Data Metrics & Results

Registry Sites and Target Population

BAWR Reporting Organizations are owned by the DOE-operated facilities with current employees who:

  • Have been exposed or have had the potential for exposure to airborne concentrations of beryllium due to their work at the present or a previous DOE site;
  • Self-identify and indicate a history of possible exposure; or
  • Exhibit signs of symptoms of beryllium exposure or are receiving medical removal protection benefits.

The site’s CBDPP may also include other employees in the BAWR reporting for their site, as appropriate. Subcontractors who are not included under the main site’s CBDPP must have their own CBDPP and report data separately. The 10 CFR 850 contains further information on beryllium and beryllium-associated workers and which organizations should have CBDPPs ( https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-02-09/pdf/06-964.pdf (page 6931)).

Through calendar year 2018, the BAWR received data from the following 26 DOE-affiliated reporting organizations:

  • Ames Laboratory (AMES)
  • Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)
  • Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)
  • DOE Oak Ridge Office (DOE-ORO)
  • East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP)
  • Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermi)
  • Hanford Site (HAN)
  • Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
  • Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
  • LLNL Clean Harbors Environmental Services (LLNL CHES)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
  • National Security Campus (NSC)
  • National Strategic Protective Services, LLC for ETTP and ORNL (NSPS)
  • Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
  • Paducah Site (PADUCAH)
  • Pantex Plant (PTX)
  • Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
  • Savannah River Site (SRS)
  • SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC)
  • Y-12 Atkins Nuclear Secured (Y-12 ANS)
  • Y-12 National Security Complex (Y‑12)
  • Y-12 Navarro Research and Engineering (Y-12 NRE)

All 26 active reporting organizations collected health data through the operation of their medical surveillance programs.

Twenty-four (24) organizations conducted exposure sampling through their industrial hygiene programs. DOE Oak Ridge Operations (DOE-ORO) and National Strategic Protective Services, LLC (NSPS) do not submit exposure sampling data since their workers are in the BAWR due to prior work at another DOE site and have no potential for exposure.

Although this data summarization includes the same 26 active reporting organizations as the BAWR Annual Report for calendar year 2017 (2017 Annual Report), it is important to note that in the 2017 Annual Report, the number of active reporting organizations had decreased by 1, i.e., 1 of the 27 reporting organizations included in the 2016 Annual Report became inactive, and the name of 1 organization changed:

  • The Fluor contract award (June 2016) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) included work at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP). AMWTP became an inactive reporting organization, and INL expanded reporting to include former AMWTP workers offered employment under the new contract.
  • With the Four Rivers Partnership contract award at Paducah (May 2017), the name of the reporting organization changed from Fluor Paducah Deactivation Project (FPDP) to Paducah Site (PADUCAH). In addition to the Paducah Deactivation Project, beryllium-associated workers at Mid-America Conversions Services (operating the depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion facilities at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant) and Swift & Staley (providing infrastructure support for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant) started reporting to the Registry in the July 2018 submission (which included data going back to the May 2017 contract change).
  • As a result, operations and reporting for INL and Paducah expanded due to these contract changes. This helps explain some of the changes seen in 2017 and 2018 for these organizations.

There are 7 reporting organizations that previously participated in the program, but due to contract changes or work completion, no longer submit data. The previously submitted data from these organizations, referred to as inactive reporting organizations, remain in the BAWR.

The inactive reporting organizations are:

  • Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP)
  • LLNL Boston University (LLNL BU)
  • LLNL Envirocon, Inc. (LLNL ENVC)
  • Rocky Flats Closure Project (RF)
  • Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA)
  • Wackenhut Security Services, Inc. for ETTP, ORNL, and Y-12 (WSI)
  • Y-12 URS Corporation (Y-12 URS)
  • Location of 26 Reporting Organizations Currently Submitting Data to BAWR

    Location of 26 Reporting Organizations Currently Submitting Data to BAWR infographic

    This map shows the geographical locations of the 26 DOE-affiliated actively reporting organizations within the continental US. 

    Ames Laboratory (AMES)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    38 38 2 0 8

    Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    376 171 3 0 23

    Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    82 53 1 0 48

    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermi)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    29 21 0 0 23

    Richland Area Reporting Locations

    Hanford Site (HAN)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    15,670 9,554 117 34 1,938
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    401 368 8 0 49

    Idaho National Laboratory (INL)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    1,200 425 3 0 355

    Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    78 39 0 0 37

    Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    4,493 3,147 28 3 785

    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    37 26 2 0 8

    Livermore Area Reporting Locations

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    2,385 1,650 70 4 320
    LLNL Clean Harbors Environmental Services (LLNL CHES)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    17 13 0 0 1

    National Security Campus (NSC)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    1,371 1,272 41 14 187

    Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    1,317 1,174 23 5 283

    Oak Ridge Area Reporting Locations

    DOE Oak Ridge Office (DOE-ORO)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    94 94 1 0 NA
    East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    721 412 6 4 329
    National Strategic Protective Services, LLC for ETTP and ORNL (NSPS)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    20 19 2 0 NA
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    947 855 18 0 279
    Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    3,595 2,921 145 62 1,231
    Y-12 Atkins Nuclear Secured (Y-12 ANS)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    30 30 0 0 22
    Y-12 Navarro Research and Engineering (Y-12 NRE)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    19 19 0 0 15

    Paducah Site (PADUCAH)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    291 211 5 0 76

    Pantex Plant (PTX)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    2,038 1,933 27 15 537

    Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    647 643 1 0 138

    Savannah River Site (SRS)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    1,822 820 20 6 199

    SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC)

    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    87 49 0 1 26
  • Reporting Organizations with Data Coordinator Changes in Calendar Years 2013 – 2018

    Reporting Organizations with Data Coordinator Changes in Calendar Years 2013 – 2018 infographic

    Each reporting organization designates a data coordinator who is responsible for coordinating activities at the site related to data collection, timely submittal of data, and responding to inquiries from the DOE Program Manager and ORISE Data Center as outlined in the DOE technical standard, DOE-STD-1187-2019. The following table shows that there were 9 data coordinator changes in 2018, which was higher than in any of the previous 2 years (i.e., 7 turnovers in both 2016 and 2017). The changes were equal to the level of changes reported in 2015 and remained below the very high turnover number (15) observed in 2014.

