, 92, 105). Armstrong commented on the study-as follows The report itself mike* it clear Chat no analyses were made by the Harvard study during the week of January 9.1978. with re spect to the bulk ---pi*- Reference is made to the analysis by the Armstrong labo ratory in June 1977 that benzene In. Texol at that time was ices than 0.1 volume per cent More than months elapsed between such sampling of the solvent end the air sampling. It is to be regretted that tn tbs only monitoring done to date with respect to an Armstrong fmdlity, snd a very n-- sampling at that, the monitoring was not so ivwiptni^. by an. analytes, of *** ta airborne concentrations. (PCS-8U use at the time of such monitoring.___ ^ Other nxvtictpawtm. prodded .either In addition, the sample.'period did not theoretical ot^actual data indicating cover the full 8-hour period lor computation of the One weighted average. (TWA). Tbs TWA. In fact, was estimated from a sam pling time of approximately 2 to t hour* - NZOSH in its Oocupsrkmal giposure Sampling Strategy ifA&ual. DuiiW CNTOSH) Publication No. 77-173 (Jaauajy exposures grtater_than. I ppm from low benzene content mixtures used under conditions of confined space. In adequate ventilation, elevated' tem peratures'' etc. (exhibit 18-32,' 92). URW submitted previous testimony of 1977) is critical of partial period sampling. Dr; Robert T. Harris presented at the The Manual states; at page 40. that the public hearing on the proposed ben "sampled portion of the period should cover zene standard (docket H-059> tn which at least 70 percent to 90 pereent ofthe fuH Dr. Harris stated that **** the lower period." Indeed, tn discuaaing the validity of the benzene content of the. solvent, a 8-hour TWA exposure average so-com the lower the potential for exposure, pared with an 8-hour TWA standard, tbs Manual states. at paws 41, that "(Uhls type of measurement should be avoided it poasfr ble." It therefore follows that a shorter period is even less valid(FC-9D; j but a low benzene content of solvent alone does not assure that a particular air concentration will not be exceed ed* (exhibit 18-33). ' As mentioned previously. Dr. Hervey Other participants! sharing reserva wiMns submitted calculations esthaat- tions relative to a particular percent tag that a 041 percent benzene content exemption, did so on the grounds that would not normally be expected to exposure measurements from liquid produce airborne concentrations of mixtures containing 0.1 percent or leas benzene greater than l ppm. Dr. benzene did or could theoretically pro vnkins addressed the affect of other duce airborne concentrations of ben factors on bis calculations: zole in excess of 1 ppm or that varia bles such as ventilation, liquid tem perature, work practices, etc. affected resultant benzene airborne concentra It Is seU-erident thatthe (acton mentleaed (temperature, ventilation, work prac tices. nature of operations) wQl affeet the relationship between the percentage of ben tions to toe great an extent to confi zene In a liquid product-end the resulting dently rely on only benzene oontsnt concentration of >** vapor la the air. for limitation of employee exposures Important factors not mentioned indude (exhibits 18-32, 61. 72. 79, 92. 94, PCS-8X the quantity of substance consumed or proearned, the area of the liquid surface which is exposed to the sir, and thevtcosity of the (T) TO WHAT EXTENT DO VARIOUS' FAC liquid. TORS, SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, DILUTION WITH AMBIENT AIR. WORK FACTORS* NATURE OF OPERATION*, ETC- AFFECT The exemption, percentages proposed (le.. 0A percent to meet l ppm) were based on rather severe conditions: oomplete or free evaporation of the h*"**^ snd other vola THE RELATIONSHIP ROW UN TBS rll- tile twgvaiapta, only by the provi cxhtaoxs or behzknr nr tbs various sion that the pennissQdp limits of the PRODUCTS AND EESULT1HQ AIRBORNE vapors of the other components of the CONCENTRATIONS, AND SHOULD ANT K- liquid must not be exceeded. KKFTXON SR T.nrffED TO TBE USX OF With smbo high boiling liquids, such as THESE PRODUCTS CXRCUMRXANCEZ UNDBt PARTICULAR heavy oils snd tars, there Is ttttio evapora- , tion of the base material, even when heated to temperatures well above the point As previously indicated, most partid- of benzene, In theory. pTosemes employing pants agreed that factors other than benzene content can play a significant role in resultant airborne concentre- tions of benzene. Goodyear stated,that ventilation, climate,, work hahtta. ete, such materials at elevated temperatures snd with large surface areas exposed (ss might ooeur in certain coating or Impregnating protases) could produce concentrations of benzene vapor in the surrounding air In exeea of the postulated permissible expo would affect the airborne sure levels, even when the concentration of concentration of benzene, and submit- khm tn Ui nqnM is less the limits ted monitoring data from an older tire raeomttttded above. innnf*otiHii| farillty and tWO O0VW On tbs other hand, handling tad process plants for comparison. The two newer faculties miwg rubber solvent contain ing 0.4 percent and 0.2 to 0.3 percent benzene experienced airborne concen trations of benzene at 0.45 snd 8-25 ing inch liquids In enrVrairl nr partikxiy en closed spaces, with limited exposure of liquid surfaces to air, and at temperature lueh