[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 251 (Monday, December 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68725-68727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-33129]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Environment, Safety and Health


Environment, Safety and Health: Public Forums To Gather 
Scientific Data, Information and Views Relevant to a Department of 
Energy (DOE) Beryllium Standard

AGENCY: Office of Environment, Safety and Health, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of public data gathering Forums and opportunity to 
submit written comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) will hold two 
public forums to gather scientific data, information and views that 
will assist DOE in developing a notice of proposed rulemaking intended 
to help establish a health standard to protect DOE and DOE contractor 
employees from occupational exposure to beryllium. The Department urges 
those individuals or organizations with an interest in this topic to 
attend and participate in the forums as well as submit to DOE written 
comments and data on this subject.

DATES: The dates for the public forums are listed below. January 15 and 
16, 1997, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day in Albuquerque, NM; and 
January 22 and 23,1997, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day in Oak Ridge, 
TN.
    To ensure that all interested individuals have an opportunity to 
participate, those who would like to make an oral presentation should 
call in advance of the forum to schedule a 10-minute block of time. 
These requests should be submitted to the Department no later than 4:30 
p.m., eastern standard time, on January 10, 1997, for the Albuquerque 
forum and no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 
17, 1997, for the Oak Ridge forum. Written comments and data (5 copies 
) must be received by the Department on or before February 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests to speak at the public forums, written comments and 
scientific data (5 copies of each) should be addressed to Jacqueline D. 
Rogers, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety and 
Health, EH-51, 270CC, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290; 
301-903-5684. The public data gathering forums will be held at the 
following locations.

Albuquerque, New Mexico:

The Albuquerque Convention Center, West Building, Picuris Room--Lower 
Level, 401 Second Street, NW., Albuquerque, NM 87185.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee:

The American Museum of Science and Energy, Auditorium, 300 South Tulane 
Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN 37830.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline D. Rogers, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, 
Safety and Health, EH-51, 270CC, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown MD 
20874-1290, 301-903-5684.

[[Page 68726]]

David Weitzman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, 
Safety and Health, EH-51, 270CC, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown MD 
20874-1290, 301-903-5401.
Paul Wambach, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety 
and Health, EH-61, 270CC, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown MD 20874-
1290, 301-903-7373.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

    The Department of Energy is gathering data, views and other 
relevant information to develop a health standard to control 
occupational exposure to beryllium at DOE facilities. The Department 
has a long history of beryllium use because of the element's many 
nuclear applications. Beryllium metal and ceramics are used in weapons, 
as reactor moderators or reflectors, and as reactor fuel element 
cladding. Inhalation of beryllium dust or particles can cause chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD), which is a granulomatous lung disease caused 
by a delayed hypersensitivity response to beryllium in the lung.
    The current DOE permissible exposure limits (PELs) for beryllium 
were adopted in 1970 from the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's health standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000, Air Contaminant--
Table Z-2. After the PELs were adopted, the industry experienced a 
significant reduction in the incidence rate of the disease. This led to 
the belief that CBD was occurring only among workers who had been 
exposed to high levels of beryllium decades earlier (i.e., in the 
1940s). DOE is now discovering cases of CBD among workers who were 
first exposed in the 1970s and 1980s. DOE has found that some of these 
cases are occurring among workers who were exposed to levels well below 
the PEL for beryllium.
    Although a small amount of research and production involving 
beryllium continues, the workers at risk for CBD are primarily those 
who were exposed prior to cessation of weapons production in 1989. 
However, as decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) work accelerates, 
DOE is concerned that more workers will be at risk for beryllium 
exposure.
    DOE has concluded that current beryllium standards may not be 
adequate to protect workers. Therefore, DOE is gathering data, views 
and other relevant information to develop a revised standard for 
occupational exposure to beryllium at DOE facilities.

2. Public Forums and Written Comment Opportunity

    DOE is holding the two public forums and inviting written comments 
in order to gather scientific data, information, and the views of DOE 
and DOE contractor employees (beryllium workers and their 
representatives) line managers, industrial hygienists, safety 
professionals, physicians, health professionals, scientists, and 
others. DOE is also inviting individuals in academic institutions, 
general industry, trade associations, and other government agencies who 
have expertise in the health effects, exposure monitoring, appropriate 
controls, and medical monitoring for beryllium to participate.
    To help focus oral and written comment, DOE includes in this Notice 
a set of questions covering a variety of beryllium-related topics. 
Responses to these questions would be extremely helpful. Participants 
should bring 5 copies of their oral presentation to the forum and 
submit them at the registration desk. In order to accommodate as many 
participants as possible, individual oral presentations will be limited 
to 10 minutes, unless the presiding official determines that a 
different allocation of time is appropriate.