    Year No. (%) of Reporting Organizations Total Data Coordinator Changes Organizations with ≥2 Data Coordinator Changes in Same Year
    2013 5 (19%) 6 1
    2014 10 (37%) 15 5
    2015 6 (22%) 9 3
    2016 6 (22%) 7 1
    2017 5 (19%) 7 2
    2018 7 (27%) 9 2

    Changes in data coordinators often result in the need for additional training and subsequent delays in data submissions. Therefore, significant data coordinator turnover can impact the timely acquisition of data and subsequent reporting of results.

  • Total 37,805 Employees by BAWR Reporting Organization through 2018

    Total 37,805 Employees by BAWR Reporting Organization through 2018 infographic

    This figure shows the cumulative numbers of beryllium-associated workers reported to the BAWR by reporting organization. Through CY2018, there were 37,805 workers in the cumulative roster as compared to 36,286 workers in the cumulative roster through CY2017, for an increase of 1,519 workers. Hanford site has 15,670 employees in the roster, constituting the largest number (41%) in the cumulative roster.

  • Gender and Age Distribution of Employees Included in BAWR through 2018

    Gender and Age Distribution of Employees Included in BAWR through 2018 infographic

    Workers are predominantly male (approximately 81%) and greater than 50 years old (66%). This chart excludes 8 workers for whom demographic data were not available.

Health Monitoring Activities

Sites’ health clinics collect medical surveillance data on employees identified by their beryllium rosters. These data sets contain beryllium-related health monitoring information and the results of any specialized medical testing. The Site Occupational Medical Director (SOMD) determines the content and frequency of surveillance evaluations and tests based on policies, standards, and the employee’s health and work history. The most vital information collected and reported on an annual basis is the number of employees monitored for beryllium sensitization using the BeLPT, the number of new BeS cases identified, and the number of new cases of CBD. 

Some employees in the roster may decline testing for sensitizations. As a result, no records will be available for individuals who refuse this diagnostic evaluation. Some employees may have testing done independently (for example, as part of a former worker program), and in these cases results may be unavailable for Registry reporting unless the employee releases their evaluation report and it becomes part of the organization’s electronic medical records. Also, advanced medical testing results when employees are referred (after findings suggestive of possible CBD) to a pulmonary medicine or other specialized clinic for follow-up diagnosis and care may not be reported and/or can be difficult to collect.

Sensitization and CBD Screening

The cumulative number of workers with BeLPT screening results submitted to the BAWR through CY2018 was 25,957. When compared with the 24,950 workers screened through CY2017, this corresponds to an additional 1,007 employees tested for an increase of 4%.

There was a total of 523 sensitized workers included in the BAWR, and medical staff diagnosed 148 as having CBD through CY2018. BeS and CBD are mutually exclusive categories, i.e., if a person who is BeS receives a CBD diagnosis, the person’s diagnosis moves to the CBD category and is no longer counted in the BeS category.

  • Number of Employees BeLPT Tested, Sensitized, or CBD by Reporting Organization through 2018

    Number of Employees BeLPT Tested, Sensitized, or CBD by Reporting Organization through 2018 infographic
    Reporting Organization No. Employees with BeLPT Results No. Sensitized Employees No. Employees with CBD
    HAN 9,554 117 (1.2%) 34 (0.4%)
    LANL 3,147 28 (0.9%) 3 (0.1%)
    Y12 2,921 145 (5.0%) 62 (2.1%)
    PTX 1,933 27 (1.4%) 15 (0.8%)
    LLNL 1,650 70 (4.2%) 4 (0.2%)
    NSC 1,272 41 (3.2%) 14 (1.1%)
    NNSS 1,174 23 (2.0%) 5 (0.4%)
    ORNL 855 18 (2.1%) 0
    SRS 820 20 (2.4%) 6 (0.7%)
    SNL 643 1 (0.2%) 0
    INL 425 3 (0.7%) 0
    ETTP 412 6 (1.5%) 4 (1.0%)
    PNNL 368 8 (2.2%) 0
    PADUCAH 211 5 (2.4%) 0
    ANL 171 3 (1.8%) 0
    DOE-ORO 94 1 (1.1%) 0
    BNL 53 1 (1.9%) 0
    SLAC 49 0 1 (2.0%)
    KAPL 39 0 0
    AMES 38 2 (5.3%) 0
    Y-12 ANS 30 0 0
    LBNL 26 2 (7.7%) 0
    Fermi 21 0 0
    NSPS 19 2 (10.5%) 0
    Y-12 NRE 19 0 0
    LLNL CHES 13 0 0
    Totals 25,957 523 (2.0%) 148 (0.6%)

    The total number of beryllium-sensitized employees increased by 26 through CY2018 (498 total BeS cases reported through CY2017). The newly reported BeS cases were from 7 reporting organizations (4 at HAN, 3 at LANL, 12 at LLNL, 3 at ORNL, 2 at PADUCAH, 1 at PNNL, and 1 at SRS). Thirteen (13) employees had reported dates of sensitization in 2018. The remaining 13 cases (from LLNL and PADUCAH) had dates of sensitization ranging from 2011 through 2017. One (1) prior BeS case from LLNL progressed to CBD in CY2018, hence, the total CBD cases increased by 1.

    Twenty (20) of the reporting organizations have beryllium-sensitized employees and 10 have employees who have been diagnosed with CBD.

  • Screening Status and Progression from BeLPT Testing to Sensitized to CBD through 2018

    Screening Status and Progression from BeLPT Testing to Sensitized to CBD through 2018 infographic

    This figure depicts the numbers and percentages across the DOE complex of employees screened using the BeLPT test and among those employees having abnormal results, how many are sensitized or have developed CBD. Comparison with previous years’ reports show that these DOE-wide percentage distributions have remained consistent.

  • Percentage Distribution by Reporting Organization of 523 Be Sensitized Employees through 2018

    Percentage Distribution by Reporting Organization of 523 Be Sensitized Employees through 2018 infographic

    This figure presents the distribution in percent of BeS cases by reporting organization. Of the 20 reporting organizations, about 50% of total BeS cases are associated with the Y-12 and HAN sites.

  • Percentage Distribution by Reporting Organization of 148 Employees Diagnosed with CBD through 2018

    Percentage Distribution by Reporting Organization of 148 Employees Diagnosed with CBD through 2018 infographic

    This figure presents the distribution in percent for the 10 reporting organizations with employees diagnosed with CBD. Approximately 65% of total CBD cases are associated with the Y-12 and HAN sites.