that the material Is not ineHie fluid, would result in benzene concentrations well below the postedited permtmfhie exposure ppm respectively. The older tire plant levels, even when tbs percentage of henerne using rubber solvent with 0.263-0.280 to the liquid Is in excises of tbs limits recom pereent benzene experienced airborne mended above. concentrations of 141 to 1-98 ppm. Goodyear attributed this discrepancy to Inadequate ventilation in the older Ure manufacturing facility. Goodyear further Indicated that, while they could not determine an exact correla For the sake of simplicity. It is recom mended that the O-S-psroent exemp tion percentage be applied if the airborne permissible exposure hzntt is 1 ppm--with the proviso that If operations Involving heating of the liquids snd exposure of large surface areas ere carried out. at least s one tion from their data, variables other time monitoring of tbs area of benzene in than benzene content could cause up air be done, if the bsneene content at the to an 80 percent variance -in resulting liquid exceeds 0.1 percent. (FC-S3) . FtDMAl RfOUTU, VOL 43, MO. 124--TU8SDAY, JUM 27, 1978 MCD 000012929 '**6: KULIS AND; REGULATIONS 27967. API argued In its poet-hearing brief that the record evidencedoes hot iden tify a specific percentage of benzene which will guarantee-,that a given PEL will not be exceeded under all work en vironment* and that; 1 therefore, any percentage exemption 'must also take account of the roles of many other controlling factors. API further stated . that, regardless of. the benzene con tent in their streams, the nature' of their oil and gas operations is the most important factor Ln considering, poten tial exposures and need for regulation of their segment of the Industry. API witness Dr. William G.Domask testi fied that: . A*- It is evident from the data and-informa tion presented here that well-maintained, closed-system operations ln general represent a low risk for exposure to benzene. Specifically, petroleum production, pipe line, and marketing personnel air monitor ing data reflect a very low rlak of exposure to benzene vapor at all concentration levels of benzene In the liquids handled by these segments of the Industry. Similarly, `data for the closed-system por tions of refining operations indicate a very low level of exposure to benzene <PC-622. While many other participants ad dressed this issue and acknowledged the significance of factors other than benzene content relative to resultant airborne concentrations of benzene, there were no recommendations rela tive to a practical translation of re quirements for a homogeneous regula tory conclusion which would give full weight to those factors. (S) TO WHAT EXTENT, AI*D FOR WHICH LIQUID MIXTURES, ARE REMZEHE-ntXE SUBSTITUTES AVAILABLE - Mosw industry participants argued that benzene-free substitutes are not commercially available, are not suit able for their process due to incom patibility with other materials and ex isting air pollution control systems and methods, are economically prohib itive, or would reduce product per formance (exhibit 18-15, 21, 39, 41. 54. 80. 90. 109). The Public Citizen Health Research Group argued that benzene substitutes are available (exhibit 1894). . However, the record Indicates that "benzene-free" substitutes are not gen erally available for the majority of in dustrial uses. () XT LIQUID MIXTURES OF SPU1T1EP PERCENTAGES ARE FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS OP THE BENZENE- STANDAJU), SHOULD THEY NEVERTHELESS BE SUBJECT TO TKX LABELLING REQUIRE MENTS OP THE STANDABD. CONVERSELY, IT SUCH MIXTURES ARE NOT EXEMPT PROM THIS STANDARD, SHOULD THEY BE . EXEMPT FEOM THE LABELLING REQUIRE MENTS \ Industry participants indicated that some relief from the labeling require* ments was necessary.- They, argued, that,,-.without- some-labeling exemp tion,-liquids which*, contain trace amounts of benzene*"would . require cancer hazard labels. They objected to such - labeling on- the following grounds: lack of associated health hazard requiring warning: economic burdens; uncontrolled use of warning labels dilutes effectiveness of warning messages;. and, ^the ubiquitous nature of benzene in petroleum distillates. The recommendation of industry par ticipants was that any liquid mixture exemption of a specified percentage should include an exemption from the labeling requirements ((exhibit 18-21, 29. 31. 37, 41.42, 69.-71, 72. 79. 83). - DuPont testified that, without a la beling exemption to allow additional time to clear, existing inventories car rying levels of 0.1 to 1.0 percent ben zene, the cost of locating already pack aged containers and labeling them would run to about $31 million (tr. 317). DeSoto, a manufacturer of paints. Industrial coatings, detergents, furniture and fireplace accessories, es timated their cost of labeling present inventory at $700,000 (exhibit 18-43). Another paint and coatings manufac turer. Pratt <c Lambert, Inc., estimat ed a current inventory of 1.4 million container!, which without an exemp tion. would cost $700,000 to label (1844). ... (10) OTHER RELATED ISSUES (a) Monitoring feasibility. A number of industry participants provided data indicating potential difficulties in ob taining industrial hygiene and analyt ical services. The cost burden and re ported lack of monitoring service capa= billties in some locations which would result If some exemption were not pro vided to part of the Industry, would render compliance with parts of ben zene standard impossible (exhibit 18-1, 3, 9,12, 20. 