[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
