Welcome to the new Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry (BAWR) Dashboard, developed by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) BAWR project team, under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The BAWR program began in 2002, and since its inception has tracked, monitored, and analyzed data on workers exposed to beryllium and produced annual reports and summary data tables for more than 30 DOE sites throughout the United States. The first Registry publication reported data for 12,267 workers through 2005. In 2019, the Registry has grown to more than 52,400 workers (including those at inactive reporting organizations such as Rocky Flats and some retrospective data provided prior to the 2002 start date of the Registry).

This BAWR Dashboard for 2019 is the continued presentation of the BAWR data on an annual basis. As a means of providing a better user experience with this tool, the BAWR program has transitioned from presenting data in a paper-based annual report to an interactive digital format, or a Dashboard. This transition from paper to digital format is intended to allow for interaction with and visualization of data contained in the Registry. The BAWR Dashboard contains the same sections of data, graphs, tables and figures as the paper-based annual reports but is presented within the Dashboard format.

Enhancements to facilitate the user experience include topical sections and tabs, navigation features such as mouse-overs with data details, and other helpful functions that allow users to quickly examine information. Users are able to explore the standard metrics and results of data analyses for the BAWR through an interrelated series of graphics and tables to provide a comprehensive overview of Registry demographics, health monitoring, and exposure activities.

Some helpful hints for the best experience as you explore the Dashboard:

  • To interact with the data explorer, hover over any of the graphics on the screen and click on your selection for more information.
  • Once the selected graphic is open, roll the cursor over data to enable a pop-up screen with more detailed information.
  • When you have completed your review of the graphic, please click on the ‘x’ button located in the upper right-hand corner of the graphic.
  • More information is provided in the Help section of the Dashboard.

If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions concerning this tool, please contact Dr. Linh Duong, DOE EHSS-13 Office of Domestic and International Health Studies, at Linh.Duong@hq.doe.gov or ORISE Health Studies at BAWR@orau.org., Information Management Systems.

DOE Mission & BAWR Initiative

DOE Mission

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for protecting the health and safety of DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors. The Office of the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security (EHSS) provides the federal-level leadership and strategic vision necessary to establish clear expectations for health, safety, environment, and security programs. In support of this mission, the Office of Health and Safety (EHSS-10) collects, analyzes, and disseminates data and performance indicators, such as beryllium health and exposure information for individuals potentially at risk for chronic beryllium disease due to their work at DOE facilities.

The DOE Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry (BAWR) is a complex-wide internal program to help DOE conduct and improve its Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP), the purpose of which is to protect workers from the adverse health effects of exposure to beryllium. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 10, part 850 Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (10 CFR 850) requires DOE sites to inventory and assess beryllium exposure hazards and transmit all records generated as required by this rule to DOE. Established in 2002, the BAWR is the repository for these data and contains information from more than 30 DOE facility reporting organizations, both active and inactive. Data from the BAWR and the annual summary reports were included in the Federal Register on June 7, 2016, in support of proposed amendments to 10 CFR 850. These recent proposed changes to the rule, reflecting DOE’s goals to achieve aggressive reduction and minimization of worker exposures to airborne beryllium, will further strengthen the current CBDPP, worker protection programs, and reporting of affected workers.

Background

The Department of Energy and Department of Defense (DOD) have historically been some of the largest users of beryllium. Since the early 1940s, many thousands of workers at DOE and DOD plants or facilities have worked with beryllium and had the potential for exposure. These U.S. Departments have also been among the most involved in the study of beryllium and its possible health effects, and DOE took steps to initiate a comprehensive beryllium worker health program. Following years of aggressive data collection and analysis of beryllium activities, exposure measurements, and disease occurrence, a public notice of intent to establish a chronic beryllium disease prevention program was published in 1998 (63 FR 66940). Within the notice of intent, DOE requested comments, data, and any other relevant information from the public and industry for consideration in developing the beryllium worker health program. Following receipt and consideration of numerous comments and other relevant information, DOE published the final rule of 10 CFR part 850 Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) in 1999. DOE issued a comprehensive implementation guide (DOE G 440.1-7) to assist line managers in meeting responsibilities required by the CBDPP in 1997 and updated it in 2001 (DOE G 440.1-7a). In 2006, DOE published 10 CFR 851, a final rule establishing and implementing a formal worker safety and health program (WSHP) which also included some updating of the CBDPP. The WSHP, including the amendments to the CBDPP Rule, went into effect in 2007.

BAWR Initiative

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry (BAWR) was established to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 850 enacted in December 1999 and has been in operation since 2002. It is a collection of health and exposure information of individuals potentially at risk for chronic beryllium disease (CBD) due to their work at DOE-owned or leased facilities.

The DOE Office of Domestic and International Health Studies supports the operation of a surveillance registry of current workers who are exposed to beryllium in their current job, or may have been exposed to beryllium in the past from work conducted at a DOE site. Data reported electronically to the BAWR are analyzed and summarized to help DOE accomplish several goals. One goal of the Registry is to determine the incidence and prevalence of beryllium sensitization and CBD. The data are analyzed to help better understand CBD and to identify those at risk. Another goal is to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of DOE's Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program. And a third goal is to provide data and analyses to help answer questions posed by DOE Headquarters (and other agencies) regarding, for example, the effects of lowering established personal exposure limits.

Regulations, Standards, and Specifications

Code of Federal Regulations 10 Part 850

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 850 (10 C.F.R. 850), "Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program," requires DOE sites to inventory and assess beryllium exposure hazards to determine whether employees are at risk for CBD. Sites that determine employees are at risk due to ongoing or past work must implement CBD prevention programs that include reporting health and exposure data to the DOE Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry. Health data are collected through the operation of medical surveillance programs for current workers. Exposure data are collected through the operation of industrial hygiene programs at sites that have continuing beryllium operations.

Standards and Specifications

Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry Data Collection and Management Guidance, DOE-STD-1187-2019 is a technical standard that provides acceptable methods for compliance with the requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 850.39 (10 CFR 850.39) “Recordkeeping and Use of Information.” It should be used by responsible employers subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 850 “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program” to guide their submission of information to the Department of Energy (DOE) Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry. Use of this standard promotes consistent reporting and efficient analysis and dissemination of information to those who need to know. It supersedes DOE-STD-1187-2007, dated June 2007.

Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Testing (BeLPT) Technical Specification, DOE-SPEC-1142-2019 is a specification for beryllium lymphocyte proliferation tests (BeLPTs) used for detecting whether an individual has developed a sensitization to beryllium and for clinical evaluation and diagnosis of patients for CBD (a lung biopsy is needed to fully establish the presence of CBD). This specification should be used in all contracts with laboratories for the purchase of BeLPT services. It supersedes DOE-SPEC-1142-2001, dated May 2001.

Executive Summary

Significant Findings

The DOE (Department of Energy) Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) and Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry (BAWR) have been essential in raising awareness of and increasing vigilance in ensuring accountability for workers’ health and for a workplace that limits harmful exposure to airborne beryllium. The BAWR remains a valuable occupational health program.

The BAWR 2019 Dashboard provides a summary of data collected by DOE-affiliated reporting organizations through the end of the 2019 calendar year.