37. 39. 65. 68. 62, 87), The Manufacturing Chemists Associ ation stated that analysis for benzene requires equipment which Is expensive and which must be operated by spe cialists. They maintained that, due to interference from other substances, multiple gaschromatography analyses on a single-'product or use of mass spectrometdc . equipment together with gas chromatography, available only in large laboratories, are required to produce good analytical results (PC-103). NIOSH addressed the prob lem of Interferences in a post-hearing submission (PC-88) in which they report that work by Levadle and MacAskiU, "Analytical Chemistry,." 48, 76, 1978, and by Esposito and Jacobs, "American Industrial Hygiene Jour nal," 38. No. 8. 401. 1977, describes the modifications to the NIOSH sampling and analytical methods for bensene; S31I, necessary to solve the problem of interferences arising from ketone m the analysis for benzene. NIOSH also noted that the prlca of mass spectrometer .systems has de clined steadily over the last five years.' It la NIOSH1* position, therefore, that benzene can be identified with confi dence using the NIOSH recommended method, that interferences* be handled by simple extraction tech niques prior to gast chromatography, that detectors or columns are readily available and within the normal finan cial limitations of most commercial laboratories, and that recourse to spectrometry is unnecessary. (b) Miscellaneous comments. Due to the unique nature of the motor carrier Industry whose employee exposure to benzene is occasional and then only miwiTwi, the National .Tank Truck Carriersr Inc. recommended that if OSHA has any concern over motor carrier's employee exposure to ben zene, OSHA should petition-the De partment of Transportation to develop regulations, thus avoiding regulatory imposition by another agency over an already regulated sector (tr. 414). The National Agricultural Chemi cals Association argued that OSHA has no authority to require labeling of pesticide products and no need to du plicate or Interfere with the labeling controls Imposed by the Environmen tal Protection Agency (exhibit 18-53). The National Retail Merchants As sociation urged an exemption from the standard for retail stores since em ployee exposure in those stores is from consumer goods which are in closed containers. They also argued that, while paint cans are opened for rairing and coloring, the brief and intermit tent nature of the operation would not result ln sufficient benzene exposures to merit regulation. NRMA further stated that the standard should not apply to existing inventories since re tailers would then be unable to sell products they already owned (exhibit 18-37). " V. Analysis and Feasibility OSHA has concluded that it is ap propriate to amend the permanent benzene standard to provide for a per centage exclusion. Specifically the agency has exempted from all the pro visions of the standard for the first 3 yean following the effective date of this amendment, liquid mixtures con taining 0.5 percent or less benzene, and thereafter liquid mixtures con taining 0.1 percent or less benzene. Further, OSHA has exempted from the labelling requirements liquid mix tures containing less than 5.0 percent bensene which are already packaged. OSHA recognizes that the scope of the permanent benzene standard (29 CFR 1910.1028), unamended, is so broad as to enoompass work place op erations utilizing liquid mixtures with any amount of benzene however small v,FfDERAl RfOISm, VOL 43. NO. 124--TU1SOAY, JUNI iw$ MCD 000012930 27968" RUlK AW RfGUiATfdHffO (tx. 30L OSHA's view tbftt there Is no sections. A third-option was that relief ers to^tmdee risk. OSHA- recognises level of benzene exposure thxtr is 'with from the standard by based not oxr a that tauftju uOiei than"the -benzene-* r out some attendant health, risk re percentage exclusion (with perhaps the content"of liquid' mixtures can act to* mains unchan*e<LHowev. because of exception of the dermal provision) but significantly' modify^theJ reButting* r the ubiquitous nature at henr^ne. Le.. rather be based upon actual employee levels of airborne exposure. Variables Its presence in s myriad number' and exposue levels. This recommendation such, as the nature of work operations type of worksites (benzene Is s con was made by AFI. NFRA and member- and work practices, and quantifiable taminant in most, if not aH petroleum- companies and also supported by parameters such as temperature, size based liquid mixtures). OSSA believes OCAW (Ec|u MX.Tr,. 