# Presentation: 644321

## New Beryllium Work - The LLNL Experience in Expanding the Scope of the CBDPP

**George P. Fulton, CIH**
**Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory**
**for**
**Chemical Management Conference**
**Department of Energy**
**Washington, D. C.**
**March 8-10, 2005**

## Audience Questions

**How many of you have an approved CPDPP?**
**How many of you have revised it once?**
**How many of you have revised it more than once?**
**How many of you have tried to increase the scope of the CBDPP?**
**Was it an easy process?**
**This talk will relate our experience, and provide some suggestions for improvement.**

## Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

**LLNL is a multi-program laboratory occupying one square mile adjacent to the city of Livermore and a test site in the hills several miles to the east. **
**There are more than 600 buildings - both old and new. Some activities are relocating.**

**Notes:**
This is an aerial view of LLNL which highlights the current Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management facilities on the south side (left) and shows where some operations will be relocating to the north (right).

## Disposal & Waste Treatment Facility - DWTF

**DWTF is a new facility that is consolidating waste treatment processes, including beryllium waste, in a new state of the art facility. **
**This talk will explore some issues with the Rule in bringing an operation in this facility online.**

**Notes:**
DWTF is actually a complex of buildings for
	solid waste
	liquid waste
	tank farm with nine 17,000 liter tanks
Off-gassing from the tanks during processing is treated (see photo) prior to existing the facility (acid vapors removed, organic vapors removed, and final particulate filters) through the HEPA bank.

## The LLNL CBDPP

**LLNL’s beryllium work is presently operating under revision 1 of an approved CBDPP.**
**Approved operations are described generally.**
**The CBDPP recognizes that work will be transitioning to DWTF, but is not specific, and does not include a timetable.**
**The proposed DWTF work was outside the scope of the CBDPP and could not commence until reviewed by the DOE/NNSA Livermore Site Office.**
**10 CFR 850 is clear about work outside the scope of the CBDPP**
** ****The Implementation Guide for 10 CFR 850 is not clear:**
**Terms such as “significant change” are used without definition or examples.**
**Topics for consideration are offered, but no guidance for weighting is provided.**

**Notes:**
The LLNL CBDPP has gone through two versions, due to the long period of construction and approval for DWTF, the CBDPP had only limited info on new operations in DWTF.
Much of what is presently proposed is out of the scope of the CBDPP.
Thus our first revision of the scope of the CBDPP will be with a DWTF operation.

## What is a Beryllium Worker?

**The Preamble to the Final Rule discussed this issue at some length and stated that the DOE has concerns about low exposures and incidental exposures. Incidental exposures were not further addressed.**
**10 CFR 850 definitions and issues**
**“... ****current worker who is regularly employed in a DOE beryllium activity ...” *****Issue:***** “regular” is not defined.**
**“****Beryllium activity means an activity ... that can expose workers to airborne beryllium ...” *****Issue:***** no threshold for exposure.**
**The Rule does not set a threshold of “any work with beryllium” but rather “regular” work, even if of low exposure, implying that isolated or limited work maybe outside its scope.**
**The Implementation Guide stresses the performance based nature of the Rule.**
**General terminology is used to provide “flexibility.”**
**Performance based terms are used as those terms are commonly understood.**

**Notes:**
Be work will be done occasionally in DWTF, which raised the question of “are these workers ‘Be Workers’?”
The issue become what is meant the Rule ... can you administratively control the amount of work so as not to have to classify the workers as beryllium workers? The terminology in the Rule does not state that any work with beryllium work make someone a beryllium worker.
It was our position that we could do this ... this is not inconsistent with the goal of minimizing opportunities for exposure.
Minimizing exposure also goes along with this through appropriate work practices to control exposure.

## What is a Significant Change?

**This is a term not defined by the Rule.**
**The Implementation Guide discusses the issue briefly.**
**This is a performance-based term.**
**No specific criteria exist to determine when a  change is significant. **
**Guidance is provided on topics to consider.**

**Notes:**
Another major issue is what constitutes a “significant change”? This determines who has start-up authorization responsibility: the contractor or the DOE.