During the 2019 calendar year, important findings from the BAWR are:

  • Registry data show that the DOE CBDPP has resulted in increased vigilance and decreasing exposure to beryllium which has helped to reduce the number of beryllium sensitization (BeS) and chronic beryllium disease (CBD) cases over time. The yearly average for workers developing sensitization, whose first abnormal BeLPT results were between 2000 and 2009, was 34. This rate dropped to an average of 13 from 2010-2019. For workers later diagnosed with CBD, the yearly averages dropped from 9 to less than 1 per year for the respective time frames. 
  • Prevention programs screen nearly 4 times as many workers for beryllium sensitization than are monitored for exposure to beryllium.
  • While health monitoring for BeS appears vigorous, industrial hygiene programs submit fewer exposure sampling measurements to the BAWR each year. For example, between 2018 and 2019, the number of reported measurements dropped from 3,206 to 2,593 (see the “DOE-wide Trend in Reported Exposure Sampling for 2010 - 2019” graph in the Exposure Monitoring Activities tab of the Data Metrics and Results section).
  • Due to BeS and CBD observed in workers without exposure monitoring data (i.e., over two-thirds of total cases), sites may need to review and update exposure sampling plans to be more proactive identifying cases. For example, recent cases include employees whose jobs had no expected risk for exposure. For BeS and CBD cases that do have exposure sampling reported, the amount of data prior to their diagnosis date (i.e., having dates monitoring conducted earlier than their date of sensitization or CBD diagnosis) is very limited.
  • Significant delays in reporting impact BAWR analyses and the conclusions drawn from them. Data submitted with missing required values (such as first hire on site date, 8-hour time weighted average, actual exposure level, first beryllium job start date, or job title) also limit BAWR analyses and make it difficult to identify potential problem areas or those warranting further investigation.
  • Analyses of the data from the BAWR yielded no statistical correlation between the incidence of BeS/CBD and the percent of exceedances among exposure sampling results submitted to the Registry. 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 further investigate cases to determine if there is a possibility of ongoing exposures.

Summary of Findings, 2019

The Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry (BAWR) 2019 Dashboard provides a summary of cumulative data collected by DOE-affiliated reporting organizations through the end of the 2019 calendar year. The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Data Center 2020 and in collaboration with DOE’s Office of Health and Safety developed the analyses and statistics presented within this report. The report provides an overview of Registry demographics and health monitoring and exposure activities, highlighting changes over the last reporting period. In brief:

  • The Registry includes 27 active reporting organizations with National Strategic Protective Services (NSPC) moving to inactive status and the addition of Los Alamos National Laboratory N3B Project (LANL N3B) and Golden SVCS, LLC (GSVCS) during the 2019 reporting period.

  • There were 12 changes in data coordinators in 2019. The Registry includes 39,638 workers among the active reporting sites.

  • The majority of these workers are males over 50 years of age, representing 69%. The number of workers increased by 1,833(from 37,805 workers in 2018 to 39,638 workers in 2019).

  • Participants’ medical surveillance programs screened a total of 6,729 employees for beryllium sensitization in 2019, which included an increase of 1,247 new workers with beryllium sensitization test results reported to the Registry.

  • The Registry has a total 532 beryllium-sensitized (BeS) workers and 155 workers diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease (CBD).

  • The Registry reported 17 new beryllium sensitizations and 7 CBD cases through 2019.

  • The majority of BeS workers and CBD cases are associated with Y-12 and Hanford.

    • 27% of BeS workers are associated with employment at Y-12 and 23% of BeS workers are associated with Hanford.

    • 40% of CBD cases are associated with Y-12 and 22% of CBD cases are associated with Hanford.

  • The majority of BeS workers and CBD cases are associated with work histories involving crafts and line operators.

    • Crafts work histories are associated with 104 (20%) BeS workers. Line operators account for an additional 89 (17%) BeS workers.

    • Crafts work histories are associated with 37 (24%) CBD cases. Line operators account for 23 (15%) CBD cases.

  • The Registry received data for 2,593 air monitoring samples for 730 employees in 2019.
  • Of the samples measured in 2019, approximately 92% had non-detectable results. Only 1.3% of the samples exceeded the 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) action level of 0.2 µg/m 3. Fermi reported the largest number of samples exceeding the action level with 17%, followed by Pantex with 4%.
  • The highest 8-hour TWA level measured during 2019 was 23.08 µg/m3 at Y-12 among machinists. This was an increase from the highest reported measurement in 2018 which was 16.71 µg/m3 at Y-12 among engineering technicians.

  • Site medical programs screen a greater proportion of workers for beryllium sensitization than are monitored for exposure to airborne beryllium. This may be due to some extent from monitoring for the onset of BeS and CBD of workers no longer performing beryllium-related work; employees moving between sites/contractors; the discovery of legacy beryllium in poorly documented areas; and the use of swipe sampling results, not required for the Registry.
  • 68% of workers identified as beryllium-sensitized do not have exposure monitoring results submitted to the Registry.
  • 20% of CBD cases have exposure records dated earlier than their reported date of CBD diagnosis.
  • Of those with exposure monitoring, 37% of workers only have exposure monitoring results after identification as beryllium-sensitized.

Accomplishments

The DOE Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry (BAWR) is a centralized repository for the collection and analyses of beryllium exposure data since 2002. The program was mandated by 10 CFR 850 (published December 8, 1999) when DOE required sites, on an ongoing basis, to monitor and assess beryllium exposure hazards and transmit associated records containing health and exposure data to the BAWR. Since that time, the Registry has grown significantly, both in the numbers of included organizations and the longitudinal nature of the data, making it a valuable and unique resource for DOE, the sites overseen by the DOE Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP), and even other agencies.

The BAWR accomplishments to date highlight the importance and contributions made by this program in partnership with the DOE CBDPP:

  • The results of the BAWR data analyses indicate that the CBDPP has resulted in decreased exposure to beryllium which has helped to reduce the number of beryllium sensitizations and CBD cases over time.
  • The yearly average for workers developing sensitization, whose first abnormal BeLPT results were between 2000 and 2009, was 34. This rate dropped to an average of 13 from 2010 to 2019.
    • For workers later diagnosed with CBD, the yearly averages dropped from 9 to less than 1 per year for the respective time frames. The CBDPP and the BAWR have been critical in reducing CBD among workers and remain valuable occupational health programs.
  • The data in the BAWR have been used by both the DOE Office of Inspector General and by the reporting organizations to investigate the effectiveness of sites’ beryllium protection and prevention programs or follow-up to assure that recommendations from audits have been implemented. The BAWR has also provided special analyses for individual reporting organizations to help with quality assurance of their data and to prepare for internal or external audits. This cumulative data resource has proven to be more comprehensive and accurate than individual sites’ records, as well as designed to provide easy comparisons between the health and exposure information.

  • Data from the BAWR were included in the Federal Register on June 7, 2016, in support of proposed amendments to 10 CFR 850. These proposed changes to the rule, reflecting DOE goals to achieve aggressive reduction and minimization of worker exposures to airborne beryllium, will further strengthen the current CBDPP, worker protection programs, and reporting of affected workers. As part of the justification for lowering DOE established personal exposure limits (PELs), BAWR data was analyzed to determine the effects of the current cutoff of 2.0 µg/m3 and played a critical role in lowering it to several levels between 1.0 and 0.33 µg/m3.
  • Data from the BAWR were also used by DOE staff working on updates to the rule to monitor reporting organizations by geographic location and account for reporting organizations (and changes in numbers of employees), which had been combined when contracts were rebid and/or organization names had changed.