400). A naT op of "evaporative area, and esperisTTy it is proper to focus Industrial hy tion would include a general percent ventilation all have been' shown to giene anri resources on those age exclusion with, the additional play an Important role. This data thus operations with higher exposures and proviso that, in the case of severe or supports Dr. Harris's earlier conclu which present the greatest potential unusual work situations* the permissi sions that there Is no necessary,corre risk to worker health. This, derision is ble airborne umshould not. be ex lation between the amount of benzene in accord with the evidence developed ceeded as determined by monitoring. in liquid mixtures and resulting air during the recent rulemaking which (Exh 27-C.U PC-821,. - . "T. - - borne levels. However, defining the pa revealed the need to and appropriate ness of limiting the scope of the stand ard. The mechanism chosen to effectuate this relief must in OSHA'a view be consistent with the intent of the per manent standard, which is to minimise the risk to worker health to the great est extent feasible. The framework within which the agency has exam ined this issue was articulated by the Director of OSHA's health standards programs, Grover C. Wrenn. at the outset of the informal hearing: Since the standard itself establishes a per missible exposure limit for benaene, we would certainly endeavor to set an exemp OSHA has carefully evaluated these and other possible approaches and. based upon a review of the evidence and views contained Inthe rulemaking proceedings, has concluded that a per centage exclusion amendment applica ble to all provisions of the standard most adequately satisfies, for regula tory purposes, the dual intention of appropriately limiting the scope of the permanent benzene standard while not exposing exempted employees to greater exposures than employees cov ered by the standard. The record evidence of percentage exclusion rulemaking establishes, as shown in the preceding discussion of rameters and determining the exact combination of factors which signifi cantly increase exposure, s necessary accomplishment for regulation on this basis. Is not possible and no witness could suggest mmni of doing so. More- " over, the preponderance of evidence submitted to this rulemaking (most of which was not available at the earlier rulemaking) manifestly establishes, based on1 objective --"pH-g data de rived from current industrial settings, that for the vast majority of work sites, small amounts of benzene in liquid mixtures do not result in worker exposures above 1 ppm. An additional reason for not adopt tion which assured that employees exposed issues, that a variety of liquid mix ing alternative strategies to amend the to materials exempt from coverage under the regulation are subject to no greater ex posure than employees who an subject tb the provisions and protection of the stand ard <tr. 16). And one of the questions that was raised in the earlier rulemaking and one of the questions that is raised here Is the question tures with small or "trace" amounts of benzene generally result In exposure levels below the permissible exposure limit of the permanent benzene stand ard in a wide variety of industries. OSHA has determined, by examining the relationship of the percentages of permanent standard is that the record did not provide evidence for the need to provide different exemption levels for different provisions. Manufactur ers of rubber goods argued that an "action-level" concept be applied to the dermal section of the standard be of the likelihood that exempting any partic benzene to resultant exposure levels, cause of the tnfea&ibllity of perform ular category of materials from regulation, under the benzene standard--the likelihood that that exemption would provide basis for being confident that workers involved with those exempt materials would not be exposed in a manner that was intended to be avoided by the bensene regulation (tr. 16). The agency has considered and re that generally an appropriate percent age exclusion can assure that employ ees who would be exempt from the coverage of the benzene standard are not exposed above the level set in the standard (tr. 16). Furthermore, It is OSHA's view that a percentage exclu-t slon will encourage employers to act to reduce the amount of benzene present ing certain manual operations in their industry without some skin contact with benzene-containing solvents. However, as was explained in the pre amble to the permanent standard, from the point of view of choosing a "safe" level, the permissible exposure limit should be zero (exhibit 3A). In the case of airborne exposure, clearly viewed several approaches for limiting In liquid mixtures utilized In their thi was not attainable and their air the scope of the permanent * benzene workplaces or present in their prod borne permissible exposure limits es standard suggested by participants to ucts and. therefore, reduce the poten tablished were not "no-effect" levels, the rulemaking. These options includ tial health hazard to employees. The rather were based on feasibility con ed a single percentage exclusion appli record clearly establishes that, since siderations. However, with respect to cable to all provisions of the standard, publication of the permanent benzene dermal contact, avoidance of skin ex as was set forth in OSHA's proposed standard, paint., manufacturers and posure is feasible for workers in most amendment in the Fxdmmju, Racism other solvent users have already ex industrial sectors simply by the use of notices of March 28.1978 (43 FR12890) amined the need for benzene in their suitable protective clothing, such as and April 28,1978 (43 FR 182151 Such liquid mixtures, and have made exten impermeable gloves. OSHA recognizes an approach was recommended by sive efforts to obtain, solvents with t>it in tire-building, the record evi many participants as cited under the lower percentages of benzene. OSHA dence shows that at present there are