  • Number of Years following Year of First Hire for BeS or CBD Workers

    Number of Years following Year of First Hire for BeS or CBD Workers infographic

    This figure shows the number of beryllium-associated workers categorized by years following first hire, including roster total, those screened, and those with beryllium sensitization or CBD.

  • Year of First Positive or Abnormal BeLPT Result for Beryllium-Associated Workers

    Year of First Positive or Abnormal BeLPT Result for Beryllium-Associated Workers infographic

    This table provides the numbers of beryllium-associated workers with BeLPT test results submitted to the BAWR each year, and the year of first positive or abnormal BeLPT result for those who were beryllium-sensitized or diagnosed as having CBD. First positive or abnormal BeLPT result is an important medical surveillance sentinel, resulting in earlier or more frequent repeat testing, hence, earlier diagnosis, earlier work restrictions, and more successful treatment. It is also a criterion for eligibility for compensation and payment of medical expenses under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Two (2) abnormal BeLPT results or 1 abnormal and 2 borderline BeLPT results are required to categorize an employee as BeS. Since a worker may choose not to have repeat BeLPT measurements, may change work and have long lags between measurements, or may not test abnormal for a period of time, the year of first BeLPT provides a more reliable metric than the year a worker becomes BeS.

    Year of BeLPT Result No. Employees Tested No. Sensitized Employees No. Employees with CBD
    <2000 708 35 10
    2000 1,629 29 17
    2001 3,236 43 17
    2002 3,968 43 15
    2003 3,968 13 5
    2004 3,814 14 3
    2005 5,115 28 6
    2006 4,860 46 9
    2007 4,578 49 5
    2008 5,073 29 7
    2009 6,218 50 2
    2010 6,892 35 2
    2011 7,926 22 0
    2012 6,172 5 0
    2013 5,577 8 0
    2014 6,010 11 0
    2015 6,052 14 0
    2016 6,058 2 0
    2017 6,686 11 0
    2018 6,729 10 0
    Year Not Reported 0 26 50
  • Work History Activity and BeLPT Status for 25,957 Beryllium- Associated Workers through 2018

    Work History Activity and BeLPT Status for 25,957 Beryllium- Associated Workers through 2018 infographic

    The yearly average for workers developing sensitization, whose first abnormal lymphocyte proliferation test results were between 2000 and 2009, was 34. This rate dropped to an average of 13 from 2010 to 2018. For workers later diagnosed with CBD, the yearly averages dropped from 9 to less than 1 per year for the respective time frames. These results provide evidence that programs are serving to improve worker protection and reduce the risk of CBD.

    This table lists beryllium-sensitized or CBD diagnosed workers through 2018 grouped by their work history activity, which is a high-level rollup of job function. Based on the data submitted through 2018 and as presented in the table, the majority of both reported beryllium sensitizations (36.9 %) and CBD cases (39.9%) occurred among the broad occupational groups of Crafts and Line Operators.

    Work History Activity No. Employees with BeLPT Results No. Sensitized Employees % of Total BeS No. Employees with CBD % of Total CBD
    Management 1,768 41 (2.3%) 8% 10 (0.6%) 7%
    Admin. Support 1,055 32 (3.0%) 6% 10 (0.9%) 7%
    In-House Professionals 1,686 38 (2.3%) 7% 14 (0.8%) 9%
    Field Professionals 2,217 48 (2.2%) 9% 7 (0.3%) 5%
    Technical Support 3,366 70 (2.1%) 13% 13 (0.4%) 9%
    Service 1,485 30 (2.0%) 6% 12 (0.8%) 8%
    Security and Fire 1,522 27 (1.8%) 5% 8 (0.5%) 5%
    Crafts 4,406 105 (2.4%) 20% 36 (0.8%) 24%
    Line Operators 2,845 88 (3.1%) 17% 23 (0.8%) 16%
    Guests 71 1 (1.4%) <1% 0 0%
    Unknown 719 14 (1.9%) 3% 11 (1.5%) 7%
    Not Reported 4,817 29 (0.6%) 6% 4 (0.1%) 3%
    Totals 25,957 523 (2.0%) 148 (0.6%)

    *Some reporting organizations have provided data that predate the 2002 start date of the Registry.

  • Distribution of 8,900 BeLPT Results for 6,729 Employees by Reporting Organization for Calendar Year 2018

    Distribution of 8,900 BeLPT Results for 6,729 Employees by Reporting Organization for Calendar Year 2018 infographic

    This figure compares the number of BeLPT tests conducted to the number of employees tested for each reporting organization in 2018. Employees may be BeLPT tested multiple times in a year if they have abnormal or borderline results. Therefore, the number of BeLPT tests conducted are higher than the number of employees tested.

Exposure Monitoring Activities

The BAWR receives beryllium work history and exposure data. The submission contains information about all activities with the potential for beryllium exposure including where the beryllium-associated worker currently works or previously worked, and the exposures associated with those activities. Reporting organization staff collect retrospective work history information through questionnaires and interviews with the worker or from records if accessible. This information includes location, organization, and job title for employees who work directly with beryllium, work in areas of potential beryllium exposure even if not working directly with beryllium, and activities with potential casual exposure to beryllium, such as working near an area where others are working directly with beryllium.

Exposure Monitoring Trends - Employees

The cumulative number of employees monitored through CY2018 was 6,917 compared to 6,661 employees monitored through CY2017 as reported in the Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry 2017 Annual Report. This equates to an increase of 256 employees monitored for exposure to beryllium through CY2018. The increase in the CY2018 report is higher than the reported increase of 220 between CY2016 and CY2017, but lower than the increase of 355 employees between the CY2015 and CY2016 reports.

Fifteen (15) reporting organizations provided exposure monitoring results with monitoring dates in 2018. Organization-specific totals for a given year may change from totals in previous annual reports due to late reporting and/or corrections.