  • Staff from ORISE and the BAWR have provided input to the revised algorithm, based on blood BeLPT results, for determining beryllium sensitization. The new algorithm will lead to, in many cases, earlier identification of affected workers.
  • To determine the differences between algorithms, the current and the proposed algorithm were modeled for comparison. ORISE Beryllium Laboratory staff later provided expert testimony at the public hearings for revisions to 10 CFR 850 regarding the importance of adding an additional 3 borderlines criteria to the methodology, and the BAWR and Beryllium Laboratory provided supporting data.

  • Results from BAWR analyses to study the effects of lowering DOE established personal exposure limits (PELs) were shared by DOE with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The BAWR is the only source for these cumulative data for DOE-affiliated sites.
  • Raw exposure data from the BAWR were requested and used by OSHA in evaluating lowering their permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 0.2 µg/m3. ORISE staff created and provided a de-identified file for OSHA with a limited number of fields to protect employees’ identities.

  • As subject matter experts with regard to beryllium, worker health, and interpretation of BeLPT results, ORISE staff played a major role in assisting DOE in revising the Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Testing (BeLPT) Technical Specification, DOE-SPEC-1142-2019. This specification had not been updated since 2001.
  • ORISE staff with decades of experience with the BAWR, provided substantial input in guiding updates to the BAWR Technical Standard, which had not been updated since 2007. The DOE-STD-1187-2019 Technical Standard was completed in late 2019.
  • Studies using BAWR data have provided a better understanding of impacts on worker health. Studies that combined data from the BAWR with data from the former DOE Illness and Injury Surveillance Program (IISP) include:
    • Illness Absences Among Beryllium Sensitized Workers (American Journal of Public Health, Janice Watkins, et. al., September 2014).
    • Y-12 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), workers hired after January 1, 2009, analyses of exposures and health data for the cohort (Paul Wambach, White Paper, July 2011).
  • ORISE, in cooperation with DOE and National Jewish Health, continue to evaluate studies regarding beryllium test results, latency from first beryllium sensitization to disease onset, and evidence of a dose-response relationship between beryllium exposure and disease outcomes. The data in the BAWR are of interest with regard to discovering more about how these are correlated. Some examples include:

  • Because of the regular and required electronic reporting of data to the BAWR, the BAWR has been used as justification by the reporting organizations for streamlining their processes by developing new systems, infrastructure, and/or procuring new software. Over time, data have improved dramatically, as evidenced by decreasing error rates in the data condition reports. There is a continued effort made by BAWR and DOE staff to improve data quality, notably securing complete employee rosters and work history data.
  • DOE and ORISE staff have worked together to help assure that once 10 CFR 850 is updated and published, the BAWR’s Technical Standard is specifically cited as containing the guidance and elements required to satisfy mandatory reporting. DOE and ORISE staff worked together to help assure the BAWR’s Technical Standard is specifically cited as the guidance and elements required to satisfy mandatory reporting in current updates to 10 CFR 850. This effort will ensure sites do a better job of complete and accurate reporting and correction of errors. As a result, the BAWR will be an even more robust resource to better understand the relationship between beryllium exposure and disease outcomes, in order to protect worker health.

Limitations to Data Interpretation

Due to limitations associated with data submitted to the BAWR, caution should be exercised in the conclusions drawn from data analyses results and data summarizations. Caveats to consider when interpreting the data presented in the BAWR Dashboard are discussed below:

The Registry does not contain PII (personally identifiable information) on workers. Each reporting organization is free to choose its own encryption algorithm to assign a unique identifier for a given worker. While this approach ensures the protection of the individual’s privacy, it restricts the Registry’s ability to determine when a given worker moves from one reporting organization to another.

Reporting of air monitoring samples have declined each year. Due to beryllium sensitization (BeS) and chronic beryllium disease (CBD) observed in workers without exposure monitoring data, reporting organizations may need to review and update exposure sampling plans. In contrast, health monitoring for BeS appears to be robust, although additional medical follow-up of CBD cases would be useful.

Morbidity and mortality data are not reported by sites to the BAWR. However, the Registry does capture health outcome information on workers’ development of beryllium sensitization (BeS) or chronic beryllium disease (CBD). The clinical criteria and incidence rules for the case definition of beryllium sensitizations is one of the following:

  • Individual must have 2 abnormal blood tests, or
  • 1 abnormal and 2 borderline blood tests, or
  • An abnormal bronchoalveolar lavage BeLPT, or
  • Clinical evaluation with a diagnosis of beryllium sensitization.

    The current diagnostic algorithm used in the identification of cases is limited because of the time lapse between meeting any one of the above criteria to a time when the worker may already be experiencing health effects. When 10 CFR 850 is updated and published, revisions to the current algorithm for determining beryllium sensitization will result in earlier dates of BeS for many workers, providing more timely identification and subsequent medical follow-up or appropriate work restrictions.
  • Cause of death is not available to the Registry, which prevents further analyses focused on estimation of mortality risk from particular causes.

Reporting organizations are not required to submit data on the total number of workers for each reporting year. Additionally, it is difficult to ensure that each reporting organization has submitted a complete roster of employees with potential beryllium exposure due to current or past work locations or activities. The number of workers tested using the beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT), therefore, is the denominator in many of the analyses and calculated rates of beryllium sensitization or CBD.

The Registry cannot always confirm the date of first hire because some organizations define the date of first hire as the date of first hire by the current (sub)contractor, and this date overwrites the previous date of first hire by a former contractor. Resetting this date negatively impacts BAWR analyses to examine latency from possible exposure to development of sensitization to disease onset.

Although most workers represented in the figures and tables are unique cases, there is potential duplication of workers and counts. This issue can arise when a worker moves from one reporting organization to another and is assigned a new identifier based on a different encryption algorithm. Although the number of workers in this category is believed to be small, given the absence of personally identified information on individuals, we cannot be absolutely certain that the total numbers of individuals shown in figures and tables represent unique individuals. We have used this approach to err on the site of protecting the workers’ privacy.

Significant delays in reporting impact BAWR analyses and conclusions drawn from them. Such delays also impact the ability to identify problems and defer refinement of protocols.

Timely and complete reporting of exposure monitoring data is necessary to characterize beryllium-related work at a site and analyze employees’ actual exposure levels and time weighted averages. Timely and complete reporting of BeS and CBD cases (and their related work history) is critical to identifying problems, assessing the effectiveness of CBD Prevention Programs, and refining protocols.

In recent years, reporting organizations observed sensitizations among security guards, administrative personnel, and field engineers. These workers had no expected exposure, are not covered in sites’ industrial hygiene sampling plans, and did not use personal protective equipment. These cases highlight the importance of proactive hazard assessments and sampling approaches. Timely reporting of data is critical to earlier identification of potential work areas or sources of beryllium exposure, particularly locations or work activities not anticipated to be significant sources of beryllium exposure.

There are reasons contributing to delayed reporting of data:

  • Turnover in data coordinators often results 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.
  • Exposure monitoring data are often submitted late, particularly when the delay is due to a data quality assurance issue. This results in a delay in data submissions to the Registry during a calendar year. For example, of the 3,048 exposure samples submitted to the Registry during CY2019, 2,598 had dates monitoring conducted in 2019 and the other 450 had earlier dates (some from several years earlier and most with high actual exposure levels and/or time weighted averages). With decreasing numbers of exposure samples being submitted in recent years, the relative impact of these late-reported records to the BAWR analyses can be significant.

There have been delays in reporting of BeS and CBD cases, most often for those cases where workers did not hold beryllium-related jobs. Therefore, several years elapsed before beryllium was identified as a factor. As a result, workers were enrolled in medical surveillance programs, or were referred to a pulmonary laboratory, for further testing and evaluation.