Questions for Comment

    The Department is especially interested in answers supported by 
evidence and rationale whenever possible, to the following questions.
    1. Should an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) permissible 
exposure limit (PEL) other than the current 2 ug/m3 be adopted? If so, 
what level should be established? Please provide evidence for 
establishing a different PEL.
    2. Should a short-term exposure limit (STEL) be established for 
intermittent exposures? If so, at what level should the STEL be set? 
Please provide evidence for establishing a STEL.
    3. Should an action level be adopted? If so, what should the action 
level be? What actions should be triggered by this exposure level? 
Please provide evidence for establishing an action level.
    4. Should a policy of maintaining exposures as low as reasonably 
achievable (ALARA) be adopted? Please provide evidence and rationale 
for adopting an ALARA policy.
    5. If an ALARA policy is adopted, is the personal monitoring needed 
to measure performance feasible?
    6. If a level was recommended in questions 1 through 3, is the 
recommended level technologically and economically feasible? Please 
provide evidence for establishing feasibility.
    7. Will the introduction of a more stringent beryllium standard in 
any way reduce the demand for beryllium-containing products? If so, to 
what extent will (or can) the demand for these products be reduced and 
what would be the losses to industries that are affected?
    8. Please describe the job titles and provide job descriptions for 
workers exposed to beryllium. Describe the operations that present the 
potential for beryllium exposure, each worker's location relative to 
sources of beryllium and the activities that the workers perform during 
the operation. In particular, if you are involved with decontamination 
and decommissioning work, please characterize the types of activities 
in this work where beryllium exposures can occur.
    9. Please describe the frequency and duration of activities with 
potential or actual beryllium exposures. Identify the number of 
employees potentially exposed (i.e., workers not directly exposed but 
in an area where beryllium is used or working on tasks where exposures 
are negligible due to existing controls) as well as those with known 
exposures.
    10. What is the lowest practical limit of detection of the sampling 
and analytical method for beryllium for both an 8-hour TWA PEL and a 
STEL?
    11. What would be an appropriate monitoring strategy for airborne 
beryllium? What are the cost implications of different strategies? 
Would an appropriate strategy seek to demonstrate compliance with an 
exposure level, or seek to measure typical exposures? Should 
statistical methods be used to determine the sample size that is large 
enough to obtain the desired degree of precision in estimating the 
airborne beryllium exposure?
    12. Are there exposure models that predict the incident of 
beryllium-related death and disease? Please provide references to these 
models.
    13. Is smear sampling accurate enough to be acceptable for 
evaluation of beryllium contamination on all surfaces? Please provide 
evidence of smear sampling's efficacy for determining removal 
efficiencies.
    14. Should statistical methods be used to determine the sample size 
that is large enough to obtain the desired degree of precision in 
estimating the beryllium contamination for the surface area of concern? 
Please provide evidence and rationale for statistical methods used to 
evaluate surface contamination.
    15. Should any permissible surface contamination level be 
considered acceptable for workers who are

[[Page 68727]]

beryllium sensitive? If so, what is the acceptable level? Please 
provide evidence and rationale for acceptable surface contamination 
level.
    16. Are there any indications that establishing ultra-low 
permissible surface contamination levels would provide any additional 
protection to workers? Please provide evidence of the health protection 
benefits and cost of implementing various permissible surface 
contamination levels, for example, the ``stop work level.''
    17. What standards for contamination control should be applied to 
beryllium operations? Please provide descriptions of current practices 
for swipe sampling, levels acceptable in access controlled areas, 
levels acceptable for facilities and equipment released for 
uncontrolled use, and work rules for personal hygiene.
    18. What engineering and work practice controls are routinely 
applied for beryllium work? How do the various controls compare with 
respect to efficiency in reducing exposures? Please support your answer 
with exposure data and a discussion of the time and cost required for 
implementation of various controls.
    19. Could current beryllium exposures be reduced by the use of 
additional available engineering controls and work practices? Would 
such reductions be economically feasible? Please support your answer 
with a discussion of additional available controls, their efficiency in 
reducing exposures, and the associated time and cost for 
implementation.
    20. Are there unique conditions in work settings where beryllium is 
produced or used that make engineering controls infeasible?
    21. Are there conditions under which respirators use should be 
permitted? If so, what are the conditions? What respirator fit testing 
requirements should be included in the standard and when should such 
testing be required?
    22. To the extent you might be able to forecast possible beryllium 
control measures, what would be the possible financial impacts of 
incremental spending for such controls by your facility? How large an 
effect is incremental spending on beryllium controls likely to have on 
the costs of products or services that you provide?
    23. What examinations and tests should be included in a medical 
monitoring program aimed at the early detection of chronic beryllium 
disease? What should the time interval be between periodic medical 
examinations or tests?
    24. What criteria should be used to determine who must be included 
in a medical monitoring program? Using this criteria, how many current 
workers at your facility would be included in the medical monitoring 
program.
    25. Do you currently have a medical monitoring program for workers 
exposed to beryllium? What does this program entail (i.e., identify 
required tests, examinations, frequencies, costs, criteria for 
inclusion in the program). How many of your current workers are in the 
medical monitoring program?
    26. Are estimates available of the medical costs associated with 
beryllium-related disease? Please provide references to these 
estimates.
    27. Regarding current policies for medical removal:
    a. What are the current practices and criteria for removing 
overexposed workers from beryllium jobs?
    b. What specific biological indicators or clinical test results are 
currently used to determine overexposure?
    c. For workers who have been removed from jobs because of beryllium 
overexposure, what alternate types of jobs were they given? Does this 
assignment have any impact on wages, position classification, etc.? How 
long does this reassignment usually last?
    d. Are reassigned workers ever returned to jobs that include 
beryllium activities? If so, what are the criteria for returning?
    The draft agenda for the forums is as follows:

Draft Agenda

Opening remarks
Presentations by Participants (10 minutes per speaker)
Next Steps--Closing

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 1996.
Tara O'Toole,
Assistant Secretary Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 96-33129 Filed 12-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P