  • Annual Number of Employees Exposure Monitored by Reporting Organization for 2009 – 2018

    Annual Number of Employees Exposure Monitored by Reporting Organization for 2009 – 2018 infographic
    Reporting Organization 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
    AMES 6 1 2 2
    ANL
    BNL 3 7 1 18 2 3 4 4 1
    DOE-ORO
    ETTP 19 42 30 3 9 2 2
    Fermi 1
    HAN 135 313 395 249 287 325 290 265 359 229
    INL 57 44 39 5 42 45 55 45 31 61
    KAPL 5 5 4 4 3 2
    LANL 74 55 46 45 34 86 32 64 49 79
    LBNL 2 1 3
    LLNL 100 78 63 59 34 25 32 21 19 16
    LLNL CHES 1
    NNSS 18 18 19 22 14 17 5 5 1 4
    NSC 15 18 17 43 27 18 9 9 7 3
    NSPS
    ORNL 48 44 47 46 61 24 20 15 11 6
    PADUCAH 9 47 3 5 4 5 13 15
    PNNL 1 19 7 10 8 19
    PTX 35 30 42 51 23 21 20 52 27 34
    SLAC 2
    SNL 5 16 19 17 3 5 16 10 8 3
    SRS 28 19 2 10 1 5 2 3 6 4
    Y-12 307 435 362 244 237 220 204 175 170 158
    Y-12 ANS 15 10 10 13
    Y-12 NRE 10 8 5 4 5 4
    Totals 874 1,180 1,101 825 786 831 710 690 723 645

    An industrial hygienist monitored exposure for employees by reporting organization at least once in each year for the past 10 years (i.e., between 2009 and 2018).

  • Distribution by Reporting Organization of 6,917 Beryllium-Associated Workers Exposure Monitored through 2018

    Distribution by Reporting Organization of 6,917 Beryllium-Associated Workers Exposure Monitored through 2018 infographic

    This figure displays the cumulative 6,917 beryllium-associated workers monitored for beryllium exposure through CY2018 by reporting organization.

Exposure Monitoring Trends - Samples

  • DOE-wide Trend in Reported Exposure Sampling for 2009 – 2018

    DOE-wide Trend in Reported Exposure Sampling for 2009 – 2018 infographic

    The numbers of exposure sampling results in the Registry by year monitored for each of the past 10 years are shown in the line chart.

    As can be seen, the numbers have steadily declined in recent years. The reporting organizations that collected and submitted exposure monitoring sample data show a downward trend which, in some cases, impact the analysis and interpretation of results in the BAWR. The small sample size reduces accuracy and causes higher variability in the statistical models used for the BAWR analyses.

  • Distribution of 2,924 Exposure Samples for 645 Employees by Reporting Organization for Calendar Year 2018

    Distribution of 2,924 Exposure Samples for 645 Employees by Reporting Organization for Calendar Year 2018 infographic

    This graphic illustrates the distribution of exposure samples and employees monitored across 15 reporting organizations during 2018. Similar to the beryllium screening results, most employees monitored for beryllium exposure have multiple exposure measurements throughout the year. The frequency of monitoring is dependent on the employee’s specific type of work and their employer’s monitoring schemes.

    Reporting organizations submitted a total of 107,857 exposure measurements to the Registry through CY2018. This equates to an additional 3,104 exposure sampling results collected and submitted to the 104,753 total through CY2017. The number of monitoring results for CY2018 alone was 2,924 as indicated above. Therefore, 180 of the sampling results submitted in CY2018 were sampling data for years prior to 2018.

  • Distribution of 107,857 Reported Exposure Levels through 2018

    Distribution of 107,857 Reported Exposure Levels through 2018 infographic

    Of the 107,857 exposure monitoring records submitted to the Registry through CY2018, 90.7% have “non-detectable” results, indicating that the sample analysis results were less than the laboratory’s reporting limit. The reporting limit can vary from sample to sample because of differing flow rates of the sampling equipment used and because of the presence of other materials on the sample that can interfere with the analysis. Reporting limits typically vary from 0.01 to 0.05 µg/m3, which is one-twentieth to one-quarter of the action level of 0.2 µg/m3.

    In comparison, 104,753 cumulative exposure monitoring results were submitted through CY2017, for an increase through 2018 of 3,104 records (with monitoring dates in 2018 and earlier). This 3,104 increase in sampling results is lower than the 3,584 increase in records submitted between 2016 and 2017 and even lower than the 4,933 increase between 2015 and 2016.

Trends in Exposure Levels

  • Percent of Yearly DOE Exposures Exceeding the Action Level from 2009 – 2018

    Percent of Yearly DOE Exposures Exceeding the Action Level from 2009 – 2018 infographic

    Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m3 based on 95% Confidence Limits

    This figure shows the percent of DOE-wide 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) personal exposure monitoring results that exceeded the action level of 0.2 μg/m3 in each of the 10 years from 2009 to 2018.

    Summary Statistics for 2009 – 2018 8-Hour Time Weighted Average Exposure Monitoring Results
    Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10-year Summary
    Number of reported monitoring results 6,676 13,384 10,189 6,050 5,273 5,342 5,052 4,443 3,377 2,904 62,690
    Number of detected values 273 624 528 303 216 176 170 240 175 225 2,930
    Percent non-detects 95.9 95.3 94.8 95.0 95.9 96.7 96.6 94.6 94.8 92.3 95.3
    Number of individuals monitored 873 1,178 1,100 825 786 825 709 687 722 645 4,096*
    Arithmetic mean (EX) (µg/m3) 0.162 0.052 0.096 0.032 0.004 0.002 0.008 0.016 0.857 0.547 0.043
    Lower confidence limit of EX (µg/m3) 0.049 0.029 0.047 0.015 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.130 0.132 0.033
    Upper confidence limit of EX (µg/m3) 0.538 0.092 0.197 0.068 0.006 0.003 0.016 0.032 5.631 2.275 0.056
    Observed 95th percentile of data (µg/m3) 0.005 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.021 0.006
    95% upper tolerance limit of the 95th percentile (µg/m3) 0.021 0.020 0.021 0.017 0.015 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.020 0.032 0.020
    Largest value (µg/m3) 11.762 79.330 18.023 4.013 0.804 0.876 1.847 8.865 87.419 16.712 87.419
    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F) 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.5 0.7
    Lower confidence limit for F 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.6
    Upper confidence limit for F 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.9 0.7

    * Industrial hygiene staff monitored many individuals in more than 1 year. The total number of individuals measured at least once in the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018 is 4,096.