Data Metrics & Results

BAWR Reporting 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 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 (view report; page 6931) contains further information on beryllium and beryllium-associated workers, and which organizations should have CBDPPs.

Through the 2019 calendar, the BAWR received data from the following 27 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)
  • Golden SVCS, LLC (GSVCS)
  • Hanford Site (HAN)
  • Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
  • Kansas City National Security Campus (KCNSC)
  • Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
  • LLNL Clean Harbors Environmental Services (LLNL CHES)
  • LLNL NW (LLNL NW)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
  • 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 27 active reporting organizations collected health data through the operation of their medical surveillance programs.

Twenty-five (25) organizations conducted exposure sampling through their industrial hygiene programs. DOE Oak Ridge Operations (DOE-ORO) and Golden SVCS, LLC (GSVCS) 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.

There are 8 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)
  • National Strategic Protective Services, LLC for ETTP and ORNL (NSPS)
  • 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)

  • Geographical Locations for 27 Active BAWR Reporting Organizations (2019)

    Geographical Locations for 27 Active BAWR Reporting Organizations (2019) infographic

    This map shows the geographical locations of the 27 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 Area Reporting Locations
    Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    4,493 3,147 28 3 785
    LANL N3B Project (LANL N3B)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    - - - - -
    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
    Kansas City National Security Campus (KCNSC)
    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
    Golden SVCS, LLC (GSVCS)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    - - - - -
    East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP)
    Number of Employees:
    Roster BeLPT Tested Be Sensitized CBD Exposure Monitored
    721 412 6 4 329
    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

  • Data Coordinator Changes by Reporting Organization (2013-2019)

    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 12 data coordinator changes in 2018, which was higher than in any of the previous 5 years.

    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
    2019 11 (41%) 12 1

    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.

  • Workers reported to the BAWR by Reporting Organization (2002-2019)*

    Workers reported to the BAWR by Reporting Organization (2002-2019)* infographic

    This figure shows the cumulative numbers of beryllium-associated workers reported to the BAWR by reporting organization. Through CY2019, there were 39,638 workers in the cumulative roster as compared to 37,805 workers in the cumulative roster through CY2018, for an increase of 1,853 workers. Hanford site has 16,562 employees in the roster, constituting the largest number (42%) in the cumulative roster.

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

  • Gender and Age Distribution for Workers (2002-2019)*

    Gender and Age Distribution for Workers (2002-2019)* infographic

    Workers are predominantly male (approximately 88.4%) and greater than 50 years old (66.7%). This chart excludes 8 workers for whom demographic data were not available.

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

Health Monitoring Results

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 are 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 CY2019 was 27,204. When compared with the 25,957 workers screened through CY2018, this corresponds to an additional 1,247 employees tested for an increase of 5%.

There was a total of 532 sensitized workers included in the BAWR, and medical staff diagnosed 155 as having CBD through CY2019. 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 and Proportion of Workers undergoing BeLPT Testing and Diagnosed with BeS or Diagnosed with CBD by Reporting Organization (n=27,204) (2002-2019)*
    Reporting Organization No. Employees with BeLPT Results No. Sensitized Employees No. Employees with CBD
    HAN 10,027 121 (1.2%) 34 (0.3%)
    LANL 3,481 32 (0.9%) 8 (0.2%)
    Y12 2,935 146 (5.0%) 62 (2.1%)
    PTX 1,976 27 (1.4%) 15 (0.8%)
    LLNL 1,737 71 (4.1%) 4 (0.2%)
    KCNSC 1,282 41 (3.2%) 14 (1.1%)
    NNSS 1,192 22 (1.8%) 6 (0.5%)
    ORNL 915 18 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%)
    SRS 837 20 (2.4%) 6 (0.7%)
    SNL 658 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.2%)
    INL 453 3 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)
    ETTP 440 6 (1.4%) 4 (0.9%)
    PNNL 382 8 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%)
    PADUCAH 230 6 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%)
    ANL 179 3 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%)
    DOE-ORO 95 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
    LANL N3B 60 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
    BNL 55 1 (1.8%) 0 (0.0%)
    SLAC 49 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%)
    AMES 41 2 (4.9%) 0 (0.0%)
    Y-12 ANS 40 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
    KAPL 39 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
    LLNL CHES 29 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
    LBNL 26 2 (7.7%) 0 (0.0%)
    Fermi 21 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
    Y-12 NRE 19 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
    GSVCS 6 1 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%)
    Totals 27,204 532 (2.0%) 155 (0.6%)

    The total number of beryllium-sensitized employees increased by 17 through CY2019 (523 total BeS cases reported through CY2018). The newly reported BeS cases were from 6 reporting organizations (1 at GSVCS, 4 at HAN, 9 at LANL, 1 at LLNL, 1 at PADUCAH, and 1 at Y-12). Ten (10) employees had reported dates of sensitization in 2019. The remaining seven (7) cases (from GSVCS, LANL, and PADUCAH) had dates of sensitization ranging from 2009 through 2018. Seven (7) prior BeS cases from LANL (5), NNSS (1), and SNL (1) progressed to CBD in CY2019, hence, the total CBD cases increased by 7.

    Twenty (20) of the reporting organizations have beryllium-sensitized employees and 11 have employees who have been diagnosed with CBD.

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

  • Number and Percent Proportion of Workers Undergoing BeLPT Testing, and Yielding Abnormal BeS or CBD Results (n=39,638) (2002-2019)*
    Number and Percent Proportion of Workers Undergoing BeLPT Testing, and Yielding Abnormal BeS or CBD Results (n=39,638) (2002-2019)* 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.

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

  • Percent Proportion of Workers Diagnosed as BeS by Reporting Organization (n=532) (2002-2019)*
    Percent Proportion of Workers Diagnosed as BeS by Reporting Organization (n=532) (2002-2019)* 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.

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

  • Percent Proportion of Workers Diagnosed as CBD by Reporting Organization (n=155) (2002-2019)*
    Percent Proportion of Workers Diagnosed as CBD by Reporting Organization (n=155) (2002-2019)* infographic

    This figure presents the distribution in percent for the 11 reporting organizations with employees diagnosed with CBD. Approximately 60% of total CBD cases are associated with the Y-12 and HAN sites.

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

  • Number and Percent of Workers Categorized by Number of Years Following Hire Date, Undergoing BeLPT and Diagnosed with BeS or Diagnosed with CDB (n=39,638) (2002-2019)*
    Number and Percent of Workers Categorized by Number of Years Following Hire Date, Undergoing BeLPT and Diagnosed with BeS or Diagnosed with CDB (n=39,638) (2002-2019)* 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.

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

  • Number of Workers Undergoing BeLPT and Diagnosed with BeS or Diagnosed with CDB (n=39,638) (2002-2019)*

    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 34 11
    2000 1,629 29 17
    2001 3,236 43 17
    2002 3,968 42 16
    2003 3,968 12 6
    2004 3,814 14 3
    2005 5,115 28 6
    2006 4,860 46 9
    2007 4,578 49 5
    2008 5,072 30 7
    2009 6,219 52 2
    2010 6,892 36 2
    2011 7,920 23 0
    2012 6,172 5 0
    2013 5,574 8 0
    2014 6,008 10 1
    2015 6,049 13 0
    2016 6,060 2 0
    2017 6,683 11 0
    2018 6,768 11 2
    2019 7,044 6 0
    Year Not Reported 0 28 51

    *The number of "Employees Tested" includes all testing with results of Normal, Negative, Borderline, Positive, Abnormal, and Unsatisfactory. Employees tested periodically are included in each year they were tested. Data capture includes prior to the year 2002.