discussion of issue 1. Another option- believes that an appropriate percent no suitable methods available to pre called for a general percentage exclu age exclusion will be an Incentive to vent skin contact with solvents con sion. but with different levels for cer many other employers to reduce ben taining a amount of benzene. tain provisions of the permanent sene levels and thus minimise the leu However, the record evidence estab-. standard. This type of amendment, kemia and other health risks to their lishes that rubber solvents with 0.5 which was suggested by the Rubber employees. percent benzene, which are suitable Manufacturers Association and mem In arriving at the conclusion that an for use in tire operations, are already ber companies (Exh. 92), specifically "across-the-board" percentage exclu available in sufficient quantities. Ac called for a higher percentage exclu sion Is the appropriate means to cordingly. the exemption of QA per sion for the dermal and labelling provi afford an opportunity for relief -from cent liquid mixtures from all the pro sions of the standard relative to other the standard without subjecting work visions of the benzene standard, will MCD GO001293l nOCXAL RIGtSTBt, VOL 43, MO. 124--TUtSOAT, JUNt V, 1*7t RUUS AND REGULATIONS 2796* substantially-relieve^ the feasibility problems- Id ttn hnlMtaf operations. Furthermore, tbr x ^year atepdown provtaioa oftba amendment from OX to 0.1 percent exclusion levels will allow time for Inert seed production of. solvents containing lower amounts of benzene and for development and eval uation of alternative methods of com pliance with the standard's dermal provision. - - . - --- Some participants suggested that a higher exemption level apply to label ing (Tr. 68,188). OSHA does not agree. The requirement -of the per manent standard serves to inform the worker of the hazard associated with working with benzene containing liquid mixtures. Use of a higher per centage exemption for this provision could result in the employee not being apprised of the danger in situations where exposure might be excessive. API has argued that an "across the board** percentage exclusion is not an effective method by which to amend the standard and that; in general, an exemption predicated on exposure levels is a better way of dealing wtth the problem presented by liquid mix tures ccntalnlwg email quantities Of benzene (PC 104). While acknowledg ing that there are other factors in ad dition to benzene concentration which may significantly affect airborne expo sure levels, OSHA believes that'tbere is sufficient record evidence which demonstrates that with low levels of benzene contamination airborne expo sures are generally below the PEL and frequently below the action level. Many participants in the rulemaking also supported this conclusion. Fur thermore, API's recommendation that various provisions of the permanent standard be triggered by workers' ex posure levels Is, to a great degree, al ready Incorporated into the standard by OSHA's use of the action level con cept. The objective of the benzene standard is to provide necessary pnx tectlon to employees from the hazards of benzene exposure, snd to this end, the standard imposes upon employers different compliance requirements de pending on the level of employee ex posure. with minimal requirements im posed where employee exposure is below the action level. - The primary difference between API's suggested use of an "exposure determination'* and OSHA's decision reflected in the standard la that API would not require Initial monitoring in all cases but rather would rely upon professional Judgment - to determine whether various provisions of the standard apply. However, It should be noted that API's judgment as to which operations In the petroleum industry have*iow exposures Is based upon ob jective sampling data submitted to this record: to the extent that such data exists the Initial monitoring require-. mentz of the- amumwit ptapdard may be satisfied .j. OSHA-recognize*-.that- condition!, such as alevatecLAemperatures. inad equate ventilation, confined space, quantity of material used etc., could In some cases act to produce exposures above the PEL even tf the same ben- sene percentages would in other oper ations result in exposures less than the PEL. However, as already stated, the record does not provide a suffi cient basis upon which to Identify and define these variables for regulatory purposes. \ . .. i The results of monitoring of employ ee exposure submitted by numerous participants demonstrates that, by and large, the use or presence of liquid mixtures containing - bonyno -with maximum concentrations of 0.6 per cent benzene results in airborne con centrations of less than 1 ppm and fre quently less than the action level of OX ppm. However, the low airborne concentrations reported are not neces sarily due to the inherent nature of the liquid mixtures utilized (exhibit 18-32), but rather are in past the result of the maintenance and effec tiveness of engineering controls to. limit exposures. Therefore, mainte nance of these low exposure levels can be dependent upon the continued use of engineering controls. This is illus trated by the testimony of Goodyear which shows that, in contrast to the majority of their operations, which in dicated that use of solvents containing up to 0.4 percent did not result