## LLNL Solutions

**We have developed a working definition of what constitutes a beryllium worker.**
**We have expanded, with some concrete examples, of what is a significant change.**

**Notes:**
We developed what we thought were reasonable solutions.

## LLNL Beryllium Worker Definition

**We have not altered the 10 CFR 850 position that potential exposure or low exposure is a factor.**
**The key addition is that the worker is **_**regularly**_** involved in the work.**
**“****Regular” is taken in its usual meaning, that is, it means usual, normal, or customary.**
**Due to uncertainty in how much or how often exposure may result in adverse consequence, a low threshold is implied.**
**Operationally, we have defined this to be 10-12 times per year, or an average of once a month.**
**The definition has not yet been incorporated into the CBDPP, and may change.**
**The question of exposure episodes is yet to be explored.**

**Notes:**
In our operational definition of beryllium workers, we keyed on the fact that work needs to be both “regular” and should exceed some frequency threshold ... patterned in part after the OSHA regulations for asbestos and lead. 
Based on the state of knowledge of beryllium risks we wanted some conservatism, but something realistic other than “zero tolerance.”

## Advantages and Disadvantages

**Advantages**
**This definition allows for an easy to understand administrative control: limiting opportunities for exposure.**
**Expenses of Rule compliance are lessened.**
**Less formal training is required.**
**Medical surveillance is not required.**
**Disadvantages**
**Risk to the worker is uncertain, but is presumed to be lessened due to limited opportunities for exposure.**
**The population of individuals who work with beryllium may be increased.**
**Schedule for doing the work may be significantly increased.**

**Notes:**
There are both advantages
 	•opportunities for exposure are administratively controlled
	•some of the expenses of Rule compliance are lessened
and disadvantages
	•risk to the worker is uncertain
	•depending on the amount of work to be done, the population of potentially exposed workers could increase; but in our case the amount of work is limited, so this is not an issue
	•schedule could be impacted; but in our case the amount of work is limited, so this is not an issue

## Significant Change

**The LLNL CBDPP incorporates guidance from the Implementation Guide.**
**Three fundamental questions are to be asked about a new activity:**
**Will new workers be exposed to beryllium?**
**Will a new contaminated area be made?**
**Can the work be done in an existing beryllium work area?**
**General conclusions:**
**Permanent increases in work, workers, or new locations: significant changes**
**Relocation of an activity: significant change**
**Temporary increases in work, workers, existing locations: not significant**
**New activities in existing areas can go either way depending on controls (same or new), exposure potential (same or greater), or based on medical surveillance data**
**This approach has received mixed reviews.**
**It has provided some clarity to the IH staff in supporting their clients.**
**It has met with resistance from the clients in getting external approval of certain activities.**

**Notes:**
Our, that is LLNL and DOE/LSO, interpretation of what is meant a “significant  change” was negotiated and formalized in the present, approved, CBDPP.
In some cases, the classification is pretty clear, in other cases is still open to some interpretation, but in any case is an improvement over the undefined term in the Rule.

## Application to DWTF

**The submittal process started in April 2004, and final approval to operate, subject to specific requirements, was not received until January 2005.**
**Complications were numerous; significant ones were:**
**The process had to be sold to the client.**
**The form of the submittal, ie., what documents needed to be provided, had to be resolved both internally and externally.**
**Consensus was not reached on every issue.**
**Within the context of a performance based rule, who’s judgment, the regulator or the regulated entity, takes precedence when data does not exist to demonstrate compliance?**

**Notes:**
Application of these definitions turned out to be difficult.
The Program had to be convinced that they needed approval to move an operation that had been done for a long time (but they would be making a new contaminated area). The final correspondence was between Program Managers in both the LLNL and DOE/LSO, and not the industrial hygienists and beryllium subject matter experts, although we certainly advised our Programs.
There were points that we did not reach consensus on; approval to operate was granted subject to some specific actions.
This then raises the point of how to deal with a performance based regulation.

## Issues and Possible Solution

**If a performance based standard specifies outcomes, then**
**How much latitude is the regulated entity allowed in determining the means and methods to comply?**
**If the regulating authority specifies actions to be taken, are they then operating out of the bounds of the regulator and thereby assume responsibility for the specific activity?**
**A revision of the Implementation Guide is due.**
**To the extent that 10 CFR 850 interpretations can be generalized, they should be incorporated into the document.**
**The revised document should address the two issues above, and clearly separate the two roles. The document could be broken into two parts:**
**A section on contractor implementation**
**A section on regulatory enforcement**