```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80734-80735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32258]

[[Page 80734]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 850

[Docket No. HS-RM-10-CBDPP]
RIN 1992-AA39

Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program

AGENCY: Office of Health, Safety and Security, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) requests 
information and comments on issues related to its current chronic 
beryllium disease prevention program. The Department solicits comment 
and information on the permissible exposure level, establishing surface 
action levels, the use of warning labels to release items that are free 
of removable surface levels of beryllium to other DOE facilities for 
non-beryllium use or to general members of the public, medical 
restrictions for beryllium workers, and other pertinent subjects. The 
information received in response to this request will assist DOE in 
determining the appropriate course of action regarding its chronic 
beryllium disease prevention program.

DATES: All comments on the issues presented in this document must be 
received by the Department by February 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments in response to this document may be submitted by 
hardcopy or electronically through e-mail. Hardcopies (2 copies) sent 
by regular mailing should be addressed to: Jacqueline D. Rogers, Office 
of Worker Safety and Health Policy, Office of Health, Safety and 
Security, U.S. Department of Energy, Docket No. HS-RM-10-CBDPP, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
    Electronic submissions may be sent to jackie.rogers@hq.doe.gov. If 
you have additional information, such as studies or journal articles, 
and cannot attach them to your electronic submission, please send 2 
copies to the address above. The additional material must clearly 
identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject, and Docket 
No. HS-RM-10-CBDPP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline D. Rogers, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Health, Safety and Security, Office of Worker 
Safety and Health Policy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585, 202-586-4714, or jackie.rogers@hq.doe.gov.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as other 
relevant DOE documents concerning this issue, will be available on a 
Web page at: http://www.hss.energy.gov/HealthSafety/WSHP/BE/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DOE has a long history of beryllium use because of the element's 
broad application to many nuclear operations and processes. Beryllium 
metal and ceramics are used in nuclear weapons as nuclear reactor 
moderators or reflectors and as nuclear reactor fuel element cladding. 
At DOE, beryllium operations have historically included foundry 
(melting and molding), grinding, and machine tooling of parts.
    Inhalation of beryllium particles may cause chronic beryllium 
disease (CBD) and beryllium sensitization. CBD is a chronic, often 
debilitating, and sometimes fatal lung condition. Beryllium 
sensitization is a condition in which a person's immune system becomes 
highly responsive (allergic) to the presence of beryllium in the body. 
There has long been scientific consensus that exposure to airborne 
beryllium is the only cause of CBD.
    On December 3, 1998, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) to establish a Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program 
(CBDPP) (63 FR 66940). After considering the comments received, DOE 
published its final rule establishing CBDPP on December 8, 1999 (64 FR 
68854). At that time, DOE sought to reduce the number of workers 
exposed to beryllium in the course of their work at DOE facilities 
managed by DOE or its contractors; to minimize the levels of, and 
potential for, exposure to beryllium; and to establish medical 
surveillance requirements to ensure early detection of the disease. DOE 
now has nearly 10 years of job, exposure, and health data, as well as 
experience implementing the rule, since CBDPP was fully implemented in 
January 2002. In addition, new research related to CBD has been 
published in the years since 1999.
    Currently, the Department is considering establishing new 
requirements in several sections of the CBDPP rule (10 CFR part 850). 
DOE is gathering data, views, and other relevant information to develop 
a revised standard for CBDPP at its facilities. The Department urges 
those individuals interested in this issue to provide responses to the 
questions provided in this document.

II. Questions for Comment

    DOE would like to have more data and information to decide whether 
its current CBDPP can be improved, and if so, how it can be improved. 
When answering specific numbered questions below, key your response to 
the number of the question and, if possible, include the mission and 
cost impacts implied by the question and by your answer.
    1. DOE currently defers to the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) for establishing the permissible exposure limits 
(PEL) and uses an action level as the administrative level to assure 
that controls are implemented to prevent exposures from exceeding the 
permissible exposure limits. Should the Department continue to use the 
OSHA PEL? Please explain your answer and provide evidence to support 
your answer.
    2. Should the Department use the 2010 ACGIH threshold limit value 
(TLV) of 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ (8-hour time-weighted average of 0.05 
microgram of beryllium, in inhalable particulate matter, per cubic 
meter of air), for its allowable exposure limit? Please explain your 
answer and provide evidence to support your answer.
    3. Should an airborne action level that is different from the 2010 
ACGIH TLV for beryllium (8-hour time-weighted average of 0.05 microgram 
of beryllium, in inhalable particulate matter, per cubic meter of air) 
be established? If so, what should be the level? Please explain each of 
your answers and provide evidence to support your answers.
    4. In the past DOE encouraged, but did not require, the use of wet 
wipes rather than dry wipes for surface monitoring. DOE's experience 
with wipe testing leads the Department to consider requiring the use of 
wet wipes, unless the employer demonstrates that using wet wipes may 
cause an undesirable alteration of the surface, in order to achieve 
greater comparability of results across the DOE complex and in response 
to studies demonstrating that wet wipes capture more of the surface 
contamination than do dry wipes. Should the Department require the use 
of wet wipes? Please explain your answer and provide evidence to 
support your answer.
    5. Since the use of wipe sampling is not a common occupational 
safety and health requirement, how do current wipe sampling protocols 
aid exposure assessments and the protection of beryllium workers? How 
reliable and accurate are current sampling and analytical methods for 
beryllium wipe samples? Please explain your answers and provide 
evidence to support your answers.
    6. What is the best method for sampling and analyzing inhalable 
beryllium? Please explain your answers

[[Page 80735]]

and provide evidence to support your answers.
    7. How should total fraction exposure data be compared to inhalable 
fraction exposure measurements? Please explain your answer and provide 
evidence to support your answer.
    8. Should surface area action levels be established, or should DOE 
consider controlling the health risk of surface levels by establishing 
a low airborne action level that precludes beryllium settling out on 
surfaces, and administrative controls that prevent the buildup of 
beryllium on surfaces? If surface area action levels are established, 
what should be the DOE surface area action levels? If a low airborne 
action level should be established in lieu of the surface area action 
level, what should that airborne action level be? What, if any, 
additional administrative controls to prevent the buildup on surfaces 
should be established? Please explain each of your answers and provide 
evidence to support your answers.
    9. Should warning labels be required for the transfer, to either 
another DOE entity or to an entity to whom this rule does not apply, of 
items with surface areas that are free of removable surface levels of 
beryllium but which may contain surface contamination that is 
inaccessible or has been sealed with hard-to-remove substances, e.g., 
paint? Please explain your answer and provide evidence to support your 
answer.
    10. Should the Department establish both surface level and 
aggressive air sampling criteria (modeled after the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's aggressive air sampling criteria to clear an area 
after asbestos abatement) for releasing areas in a facility, or should 
the Department consider establishing only the aggressive air sampling 
criteria? Please explain your answers and provide evidence to support 
your answers.
    11. Currently, after the site occupational medicine director has 
determined that a beryllium worker should be medically removed from 
exposure to beryllium, the worker must consent to the removal. Should 
the Department continue to require the worker's consent for medical 
removal, or require mandatory medical removal? Please explain your 
answers.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 20, 2010.
Glenn S. Podonsky,
Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, Office of Health, Safety and 
Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-32258 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```