in ex posure levels greater than 0.4 ppm. in one plant wtth Inadequate ventilation, exposures greater than I ppm were ob served when the solvent utilized con tained only 0X6 to 0.28 percent ben zene. (PC-S-8). In the case of refiner ies, although the benzene content of liquid streams may range up to 3.6 percent by volume or higher, the great majority of worker exposures are less than 0.8 ppm (tr. 338-346.) It is evi dent that such low exposures in the petroleum industry are due to the out door setting and, importantly, to the use of dosed systems. Although.not always explicitly stated, the low expo sures measured in some situations, such as the uSe of benzene-containing solvents by rubber manufacturers, ap pears to be the result of enginesring controls as well as effective work prac tices. Close examination of Or. Elkins' cal culations also indicates that a percent age exclusion level of OX percent may not be sufficiently conservative. His calculated average of all values of ben zene percentage limits, which was con sistent with exposures of 10 ppm (the time-weighted average PEL ol the pre vious standard) was approximately 1 percent when utilizing a total upper limit concentration of 600 ppm.for pe troleum distillates (PC-82). If, the same underlying assumption is used (rather than *tiUa*wg NIOSH'a recom mended 360 per cubic meter which is not presently in effect) to calculate the percentage ot In a liquid mixture consistent with the 1 ppm PEL of the permanent stand ard. the mean value would <***utw &p- proxlmately 10-fold or to a lewd of. about 0.1 percent hrnzrnr in liquid mixtures (tr. 383-84). Elkins' data takes into account' abnormal worst case work situations. Therefore, a 0.1 percent exclusion level should main tain workplace levels at below the per missible exposure limit even in the ab normal work situations cited by Dr. In adopting an across the board ex clusion level, two problems arise (1) In some esses, where the benzene stream- extent is in excess of the prescribed percentage and the standard there ap plies. exposures may well be below the PEL or action level; and (2) in certain cases, the exemption of work oper ations where the benzene content of liquids are below the prescribed exclu sion level my produce exposures in excess of the PEL. In the first case, although exposures may be low, the potential exists for ex cessive exposures, such as in the case of leaks, spills and process upsets from enclosed systems. The agency believes, that because of this potential, the re quirements of the permanent standard are necessary for the protection of em ployees working in such areas. -In the second situatioiC this agency recog nizes that adoption of a 0.1 percent ex clusion level does not, in all ~rnmy assure that- resulting airborne expo sures wQl necessarily not exceed the action level of OX ppm or even the per missible exposure limit of 1 ppm. OSHA further recognize that 0.6 per cent factors other than the percentage of benzene may become more signifi cant in determining exposure levels. However, the record does not indicate that exposures greater than 1 ppm have been demonstrated to be com monly found in industrial sit uations where benzene levels in liquid mixtures are less then 0.1 percent. Ideally, the percentage exclusion level chosen should be so low as to assure that In all instances, the PEL will not be exceeded. Participants rep resenting users of hfmmMvmtalTiinr solvent mixtures- who recommended exemption levels of 0.8 to 1 percent, conceded that they would readily uti lise solvents containing even less ben zene If they were available. While some participants from industry testi fied that they were able to obtain sol vents with less than 0.1 percent on a regular bails, the record evidence dem onstrates that for most industrial procemes liquid mixtures containing OX percent or less benzene are not commercially available at this time. KDfXAL UOiSm, VOL 43, NO. 124--TtfSSOAV, JUN3 27,1473 *05 27970 rules and regulations Thus, the percentage exemption level chosen by OSHA for amendment pur poses must take Into account the feasi bility of supplying large volumes of liquids containing less than a specific amount of benzene to a'multltude of industrial users. t- Testimony from the producers of liquid mixtures which contain varying amounts of benzene Indicate that the benzene which is present is there only as a contaminant and generally is not intentionally added to produce a par ticular property in the formulations or products. Furthermore, while It ap pears to be impossible to exclude very small amounts of benzene in many of these products. MCA witnesses ob served that the technology currently exists to produce liquid mixtures con taining 0.1 percent or less of benzene (tr. 278). However, their testimony also demonstrated that reduction of benzene content to the 0.1 percent level is not a simple undertaking. Be cause benzene Is a widespread con taminant in most petroleum-based liquid products, some time will be re quired to complete testing to deter mine the current levels of benzene In their products. Once thia process is complete, industry will require an ad ditional period of time to implement appropriate process changes which would assure low level benzene con tent. This latter phase is in some in stances complex, as the percent of benzene la dependent upon existing production