  • Number and Percent Proportion of Workers with Abnormal BeLPT Results BeS or CBD Results (n=27,204) (2002-2019)*

    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 2019. 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 2019 grouped by their work history activity, which is a high-level rollup of job function. Based on the data submitted through 2019 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 Employees with BeLPT Results (N=27,204) No. Sensitized Employees (n=532)

    Beryllium Sensitization (%) (n=532)

    		 No. Employees with CBD (n=155) Chronic Beryllium Disease (%) (n=155)
    Management 1,801 43 (2.4%) 8% 10 (0.6%) 6%
    Admin. Support 1,069 33 (3.1%) 6% 11 (1.0%) 7%
    In-House Professionals 1,752 40 (2.3%) 8% 14 (0.8%) 9%
    Field Professionals 2,333 49 (2.1%) 9% 8 (0.3%) 5%
    Technical Support 3,537 73 (2.1%) 14% 15 (0.4%) 10%
    Service 1,549 30 (1.9%) 6% 12 (0.8%) 8%
    Security and Fire 1,532 26 (1.7%) 5% 9 (0.6%) 6%
    Crafts 4,637 104 (2.2%) 20% 37 (0.8%) 24%
    Line Operators 2,932 89 (3.0%) 17% 23 (0.8%) 15%
    Guests 75 1 (1.3%) <1% 0 (0.0%) 0%
    Unknown 731 14 (1.9%) 3% 11 (1.5%) 7%
    Not Reported 5,256 30 (0.6%) 6% 5 (0.1%) 3%
    Totals 27,204 532 (2.0%) 100% 155 (0.6%) 100%

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

  • Comparison of the Number and Percent Proportion of Workers Undergoing BeLPT to the Number of Employees with BeLPT Results by Reporting Organization (n=8,194) (2002-2019)*.
    Comparison of the Number and Percent Proportion of Workers Undergoing BeLPT to the Number of Employees with BeLPT Results by Reporting Organization (n=8,194) (2002-2019)*. infographic

    This figure compares the percent 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.

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

Exposure Monitoring Results

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 CY2019 was 7,239 compared to 6,917 employees monitored through CY2018 as reported in the Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry 2018 Dashboard. This equates to an increase of 322 employees monitored for exposure to beryllium through CY2019. The increase in the CY2019 report is higher than the reported increase of 256 between CY2017 and CY2018 and higher than the increase of 220 employees between the CY2016 and CY2017 reports.

Seventeen (17) reporting organizations provided exposure monitoring results with monitoring dates in 2019. Organization-specific totals for a given year may change from totals in previous annual reports due to late reporting and/or corrections.

  • Number and Percent of Workers Monitored by Reporting Organization (n=4,112) (2010-2019)
    Reporting Organization 2010
    n=1,181    		 2011
    n=1,102    		 2012
    n=826    		 2013
    n=787    		 2014
    n=833    		 2015
    n=712    		 2016
    n=696    		 2017
    n=731    		 2018
    n=682    		 2019
    n=730
    AMES 1 (0.1%) 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.2%) 5 (0.7%)
    ANL
    BNL 7 (0.6%) 1 (0.1%) 18 (2.2%) 2 (0.2%) 3 (0.4%) 4 (0.6%) 4 (0.5%) 1 (0.1%)
    DOE-ORO
    ETTP 42 (3.6%) 30 (2.7%) 3 (0.4%) 9 (1.1%) 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.3%) 8 (1.1%)
    Fermi 1 (0.1%)
    GSVCS
    HAN 313 (26.5%) 395 (35.8%) 249 (30.1%) 287 (36.5%) 325 (39%) 290 (40.7%) 265 (38.1%) 359 (49.1%) 244 (35.8%) 301 (41.2%)
    INL 44 (3.7%) 39 (3.5%) 5 (0.6%) 42 (5.3%) 45 (5.4%) 55 (7.7%) 45 (6.5%) 31 (4.2%) 62 (9.1%) 43 (5.9%)
    KAPL 5 (0.4%) 4 (0.4%) 4 (0.5%) 3 (0.4%) 2 (0.2%)
    KCNSC 18 (1.5%) 17 (1.5%) 43 (5.2%) 27 (3.4%) 18 (2.2%) 9 (1.3%) 9 (1.3%) 7 (1%) 3 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)
    LANL 55 (4.7%) 46 (4.2%) 45 (5.4%) 34 (4.3%) 87 (10.4%) 32 (4.5%) 64 (9.2%) 49 (6.7%) 83 (12.2%) 97 (13.3%)
    LANL N3B 10 (1.4%)
    LBNL 2 (0.2%) 1 (0.1%) 3 (0.4%)
    LLNL 78 (6.6%) 63 (5.7%) 59 (7.1%) 34 (4.3%) 25 (3%) 32 (4.5%) 21 (3%) 19 (2.6%) 16 (2.3%) 16 (2.2%)
    LLNL CHES 1 (0.1%)
    NNSS 18 (1.5%) 19 (1.7%) 22 (2.7%) 14 (1.8%) 17 (2%) 5 (0.7%) 5 (0.7%) 1 (0.1%) 4 (0.6%) 15 (2.1%)
    ORNL 44 (3.7%) 47 (4.3%) 46 (5.6%) 61 (7.8%) 24 (2.9%) 20 (2.8%) 15 (2.2%) 11 (1.5%) 7 (1%) 10 (1.4%)
    PADUCAH 47 (4%) 3 (0.3%) 5 (0.6%) 4 (0.5%) 5 (0.6%) 13 (1.8%) 15 (2.2%) 5 (0.7%)
    PNNL 1 (0.1%) 19 (2.3%) 7 (1%) 10 (1.4%) 8 (1.1%) 19 (2.8%) 9 (1.2%)
    PTX 30 (2.5%) 42 (3.8%) 51 (6.2%) 23 (2.9%) 21 (2.5%) 20 (2.8%) 52 (7.5%) 27 (3.7%) 34 (5%) 27 (3.7%)
    SLAC 2 (0.2%)
    SNL 16 (1.4%) 19 (1.7%) 17 (2.1%) 3 (0.4%) 5 (0.6%) 16 (2.2%) 10 (1.4%) 8 (1.1%) 3 (0.4%) 9 (1.2%)
    SRS 19 (1.6%) 2 (0.2%) 10 (1.2%) 1 (0.1%) 5 (0.6%) 2 (0.3%) 3 (0.4%) 6 (0.8%) 4 (0.6%) 3 (0.4%)
    Y-12 436 (36.9%) 363 (32.9%) 245 (29.7%) 238 (30.2%) 221 (26.5%) 206 (28.9%) 181 (26%) 178 (24.4%) 174 (25.5%) 156 (21.4%)
    Y-12 ANS 15 (2.1%) 10 (1.4%) 10 (1.4%) 13 (1.9%) 14 (1.9%)
    Y-12 NRE 8 (0.7%) 5 (0.5%) 4 (0.5%) 5 (0.6%) 4 (0.5%)
    Totals 1,181 (100%)
    		 1,102 (100%)
    		 826 (100%)
    		 787 (100%)
    		 833 (100%)
    		 712 (100%)
    		 696 (100%)
    		 731 (100%)
    		 682 (100%)
    		 730 (100%)

    An industrial hygienist monitored exposure for employees by reporting organization at least once in each year for the past 10 years (i.e., between 2010 and 2019).