    The detailed data presented in the table above provide additional summary statistics for the DOE-wide 8-hour TWA results for each of the past 10 years. The very high percent of non-detected results from workplaces compliant with the 0.2 µg/m3 action level points to the need to develop more sensitive exposure monitoring methods to support estimates of individuals’ actual exposure levels.

    These statistical methods accommodate the high percentage of non-detect results (left censored) in these data sets. These analyses exclude non-detected values greater than 0.2 µg/m3. For details, see “Statistical Methods and Software for the Analysis of Occupational Exposure Data with Non-Detectable Values,” Frome EL and Wambach PF, ORNL/TM-2005/52, (https://www.csm.ornl.gov/esh/aoed/ORNLTM2005-52.pdf).

    Totals for an individual year may vary from previous reports due to late reporting and/or corrections. The data reported in the BAWR indicate that the CBD prevention programs operated at DOE sites have continued to maintain a high level of compliance with the 10 CFR 850 action level of 0.2 µg/m3 over the past 10 years.

    2009

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.9

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.7

    2010

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.8

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.7

    2011

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.9

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    2012

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    2013

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.2

    Lower confidence limit for F:</strong >0.2

    2014

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.1

    2015

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.4

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    2016

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    2017

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    2018

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.5

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.2

Exceedances Observed through 2018

  • Exposure Exceedances in Percent by Work History Activity through 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding)

    Exposure Exceedances in Percent by Work History Activity through 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding) infographic

    Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m3 based on 95% Confidence Limits

    The graphic shows the percent of 8-hour TWA exposure monitoring results that exceed the action level, grouped by work activity for the cumulative data through 2018. The detailed data in the table provide additional summary statistics for the composite 8-hour TWA results by work activity.

    For the cumulative data, the highest percentage of action level exceedances by work history activity is among workers where the work activity is unknown or not reported.

    Summary Statistics for 8-Hour Time Weighted Average Exposure Monitoring Results by Work History Activity through 2018
    Work History Activity Admin. Craft Field Prof. Guest In-house Prof. Line Operator Management Security & Fire Service Tech Support Not Reported Total
    No. reported monitoring results 1,049 48,472 6,072 97 4,218 11,188 4,759 383 8,304 13,990 5,106 103,638
    No. detected values 82 2,859 660 28 688 1,988 503 13 697 2,167 1,710 11,395
    % non-detects 92.2 94.1 89.1 71.1 83.7 82.2 89.4 96.6 91.6 84.5 66.5 89.0
    No. individuals monitored 81 2,136 634 8 305 1,138 295 68 605 1,161 398 6,829
    Observed 95th percentile of data (ug/m3) 0.022 0.008 0.023 0.027 0.063 0.059 0.018 0.002 0.021 0.055 0.130 0.027
    95% UTL of 95th percentile (ug/m3) 0.050 0.050 0.065 0.291 0.076 0.099 0.050 0.057 0.050 0.080 0.171 0.052
    Largest value (ug/m3) 21.771 87.419 26.678 0.313 12.611 134.000 11.762 11.700 84.933 29.852 7.670 134.000
    % > 0.2 ug/m3 (F) 1.1 0.6 1.4 0.8 2.1 2.3 0.8 1.7 1.6 1.8 3.3 1.3
    Lower confidence limit for F 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.2 1.9 2.1 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.6 3.0 1.3
    Upper confidence limit for F 1.7 0.7 1.6 2.5 2.4 2.5 0.9 3.0 1.8 1.9 3.7 1.4

    Crafts

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.6

    Management

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.8

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.6

    Guests

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.8

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Administrative

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Field Professionals

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.6

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.4

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.2

    Service

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.8

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.4

    Security & Fire

    Upper confidence limit for F: 3.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.9

    Technical Support

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.8

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.6

    In-house Professionals

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.4

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 2.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.9

    Line Operators

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 2.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 2.1

    Not Reported

    Upper confidence limit for F: 3.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 3.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 3.0

  • Exposure Exceedances in Percent by Job Title for Craft Workers through 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding)

    Exposure Exceedances in Percent by Job Title for Craft Workers through 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding) infographic

    Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m3 based on 95% Confidence Limits

    This graphic shows individuals with job titles in the craft work activity category. The detailed data through 2018 presented in the accompanying table include the summary statistics for cumulative 8-hour TWA monitoring results by craft job title. Laborers, machinists, electricians, millwrights, plumbers and fitters, iron workers, carpenters, hazardous waste workers, painters, mechanics, waste-management mechanics, sheet metal workers, and HVAC mechanics individually have percent exceedances that are higher than when all crafts are combined (0.7 to 6.8% as compared to 0.6%, as shown in the table below).

    Among craft workers, HVAC Mechanics and Sheet Metal Workers show percentages exceeding the 0.2 µg/m3 action level that are higher than the percentages experienced by other craft workers. However, the percentage for HVAC Mechanics reflects exposure monitoring results for only 29 individuals and for Sheet Metal Workers only 67 individuals.

    Summary Statistics for 8-Hour Time Weighted Average Exposure Monitoring Results for Craft Job Titles through 2018
    Craft Job Title Number of reported monitoring results Number of detected values Percent non-detects Number of individuals monitored Observed 95th% of data (ug/m3) 95% UTL of 95th% (µg/m3) Largest value (ug/m3) Percent exceeding 0.2 ug/m3 (F) Lower confidence limit for F Upper confidence limit for F
    Insulators 670 208 69.0 30 0.010 0.030 0.200 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    Other Crafts 24,019 470 98.0 256 0.005 0.017 37.300 0.2 0.2 0.2
    D&D Workers 1,213 184 84.8 146 0.024 0.038 2.475 0.2 0.1 0.3
    Maintenance Mechanics 957 32 96.7 100 0.002 0.052 0.200 0.3 0.1 0.5
    Welders 1,119 36 96.8 37 0.007 0.020 0.356 0.3 0.1 0.5
    Heavy Equipment Operators 1,197 99 91.7 108 0.006 0.021 16.697 0.6 0.4 0.9
    Laborers 1,705 82 95.2 253 0.009 0.053 10.340 0.7 0.5 1.0
    Machinists 6,069 289 95.2 112 0.012 0.050 87.419 0.9 0.7 1.1
    Electricians 4,479 439 90.2 374 0.022 0.050 14.419 1.0 0.8 1.2
    Millwrights 917 61 93.3 148 0.009 0.050 20.176 1.1 0.7 1.6
    Plumbers & Fitters 2,433 211 91.3 214 0.017 0.050 5.735 1.2 0.9 1.5
    Iron Workers 300 94 68.7 36 0.126 0.262 1.847 1.3 0.7 2.2
    Carpenters 1,243 146 88.3 110 0.045 0.064 3.176 2.0 1.5 2.6
    Hazardous Waste Workers 84 9 89.3 14 0.072 0.176 0.176 2.1 0.6 6.0
    Painters 797 189 76.3 46 0.090 0.127 7.423 2.1 1.5 2.9
    Mechanics 116 21 81.9 41 0.017 0.091 0.137 3.0 1.4 6.1
    Waste-Mgmt Mechanics 147 19 87.1 15 0.093 1.290 2.390 4.1 2.2 7.1
    Sheet Metal Workers 753 172 77.2 67 0.401 0.630 8.865 6.2 5.1 7.5
    HVAC Mechanics 254 98 61.4 29 0.282 0.494 5.836 6.8 4.9 9.2
    All Combined 48,472 2,859 94.1 2,136 0.008 0.050 87.419 0.6 0.6 0.7

