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

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