  • Number and Percent Proportion of Workers Undergoing Beryllium Exposure Monitoring by Reporting organization (n=7,239) (2002-2019)*
    Number and Percent Proportion of Workers Undergoing Beryllium Exposure Monitoring by Reporting organization (n=7,239) (2002-2019)* infographic

    This figure displays the cumulative 7,239 beryllium-associated workers monitored for beryllium exposure through CY2019 by reporting organization.

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

Exposure Monitoring Trends - Samples

  • Number and Percent Proportion of Exposure Sample Results by Year (N=60,223) (2010-2019).
    Number and Percent Proportion of Exposure Sample Results by Year (N=60,223) (2010-2019). 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.

  • Comparison of the Number and Percent Proportion of Exposure Samples to Workers with Exposure Sampling Results by Reporting Organizations (n=2,593) (2002-2019)
    Comparison of the Number and Percent Proportion of Exposure Samples to Workers with Exposure Sampling Results by Reporting Organizations (n=2,593) (2002-2019) infographic

    This graphic illustrates the distribution of exposure samples and employees monitored across 17 reporting organizations during 2019. 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 110,905 exposure measurements to the Registry through CY2019. This equates to an additional 3,048 exposure sampling results collected and submitted to the 107,857 total through CY2018. The number of monitoring results for CY2019 alone was 2,593 as indicated above. Therefore, 455 of the sampling results submitted in CY2019 were sampling data for years prior to 2019.

  • Number and Percent Proportion of Non-Detectable Results Exposure Measurements, Detectable Exposure Measurement Results and Exposure Measurement Status Not Reported (N=110,905) (2002-2019)*
    Number and Percent Proportion of Non-Detectable Results Exposure Measurements, Detectable Exposure Measurement Results and Exposure Measurement Status Not Reported (N=110,905) (2002-2019)* infographic

    Of the 110,905 exposure monitoring records submitted to the Registry through CY2019, 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, 107,857 cumulative exposure monitoring results were submitted through CY2018, for an increase through 2019 of 3,048 records (with monitoring dates in 2019 and earlier). This 3,048 increase in sampling results is lower than the 3,104 increase in records submitted between 2017 and 2018 and even lower than the 3,584 increase between 2016 and 2017.

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

    **Non-detectable indicates that analysis results were reported as less than the laboratory's reporting limit.

Trends in Exposure Levels

  • Percent of 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Year (2010-2019)
    Percent of 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Year (2010-2019) 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 2010 to 2019.

    Summary Statistics for 2010 – 2019 8-Hour Time Weighted Average Exposure Monitoring Results
    Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 10-year Summary
    Number of reported monitoring results 13,385 (22.7%) 10,195 (17.3%) 6,056 (10.3%) 5,281 (9%) 5,349 (9.1%) 5,062 (8.6%) 4,455 (7.6%) 3,405 (5.8%) 3,154 (5.4%) 2,543 (4.3%) 58,885 (100%)
    Number of detected values 624 (22.1%) 527 (18.6%) 302 (10.7%) 216 (7.6%) 177 (6.3%) 170 (6%) 240 (8.5%) 175 (6.2%) 240 (8.5%) 157 (5.6%) 2,828 (100%)
    Percent non-detects 95.3 94.8 95.0 95.9 96.7 96.6 94.6 94.9 92.4 93.8 95.2
    Number of individuals monitored 1,179 (28.7%) 1,101 (26.8%) 826 (20.1%) 787 (19.2%) 827 (20.2%) 711 (17.3%) 693 (16.9%) 730 (17.8%) 682 (16.6%) 730 (17.8%) 4,103* (100%)
    Arithmetic mean (EX) (µg/m3) 0.052 0.096 0.032 0.004 0.002 0.008 0.016 0.842 0.360 0.182 0.041
    Lower confidence limit of EX (µg/m3) 0.029 0.047 0.015 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.128 0.099 0.040 0.031
    Upper confidence limit of EX (µg/m3) 0.092 0.197 0.069 0.006 0.003 0.017 0.032 5.521 1.310 0.830 0.053
    Observed 95th percentile of data (µg/m3) 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.020 0.011 0.007
    95% upper tolerance limit of the 95th percentile (µg/m3) 0.020 0.021 0.017 0.015 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.020 0.030 0.026 0.020
    Largest value (µg/m3) 79.330 18.023 4.013 0.804 0.876 1.847 8.865 87.419 16.712 23.084 87.419
    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F) 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.7
    Lower confidence limit for F 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.6
    Upper confidence limit for F 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.7 1.3 0.7

    *Many individuals were monitored in more than 1 year. The total number of individuals measured at least once in the 10-year period from 2010 through 2019 is 4,103.

    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 percentage 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.

    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.

    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: 1.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.4

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.2

    2019

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.7

Exceedances Observed through 2019

  • Percent of 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Work History Activity (2002-2019)*
    Percent of 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Work History Activity (2002-2019)* 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 2019. 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 (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Work History Activity (2002-2019)*
    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 1,059 (1%) 49,437 (46%) 6,063 (6%) 97 (0%) 5,414 (5%) 11,268 (11%) 4,473 (4%) 390 (0%) 8,801 (8%) 14,457 (14%) 5,144 (5%) 106,603 (100%)
    No. detected values 81 (1%) 2,921 (25%) 686 (6%) 28 (0%) 694 (6%) 1,998 (17%) 544 (5%) 14 (0%) 707 (6%) 2,192 (19%) 1,709 (15%) 11,574 (100%)
    % non-detects 92.4 94.1 88.7 71.1 87.2 82.3 87.8 96.4 92.0 84.8 66.8 89.1
    No. individuals monitored 82 (1%) 2,256 (32%) 666 (9%) 8 (0%) 319 (4%) 1,176 (16%) 300 (4%) 70 (1%) 654 (9%) 1,214 (17%) 406 (6%) 7,151 (100%)
    Observed 95th percentile of data (ug/m3) 0.021 0.008 0.027 0.027 0.047 0.059 0.022 0.002 0.020 0.052 0.130 0.026
    95% UTL of 95th percentile (ug/m3) 0.050 0.050 0.070 0.291 0.055 0.099 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.080 0.170 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 1.5 0.8 1.6 2.3 0.9 1.7 1.5 1.7 3.4 1.3
    Lower confidence limit for F 0.8 0.6 1.3 0.2 1.4 2.1 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.6 3.1 1.3
    Upper confidence limit for F 1.6 0.7 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.5 1.1 3.0 1.7 1.9 3.7 1.4

    *Some reporting organizations have provided data that predate the 2002 start date of the registry. Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m3 based on 95% Confidence Limits.

     

    Crafts

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.6

    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

    Management

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.9

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Administrative

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.6

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Field Professionals

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.5

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.3

    Service

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.5

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.4

    In-house Professionals

    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): 1.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.6

    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): 3.4

    Lower confidence limit for F: 3.1

  • Percent of 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Job Title (2002-2019)*
    Percent of 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Job Title (2002-2019)* infographic

    Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m3 based on 95% Confidence Limits
    *Some reporting organizations have provided data that predate the 2002 start date of the registry.