factors, such as differences in crude nine, the nature and efficien cy of individual refinery processes and the specific balance of final products produced at a given point in time. In addition, it appears that market condi tions may also be a significant factor determining the degree to which ben zene has been extracted from petro leum-based streams. The record also indicates that only In the recent past have producers of benzene-containing liquids given significant consideration to the benzene content of their prod ucts (tr. 286). Two studies addressed the economic feasibility of reducing benzene content in certain liquid mixtures (exhibit 18- 48: exhibit 12B). However, it Is OSHA's view that the cost of reducing benzene content are not attributable to this percentage exclusion amend ment. Reducing the benzene content In liquid mixtures In order to avoid coverage by the benzene standard la an option which the employer may ex ercise; it Is not a requirement of the benzene standard that he do so. Em ployers may prefer to comply with the permanent . standard, particularly where their employees' are exposed below the action level, in which case the employer would nee<f only to con duct initial measurement, record that measurement and train his employees. Since the standard does not compel re- ductton of - benzene, vcontent, it - is OSHA's view that costs Involved in re ducing the percentage of benzene In a liquid are not a consideration in r><| amendment, .."r. .j. . ... Other than indicating that consider able time would be required to com plete analysis of benzene .content of their prodijcts, (exhibit 18-87) indus try did not provide estimates -nor spe cific recommendations as to the time frames required to effect production changes In order to produce liquid mixtures containing 0.1 percent of less of benzene in sufficient quantity to meet the anticipated needs of down stream users. Because -of -the - above considerations, industry participants felt tht OSHA should not at this time adopt a percentage exclusion^ at the level of 0.1 percent as proposed'by the agency. However, it should be noted that the proposed permanent regula tion. which did indicate that the agency waa considering a 0.1 percent exclusion level, was published over a year prior to the most recent rulemak ing. Review of the evidence submitted Indicates that while not commercially available on a sufficiently large basis, mixtures with 0.1 percent or less ben zene content have been produced and are available on a limited basis and are compatible with most processes requir ing such mixtures. The record evidence further demon strates that mixtures with a benzene content of up to 0.5 percent are pres ently available in sufficient quantity to satisfy the.needs of affected indus trial segments and that suppliers of these liquid mixtures are attempting to reduce the benzene content still fur ther. OSHA has, therefore, concluded that 0.1 percent benzene content can be feasibly attained on a commercial basis at some point in the future. It is the judgment of the Agency that a period of S years is-a sufficient and reasonable allowance for develop ment and implementation of means and methods necessary for production of adequate supplies of 0.1 percent benzene content mixtures. Along with the- consideration of feasibility, the icoord evidence indicating a relative lack of suitable "benzene-free" substi tutes, dictates the need for providing a period- for implementation. which would meet the anticipated demand for solvents cmt^iwiwg low percent age* of benzene. In addition/ the 3- year period before the stepdown to the 0.1 percent level, will allow those users Of bow--nmwmfIniny liquid mixtures to test for product integrity before commencing reformulation on a large- scale basis. By adoption of the 0.5 percent exclu sion level initially, many employers engaged in crude oa and gas produc tion activities will be provided relief from all provisions of the permanent standard. The agency la aware that, by decreasing the exclusion level to 0.1- percent after 3 -years, many of the fa cilities and employees in the petro leum production sector .will then be covered by the standard. It is also rec ognized that since benzene Is a natu rally-occurring constituent of crude oQ and natural gas, its level is not under the control of the employer. However,, since compliance requirements of the permanent standard are directly relat ed to the exposure level of the employ ees, and since it has been demonstrat ed that exposure levels of personnel in oil and gas production are generally below the action level of 0A ppm. the requirements of tEe permanent stand ard are beyond the taking of an initial representative exposure measurement. .The 3-year delay prior to the step-down to the 0.1 percent level also provides additional time for employers to obtain the required sam pling information. . This amendment also exempts from the labelling requirement, liquid mix-_ tures containing 5.0 percent or leas benzene if the liquid mixture is al ready packaged on the effective date of this amendment. Record evidence indicates that there may be a large number of containers already in the channels of commerce, particularly consumer products, that would be sub ject to the labelling requirement If such an exemption Were not provided. While the labelling of existing con tainers may be