    Insulators

    Upper confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): < 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    Other Crafts

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    D&D Workers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.1

    Maintenance Mechanics

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.1

    Welders

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.1

    Heavy Equipment Operators

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.4

    Laborers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    Machinists

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.9

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.7

    Electricians

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Millwrights

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.6

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.7

    Plumbers & Fitters

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.9

    Iron Workers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.7

    Carpenters

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.6

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 2.0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.5

    Hazardous Waste Workers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 6.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 2.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.6

    Painters

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 2.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.5

    Mechanics

    Upper confidence limit for F: 6.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 3.0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.4

    Waste-Mgmt Mechanics

    Upper confidence limit for F: 7.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 4.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 2.2

    Sheet Metal Workers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 7.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 6.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: 5.1

    HVAC Mechanics

    Upper confidence limit for F: 9.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 6.8

    Lower confidence limit for F: 4.9

  • Percent of Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding the Action Level by Reporting Organization through 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding)

    Percent of Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding the Action Level by Reporting Organization through 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding) infographic

    Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m3 based on 95% Confidence Limits

    This chart summarizes the cumulative 8-hour TWA exposure monitoring results through 2018 by reporting organization. The detailed data presented below include the summary statistics for the cumulative 8-hour TWA monitoring results for each reporting organization. The percent of monitoring results exceeding the action level at Fermi (not included in the graphic above due to the very large value, 17.2%, exceeding the scale for the figure), Y-12 NRE, Y-12, SNL, ANL, and PTX (ranging from 1.4 to 4.6%) were higher than the overall percent exceedances when data across all organizations are combined (1.3%).

    The graphic does not include results from AMES, BNL, Fermi, LBNL, LLNL CHES, and SLAC because of the small number of total samples and/or low percent exceeding the action level. Collectively, these data indicate that the majority of reporting organizations have acceptable sampling programs. However, the data also show that some organizations with ongoing beryllium activities, but small numbers of exposure monitoring samples could revisit their sampling strategies and consider increasing the volume of sampling.

    Summary Statistics for 8-Hour TWA Exposure Monitoring Results by Reporting Organization through 2018
    Reporting Organization No. monitoring results No. detected values % non-detects No. individ. monitored Obs. 95th percentile (ug/m3) 95% UTL /95th % (ug/m3) Largest value (ug/m3) % > 0.2 ug/m3 (F) Lower confidence limit for F Upper confidence limit for F
    AMES 49 0 100 8 0.026 NA 0.028 0 0 5.9
    ANL 155 20 87.1 23 0.145 1.100 2.390 4.2 2.3 7.1
    BNL 105 2 98.1 48 0.002 0.100 0.100 0.5 < 0.1 50.0
    ETTP 905 32 96.5 297 0.007 0.080 2.264 0.1 < 0.1 0.3
    Fermi 48 22 54.2 17 1.296 NA 4.800 17.2 10.6 26.1
    HAN 12,679 1,615 87.3 1,906 0.008 0.019 12.513 0.2 0.2 0.2
    INL 2,002 327 83.7 355 0.030 0.084 2.475 0.3 0.2 0.5
    KAPL 234 2 99.1 37 0.007 0.200 0.200 0.3 < 0.1 27.5
    LANL 13,277 2,624 80.2 785 0.042 0.056 26.678 1.0 0.9 1.2
    LBNL 18 0 100 8 0.100 NA 0.100 0 0 15.3
    LLNL 6,745 1,176 82.6 320 0.021 0.033 5.133 0.1 0.1 0.2
    LLNL CHES 3 0 100 1 0.040 NA 0.042 0 0 63.2
    NNSS 1,108 88 92.1 283 0.014 0.052 0.317 0.8 0.5 1.2
    NSC 1,666 18 98.9 185 0.001 0.145 0.196 0.1 < 0.1 0.2
    ORNL 1,343 8 99.4 279 0.002 0.011 0.157 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    PADUCAH 620 4 99.4 76 < 0.001 0.011 0.019 0.1 < 0.1 0.8
    PNNL 185 10 94.6 49 0.002 0.006 0.028 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    PTX 2,411 281 88.3 522 0.203 0.333 134.000 4.6 4.0 5.2
    SLAC 42 0 100 26 0.040 NA 0.150 0 0 6.9
    SNL 948 353 62.8 138 0.099 0.140 2.800 3.5 2.8 4.3
    SRS 362 22 93.9 198 0.020 0.070 0.320 1.1 0.5 2.1
    Y-12 58,315 4,756 91.8 1,231 0.040 0.050 87.419 1.7 1.6 1.7
    Y-12 ANS 127 20 84.3 22 0.010 0.010 0.150 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    Y-12 NRE 291 15 94.8 15 0.009 0.039 1.111 1.4 0.6 2.7
    All 103,638 11,395 89 6,829 0.027 0.052 134.000 1.3 1.3 1.4

    PNNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): < 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    Y-12 ANS

    Upper confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): < 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    ORNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): < 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    NSC

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    PADUCAH

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    ETTP

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    LLNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.1

    HAN

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    KAPL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 27.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    INL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    NNSS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.8