    This graphic shows individuals with job titles in the craft work activity category. The detailed data through 2019 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 (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 µg/m3 by Job Title (2002-2019)*
    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 678 (1%) 208 (7%) 69.3 32 (1%) 0.009 0.030 0.200 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    Other Crafts 24,637 (50%) 481 (16%) 98.0 258 (11%) 0.005 0.017 37.300 0.2 0.2 0.2
    Maintenance Mechanics 979 (2%) 31 (1%) 96.8 108 (5%) 0.002 0.052 0.200 0.3 0.1 0.5
    D&D Workers 1,268 (3%) 214 (7%) 83.1 151 (7%) 0.029 0.039 2.475 0.3 0.2 0.4
    Welders 727 (1%) 35 (1%) 95.2 38 (2%) 0.008 0.024 0.356 0.4 0.2 0.9
    Heavy Equipment Operators 1,211 (2%) 100 (3%) 91.7 114 (5%) 0.005 0.021 16.697 0.6 0.3 0.9
    Laborers 1,746 (4%) 86 (3%) 95.1 268 (12%) 0.009 0.053 10.340 0.7 0.5 1.0
    Electricians 4,622 (9%) 448 (15%) 90.3 398 (18%) 0.021 0.050 14.419 0.9 0.8 1.1
    Machinists 6,253 (13%) 311 (11%) 95.0 118 (5%) 0.013 0.050 87.419 1.0 0.8 1.2
    Millwrights 928 (2%) 62 (2%) 93.3 152 (7%) 0.008 0.050 20.176 1.0 0.7 1.6
    Plumbers & Fitters 2,610 (5%) 215 (7%) 91.8 234 (10%) 0.017 0.050 5.735 1.2 0.9 1.5
    Iron Workers 318 (1%) 97 (3%) 69.5 44 (2%) 0.122 0.253 1.847 1.3 0.7 2.2
    Carpenters 1,213 (2%) 116 (4%) 90.4 114 (5%) 0.039 0.055 3.176 1.7 1.2 2.2
    Painters 848 (2%) 199 (7%) 76.5 49 (2%) 0.081 0.122 7.423 2.1 1.5 2.8
    Hazardous Waste Workers 93 (0%) 9 (0%) 90.3 19 (1%) 0.071 0.167 0.176 2.1 0.6 5.9
    Mechanics 118 (0%) 22 (1%) 81.4 41 (2%) 0.017 0.091 0.137 3.2 1.5 6.3
    Waste-Mgmt Mechanics 147 (0%) 17 (1%) 88.4 15 (1%) 0.093 1.290 2.390 4.0 2.1 7.0
    Sheet Metal Workers 787 (2%) 172 (6%) 78.1 74 (3%) 0.380 0.609 8.865 6.0 4.9 7.2
    HVAC Mechanics 254 (1%) 98 (3%) 61.4 29 (1%) 0.282 0.494 5.836 6.8 4.9 9.2
    All Combined 49,437 (100%) 2,921 (100%) 94.1 2,256 (100%) 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

    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

    D&D Workers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.4

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.3

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Welders

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.4

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Heavy Equipment Operators

    Upper confidence limit for F: 0.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.3

    Laborers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    Electricians

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.9

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    Machinists

    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): 1.0

    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: 2.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.2

    Painters

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.8

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 2.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.5

    Hazardous Waste Workers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 5.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 2.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.6

    Mechanics

    Upper confidence limit for F: 6.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 3.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.5

    Waste-Mgmt Mechanics

    Upper confidence limit for F: 7.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 4.0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 2.1

    Sheet Metal Workers

    Upper confidence limit for F: 7.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 6.0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 4.9

    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 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2002-2019)*
    Percent of 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2002-2019)* infographic

    Percent exceeding 0.2 μg/m 3 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 time weighted average (TWA) Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2002-2019)*
    Reporting Organization No. monitoring results No. detected values % non-detects No. individ. monitored Obs. 95th percentile (ug/m 3) 95% UTL /95th % (ug/m 3) Largest value (ug/m 3) % > 0.2 ug/m 3 (F) Lower confidence limit for F Upper confidence limit for F
    AMES 57 (0.1%) 3 (0%) 94.7 12 (0.2%) < 0.001 NA 0.028 0 0 91.1
    ANL 155 (0.1%) 18 (0.2%) 88.4 10 (0.1%) 0.145 1.1 2.39 4.1 2.3 7
    BNL 105 (0.1%) 2 (0%) 98.1 8 (0.1%) 0.002 0.1 0.1 0.5 < 0.1 50
    ETTP 914 (0.9%) 32 (0.3%) 96.5 1 (0%) 0.007 0.08 2.264 0.1 < 0.1 0.3
    Fermi 48 (0%) 22 (0.2%) 54.2 26 (0.4%) 1.296 NA 4.8 17.2 10.6 26.1
    HAN 13,535 (12.7%) 1,618 (14%) 88 2,036 (29.9%) 0.008 0.019 12.513 0.2 0.2 0.2
    INL 2,100 (2%) 375 (3.2%) 82.1 370 (5.4%) 0.033 0.088 2.475 0.4 0.3 0.5
    KAPL 234 (0.2%) 2 (0%) 99.1 37 (0.5%) 0.007 0.2 0.2 0.3 < 0.1 27.5
    KCNSC 1,668 (1.6%) 18 (0.2%) 98.9 186 (2.7%) 0.001 0.145 0.196 0.1 < 0.1 0.2
    LANL 13,550 (12.7%) 2,663 (23%) 80.3 849 (12.5%) 0.042 0.005 26.678 1.1 1 1.1
    LANL N3B 23 (0%) 1 (0%) 95.6 10 (0.1%) 0.005 NA 0.015 0 0 12.2
    LBNL 18 (0%) 0 (0%) 100 8 (0.1%) 0.1 NA 0.1 0 0 15.3
    LLNL 6,770 (6.4%) 1,178 (10.2%) 82.6 325 (4.8%) 0.021 0.033 5.133 0.1 0.1 0.2
    LLNL CHES 3 (0%) 0 (0%) 100 1 (0%) 0.04 NA 0.042 0 0 63.2
    NNSS 1,129 (1.1%) 101 (0.9%) 91.1 297 (4.4%) 0.014 0.052 0.317 0.7 0.5 1.1
    ORNL 1,356 (1.3%) 8 (0.1%) 99.4 284 (4.2%) 0.002 0.011 0.157 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    PADUCAH 631 (0.6%) 4 (0%) 99.4 78 (1.1%) < 0.001 0.009 0.019 0.1 < 0.1 0.8
    PNNL 213 (0.2%) 10 (0.1%) 95.3 54 (0.8%) 0.002 0.005 0.028 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    PTX 2,481 (2.3%) 282 (2.4%) 88.6 536 (7.9%) 0.2 0.3 134 4.4 3.9 5
    SLAC 42 (0%) 0 (0%) 100 26 (0.4%) 0.04 NA 0.15 0 0 6.9
    SNL 962 (0.9%) 359 (3.1%) 62.7 146 (2.1%) 0.112 0.16 3.82 3.8 3.1 4.7
    SRS 366 (0.3%) 22 (0.2%) 94 201 (3%) 0.019 0.07 0.32 1.1 0.5 2.1
    Y-12 59,783 (56.1%) 4,821 (41.7%) 91.9 1,262 (18.6%) 0.039 0.05 87.419 1.6 1.6 1.7
    Y-12 ANS 169 (0.2%) 20 (0.2%) 88.2 25 (0.4%) 0.01 0.01 0.15 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
    Y-12 NRE 291 (0.3%) 15 (0.1%) 94.8 15 (0.2%) 0.009 0.039 1.111 1.4 0.6 2.7
    All 106,603 (100%) 11,574 (100%) 89.1 6,803 (100%) 0.026 0.052 134 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

    KCNSC

    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): 0.4

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.3

    NNSS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    SRS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 2.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    LANL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.0

    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): 1.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 1.6

    SNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 4.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 3.8

    Lower confidence limit for F: 3.1

    ANL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 7.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 4.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 2.3

    PTX

    Upper confidence limit for F: 5.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 4.4

    Lower confidence limit for F: 3.9

  • Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2019)*
    Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2019)* 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 CY2019. The upper confidence limit is above 5% at organizations that reported 62 or fewer sampling results in 2019 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 2019 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 17 organizations since all but 5 organizations reported 62 or fewer results for CY2019.