possible, it is also clear that it would require a substantial effort. Thus, imposition of the label ling requirement for liquid mixtures already packaged might well result In an excessive disruption of the commer cial framework. For liquid mixtures packaged after the effective date of these amendments, the 0.5 percent ex-- emption applies. Those employers who utilize or manufacture liquids contain ing 0.5 percent or less benzene will have 3 years to meet the labelling re quirements, and may be exempt en tirely if In that period of Qme they can reduce benzene concentrations below 0J percent.. OSHA has chosen a level of 5 per cent or less benzene (by volume) con tamination as the boundary for exempting liquid mixtures .already packaged. Evidence developed during the rulemaking indicated that there may be some products already in the channels of commerce which may con tain benzene well in excess of 1 per cent and which may not have been analyzed and which would be difficult to track down. In addition, the 5 per cent level chosen is similar to the re quirement of the Consumer Product Safety Commission which, under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act Reg ulations (16 CFR l500.14(aK3)), man dates that products with 5 percent or more benzene receive a special label. In products with an average molecular HDCRAl UOtSTlK, VOL 43, NO. 1J4--TUCSOAY, JUNf V, IS7t  .. s RULES AND REGULATIONS 27971 weight similar to that of benzene. 5 percent by volume Is similar to 5.0 per cent by weight. It is the agency's Judgment that much of the National Tank Truck Car rier's Association's concerns regarding the Imposition of the provisions of the permanent standard on their members will be substantially relieved as users of various liquid mixtures demand products containing less than the pre scribed percentage levels of benzene. In the absence of the exercise of au thority by the Department of Trans portation in this matter. 5 1910.1025. as amended, applies to this industry (sec. 4(b)(1)). ETTBCTTVg DATS This amendment is effective immedi ately on June 27. 1978. Since this amendment is a rule granting an ex emption. the Administrative Proce dure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) does not re quire a 30-day period before the amendment becomes effective. Section 533(d)(1) of the APA exempts rules which grant an exemption or relieve a restriction from the requirement that publication of a substantive rule be made not less than 30 days before its effective date. This amendment exempts from the permanent benzene standard operations utilizing liquid mixtures of 0.5 percent or Less (0.1 per cent or less after 3 years). Without this amendment, all employers with such operations would be required to implement the various protective re quirements of the permanent stand ard, such as initial monitoring, train ing and recordkeeping. The amend ment relieves them of this burden. In addition the amendment exempts from the labelling requirements liquid mixtures which are already packaged In containers and which contain 5 per cent or less benzene. Such containers would otherwise be subject to the la belling requirements of the standard. The amendment, therefore, relieves employers of the requirements to label these containers. Accordingly, these' amendments are effective June 27, 1978. As with the other operations exempted from $ 1910.1028, the benzene standard con tained in Table Z-2 of } 1910.1000 will continue to apply to the operations exempted by the amendments. Upon the publication of this amend ment, the limited administrative stay adopted by OSHA in conjunction with this rulemaking (43 FR 12891) is no longer in effect. VII. Authority This document was prepared under the direction of Eula Bingham, Assist ant Secretary of Labor for Occupa tional Safety and Health, UJ5. Depart ment of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20210. Accordingly, pursuant to section 4(bX2) and 8(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1592. 1593. 29 UAC. 653, 655), the specific statutes referred to In sec tion 4(b)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 25059). and 29 CFR Part 1911. Part 1910 of Title 29. Code of Federal Regulations, is hereby amended by adding new paragraphs (&X2XIU) and (kX2XUi) to 29 CFR 1910.1028. "-Signed at Washington. D.C,, t>ii 21st day of June 1978. Euxa Bihgkajc, Assistant Secretary q/Labor. . Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amend ed by adding a new paragraph (&)(2Xiil) and a new paragraph (kX2Xtii) to 9 1910.1028 to read as fol lows: 9 1910.1028 Benzene. (a) Scope and application. * (2) This section does not apply to: (ill) Work operations where the only exposure to benzene is from liquid mixtures containing 0.5 percent <0.1 percent after June 27. 1981) or less of benzene by volume, or the vapors re leased from such liquids. (k) Sipris and labels. * * * (2) The employer shall assure that caution labels are affixed to all con tainers of benzene and of ' products containing any amount of benzene, except: * Oil) Liquid mixtures containing 5.0 percent or less benzene by volume which were packaged before June 27, 1978. (Sect. 4. 6. 84 Stat. 1583 (29 OA.C. 653. 655): Secretary of Labor's Order 8-76 (41 FR 25089); 29 CFR Part 191L) CFR Doc. 78-17633 Filed 8-21-78: 3:16 pml 0V2^. oo0 FfDCRAl 1KMSTK, VOL 48, NO. 4--TUMOAT, JUN8 V. 19T8 '( i *'