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    LANL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.9

    SRS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    Y-12 NRE

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.4

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.6

    Y-12

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.6

    SNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 4.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 3.5

    Lower confidence limit for F: 2.8

    ANL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 7.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 4.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: 2.3

    PTX

    Upper confidence limit for F: 5.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 4.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 4.0

  • Percent of Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding the Action Level by Reporting Organization for Calendar Year 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding)

    Percent of Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding the Action Level by Reporting Organization for Calendar Year 2018 (Ranked by Percent Exceeding) infographic

    Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m3 based on 95% Confidence Limits

    This graphic provides the percent of exposure monitoring results that exceeded the action level by reporting organization for CY2018. The upper confidence limit is above 5% at organizations that reported 62 or fewer sampling results in 2018 or reported similar time weighted average values for detects and non-detects. Fewer organizations reported exposure monitoring in recent years, and those organizations submitting data have also reported fewer sampling results. This downward trend impacts the analysis and interpretation of results in the BAWR. The small sample size reduces accuracy and causes higher variability in the statistical models used. Certainly, the wide confidence intervals in the single year 2018 analysis demonstrate the reduction of statistical power and confidence in the interpretation when compared to similar but larger samples of the population.

    Historically, this graph excluded results for reporting organizations with small numbers of total samples. This figure instead includes data for all 15 organizations since all but 4 organizations reported 62 or fewer results for CY2018.

    The table below gives additional summary statistics for organizations reporting exposure data to the BAWR during 2018. Organizations that did not report data for calendar year 2018 are not included in this table.

    The data in the graphic and table show that Idaho National Laboratory had the greatest percentage (8.3%) of reported exposure monitoring results exceeding the action level in CY2018.

    Summary Statistics for 8-Hour TWA Exposure Monitoring Results by Reporting Organization for Calendar Year 2018
    Reporting Organization No. monitoring results No. detected values % non-detects No. individ. monitored Obs. 95th percentile (ug/m3) 95% UTL /95th% (ug/m3) Largest value (ug/m3) % > 0.2 ug/m3 (F) Lower confidence limit for F Upper confidence limit for F
    BNL 1 0 100 1 0.008 NA 0.008 0 0 95.0
    HAN 696 1 99.9 229 0.017 NA 0.050 0 0 0.4
    INL 197 67 66.0 61 0.389 0.618 2.475 8.3 5.9 11.4
    LANL 234 13 94.4 79 0.006 0.127 0.178 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2
    LLNL 32 0 100 16 0.031 NA 0.042 0 0 8.9
    NNSS 4 0 100 4 0.001 NA 0.001 0 0 52.7
    NSC 4 0 100 3 0.022 NA 0.022 0 0 52.7
    ORNL 6 0 100 6 0.010 NA 0.010 0 0 39.3
    PADUCAH 31 0 100 15 < 0.001 NA < 0.001 0 0 9.2
    PNNL 59 0 100 19 0.006 NA 0.028 0 0 5.0
    PTX 59 0 100 34 0.014 NA 0.098 0 0 5.0
    SNL 5 2 60.0 3 0.051 NA 0.068 5.3 < 0.1 99.9
    SRS 5 0 100 4 0.004 NA 0.004 0 0 45.1
    Y-12 1,518 142 90.6 158 0.026 0.032 16.712 1.1 0.8 1.5
    Y-12 ANS 53 0 100 13 0.008 NA 0.008 0 0 5.5
    All 2,904 225 92.3 645 0.021 0.032 16.712 1.5 1.2 1.9

    BNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 95

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    HAN

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.4

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    LLNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 8.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    NNSS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 52.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    NSC

    Upper confidence limit for F: 52.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    ORNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 39.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    PADUCAH

    Upper confidence limit for F: 9.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    PNNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 5.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    PTX

    Upper confidence limit for F: 5.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    SRS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 45.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    Y-12 ANS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 5.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    LANL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): < 0.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    Y-12

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3(F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    SNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 99.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 5.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    INL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 11.4

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 8.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 5.9

  • Exposure Monitoring Results > 0.2 µg/m3 Action Level for Calendar Year 2018

    Exposure Monitoring Results > 0.2 µg/m<sup>3</sup> Action Level for Calendar Year 2018 infographic

    This table provides the reporting organization, process description, 8-hr TWA, and the respirator assigned protection factor (APF) for the results observed above the action level through 2018.

    Exceedances for 2018 were less than in 2017 but greater than in any other years since 2012. Thirty-one (31) samples exceeded the action level in 2018 compared with 36 in 2017, and 26 in 2016. Since the total reported exposure sampling results continue to decrease over time, the proportion of exceedances is greater than in previous years. Exceedances in 2018 were associated with RCRA and fire equipment maintenance at INL and support and production activities at Y-12. In all but a few cases, work planning processes identified the potential for beryllium exposure and workers wore appropriate respiratory protection.

    Reporting Organization Process Description Job Title 8-hr TWA ug/m3 Respirator APF
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 16.71 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Other Engineers 11.06 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Environmental Engineers 6.26 50
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 2.47 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 1.03 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work Rad Con Tech 0.92 1000
    INL Fire Protection Equipment Test/Repair Technician 0.82 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Environmental Engineers 0.77 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 0.65 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.62 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work Rad Con Tech 0.54 1000
    INL Fire Protection Equipment Test/Repair Fire Protection Tech 0.53 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Engineers 0.52 50
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.51 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.49 10000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work Rad Con Tech 0.47 10000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Painters 0.44 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Machinists 0.42 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 0.39 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.37 1000
    INL Fire Prot. Equipment Test/Repair Eng./Lab Tech 0.35 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.32 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Painters 0.30 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.27 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 0.26 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work Rad Con Tech 0.25 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work Rad Con Tech 0.24 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 0.24 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.23 1000
    INL RCRA/CERCLA Work D & D Skilled Trade 0.23 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Painters 0.22 1000
  • Exposure Monitoring Results > 0.2 µg/m3 Action Level for Calendar Year 2017

    Exposure Monitoring Results > 0.2 µg/m<sup>3</sup> Action Level for Calendar Year 2017 infographic

    This table provides the reporting organization, process description, 8-hr TWA, and the respirator assigned protection factor (APF) for the results observed above the action level through 2017.

    Exceedances in 2017 were primarily associated with support activities at Y-12 and SNL.

    Reporting Organization Process Description Job Title 8-hr TWA ug/m3 Respirator APF
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 87.42 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Other Crafts 37.30 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 15.12 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Electricians 14.42 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 6.67 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT First Line Supervisors 6.00 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 4.70 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 4.52 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Machinists 4.37 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Other Crafts 3.17 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 2.93 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 2.69 1000
    HAN Nuclear Waste Process Operators 1.99 10000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 1.69 50
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 1.69 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 1.38 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 1.19 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Electricians 1.17 1000
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 1.10 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 1.06 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 0.98 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 0.98 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Janitors and Cleaners 0.91 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Other Crafts 0.74 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 0.67 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 0.67 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 0.45 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 0.45 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Other Technicians 0.40 50
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.35 50
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Machinists 0.33 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 0.31 50
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.29 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Other Crafts 0.24 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Other Crafts 0.22 1000
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 0.21 1
  • Exposure Monitoring Results > 0.2 µg/m3 Action Level for Calendar Year 2016

    Exposure Monitoring Results > 0.2 µg/m<sup>3</sup> Action Level for Calendar Year 2016 infographic

    This table provides the reporting organization, process description, 8-hr TWA, and the respirator assigned protection factor (APF) for the results observed above the action level through 2016.

    In 2016 most samples exceeding the action level were for support activities at SNL and Y-12. The 3 highest exceedances in that year were reported for LANL.

    Reporting Organization Process Description Job Title 8-hr TWA ug/m3 Respirator APF
    LANL SHEET METAL WORKER SHEET METAL WORKER 8.87 100
    LANL SHEET METAL WORKER SHEET METAL WORKER 8.33 100
    LANL SHEET METAL WORKER SHEET METAL WORKER 2.03 100
    LLNL chamber cleanup Sr. Technologist C/MS 0.72 1000
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 0.70 100
    LANL SHEET METAL WORKER SHEET METAL WORKER 0.65 100
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 0.50 50
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.49 1000
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.49 50
    HAN WELDING INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE TECH 0.46 1000
    HAN WELDING INSTRUMENT SPECIALIST 0.46 1000
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.45 50
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Other Crafts 0.41 50
    PTX BERYLLIUM WORK PRODUCTION TECHNICIAN 0.33 1
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.32 50
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.32 50
    PTX BERYLLIUM WORK PRODUCTION TECHNICIAN 0.31 1
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.27 50
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Engineering Technicians 0.26 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 0.26 100
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.24 50
    LANL ENGINEERED SYSTEMS TEC 3 ENGINEERED SYSTEMS T 0.23 1000
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.23 50
    Y-12 PRODUCTION Janitors and Cleaners 0.23 50
    SNL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Technician 0.22 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Engineering Technicians 0.22 50

Health and Monitoring Comparisons

Two different reporting organization groups collect the data associated with health monitoring and exposure monitoring. Occupational health and medical groups collect health monitoring data and industrial hygiene groups collect exposure monitoring data. In most cases, a data coordinator collates the data prior to submission to the Registry. In this section, the health screening data compared to the exposure monitoring data provides insight on the effectiveness of coordination between the 2 activities.

  • Distribution of Employees Be Sensitized or CBD by Reporting Organization and Exposure Sampling Status through 2018

    Distribution of Employees Be Sensitized or CBD by Reporting Organization and Exposure Sampling Status through 2018 infographic

    The data in the figure shows the collective number of BeS or CBD individuals through 2018 who have had exposure monitoring results submitted to the Registry. The figure also illustrates the collective number of individuals who have not had exposure data submitted to the Registry. Over two-thirds (453 out of 671, 68%) of the workers currently identified as BeS or diagnosed with CBD have no exposure sampling data. The proportion reported in the 2017 annual summary was also 68%. The proportion reported in each of the summaries for 2016 through 2013 was 67%.

    DOE and ORISE program staff evaluated these data by each mutually exclusive subcategory, BeS or CBD. Of the 523 employees who are sensitized (BeS) and have not progressed to CBD, only 170 (33%) have any exposure sampling measurements submitted to the Registry. Only 107 (20%) of these sensitization cases have any exposure records dated earlier than their reported date of sensitization.

    Of the 170 sensitization cases with exposure sampling data, 63 cases only have exposure sampling data with monitoring dates later than their reported date of beryllium sensitization. In other words, 37% of the BeS cases with exposure data had exposure monitoring initiated only after diagnosed as sensitized.

    Eighty-seven (87) of the 523 sensitization cases have at least one reported exposure record dated later than their reported date of beryllium sensitization; but this includes the 24 cases that have exposure data both before and after their date of sensitization.

    Of the 148 employees reported as diagnosed with CBD, 48 (32%) of the cases have at least one exposure sampling measurement submitted to the Registry. Only 29 (20%) of the total CBD cases have at least one reported exposure record in the Registry dated earlier than their reported date of CBD diagnosis. 

    In comparison, 31 (21%) CBD cases have at least one reported exposure record dated later than their date of CBD diagnosis. Industrial hygiene programs monitor workers diagnosed with CBD to ensure compliance with restricted duty. Nevertheless, 19 of the CBD cases only have exposure sampling data later than their reported date of CBD diagnosis. Therefore, only 29 of the CBD cases have exposure monitoring records prior to their CBD diagnosis. Most sites will not assign BeS or CBD workers to jobs where there is a risk of beryllium exposure, so no sampling is required.

  • Cumulative Rates of Beryllium Sensitization or CBD versus Exposure Levels through 2018

    Cumulative Rates of Beryllium Sensitization or CBD versus Exposure Levels through 2018 infographic

    The figure compares the cumulative percent of workers sensitized or CBD to the percent of exposure samples exceeding the 0.2 µg/m3 action level for each reporting agency. These data illustrate that no statistical correlation exists between the incidence of BeS/CBD and the percent of exceedances among the exposure sampling results submitted to the Registry (Pearson product moment correlation coefficient = -0.066). The lack of correlation could be due to sensitization and CBD cases associated with past work locations or conditions rather than the environment currently monitored. However, it is also possible that the exposure monitoring programs are missing sources of exposure. Reporting organizations with low exposure monitoring results and high sensitization or CBD rates should investigate cases to determine if there is a possibility of ongoing exposures.