    The table below gives additional summary statistics for organizations reporting exposure data to the BAWR during 2019. Organizations that did not report data for calendar year 2019 are not included in this table.

    The data in the graphic and table show that Sandia National Laboratory had the greatest percentage (23.7%) of reported exposure monitoring results exceeding the action level in CY2019.


    Summary Statistics for Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2019)*
    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 8 (0.3%) 3 (1.9%) 62.5 5 (1.6%) < 0.001 NA < 0.001 0 0 91.1
    ETTP 9 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 100 8 (2.6%) 0.01 NA 0.01 0 0 28.3
    HAN 798 (31.4%) 2 (1.3%) 99.7 2 (0.7%) 0.001 0.025 0.052 < 0.1 0 98.4
    INL 94 (3.7%) 46 (29.3%) 51.1 10 (3.3%) 0.112 0.195 0.326 1.5 0.5 3.7
    KCNSC 2 (0.1%) 0 (0%) 100 16 (5.2%) 0.022 NA 0.022 0 0 77.6
    LANL 240 (9.4%) 29 (18.5%) 87.9 10 (3.3%) 0.011 0.041 0.614 0.6 0.2 1.5
    LANL N3B 23 (0.9%) 1 (0.6%) 95.7 5 (1.6%) 0.005 NA 0.015 0 0 12.2
    LLNL 26 (1%) 0 (0%) 100 9 (3%) 0.018 NA 0.035 0 0 10.9
    NNSS 21 (0.8%) 13 (8.3%) 38.1 3 (1%) 0.024 NA 0.06 0.2 < 0.1 3.2
    ORNL 10 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 100 14 (4.6%) 0.009 NA 0.01 0 0 25.9
    PADUCAH 11 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 100 5 (1.6%) < 0.001 NA < 0.001 0 0 23.8
    PNNL 28 (1.1%) 0 (0%) 100 9 (3%) 0.005 NA 0.005 0 0 10.1
    PTX 67 (2.6%) 3 (1.9%) 96 27 (8.9%) 0.002 0.151 0.151 0.5 < 0.1 11.8
    SNL 14 (0.6%) 8 (5.1%) 42.9 9 (3%) 1.755 NA 3.82 23.7 9.9 44.4
    SRS 4 (0.2%) 0 (0%) 100 3 (1%) 0.004 NA 0.004 0 0 52.7
    Y-12 1,147 (45.1%) 52 (33.1%) 95.5 156 (51.1%) 0.001 0.017 23.084 1.1 0.8 1.7
    Y-12 ANS 41 (1.6%) 0 (0%) 100 14 (4.6%) 0.009 NA 0.009 0 0 7
    All 2,543 (100%) 157 (100%) 93.8 305 (100%) 0.011 0.026 23.084 1.0 0.7 1.3
    AMES

    Upper confidence limit for F: 91.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    ETTP

    Upper confidence limit for F: 28.3

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    KCNSC

    Upper confidence limit for F: 77.6

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    LANL N3B

    Upper confidence limit for F: 12.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    LLNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 10.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    ORNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 25.9

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    PADUCAH

    Upper confidence limit for F: 23.8

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    PNNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 10.1

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    SRS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 52.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    Y-12 ANS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 7.0

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    HAN

    Upper confidence limit for F: 98.4

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

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0

    NNSS

    Upper confidence limit for F: 3.2

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.2

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    PTX

    Upper confidence limit for F: 11.8

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.5

    Lower confidence limit for F: < 0.1

    LANL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.5

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 0.6

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.2

    Y-12

    Upper confidence limit for F: 1.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3(F): 1.1

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.8

    INL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 3.7

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 1.5

    Lower confidence limit for F: 0.5

    SNL

    Upper confidence limit for F: 44.4

    Percent exceeding 0.2 µg/m3 (F): 23.7

    Lower confidence limit for F: 9.9

  • Exposure Monitoring Results Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2019)

    This table provides the reporting organization, process description, 8-hour TWA, and the respirator assigned protection factor (APF) for the results observed above the action level through 2019.

    Exceedances for 2019 were less than in 2018 with twenty-one (21) samples exceeding the action level in 2019, compared with 31 in 2018, and 36 in 2017. Since the total reported exposure sampling results continue to decrease over time, the proportion of exceedances is greater than in previous years. In all 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 Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2018)

    This table provides the reporting organization, process description, 8-hour 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 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 Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2017)

    This table provides the reporting organization, process description, 8-hour 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 37.3 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 50
    Y-12 SUPPORT Machinists 4.7 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 1.1 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 0.4 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 NA

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.

  • Comparison of the Number and Percent Proportion for Beryllium-Associated Workers Diagnosed with BeS or CBD with and without Exposure Sampling Results by Reporting Organizations (n=687) (2002-2019)*

    Comparison of the Number and Percent Proportion for Beryllium-Associated Workers Diagnosed with BeS or CBD with and without Exposure Sampling Results by Reporting Organizations (n=687) (2002-2019)* infographic

    The data in the figure shows the collective number of BeS or CBD individuals through 2019 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. More than two- thirds (465 out of 687, or 68%) of the workers currently identified as BeS or diagnosed with CBD have no exposure sampling data. The proportion reported in the 2018 and 2017 annual summaries were 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 532 employees who are sensitized (BeS) and have not progressed to CBD, only 172 (32%) had any exposure sampling measurements submitted to the Registry. Only 109 (21%) of these sensitization cases had any exposure records dated earlier than their reported date of sensitization.

    Of the 172 sensitization cases with exposure sampling data, 63 cases only had 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-eight (88) of the 532 sensitization cases had at least one reported exposure record dated later than their reported date of beryllium sensitization; but this includes the 25 cases that had exposure data both before and after their date of sensitization.

    Of the 155 employees reported as diagnosed with CBD, 50 (32%) of the cases had at least one exposure sampling measurement submitted to the Registry. Only 31 (20%) of the total CBD cases had at least one reported exposure record in the Registry dated earlier than their reported date of CBD diagnosis.

    In comparison, 31 (21%) CBD cases had 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 had exposure sampling data later than their reported date of CBD diagnosis. Therefore, only 29 of the CBD cases had 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.

  • Comparison of the Percent of Workers Diagnosed with BeS or CBD with Percent Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2002-2019).

    Comparison of the Percent of Workers Diagnosed with BeS or CBD with Percent Exceeding Action Level 0.2 μg/m3 by Reporting Organization (2002-2019). 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 = -0.077). 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.

Supplementary

Acronym List

Acronym Description
AMES Ames Laboratory
AMWTP Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
BAL Bronchoalveolar Lavage
BAWR Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry
Be Beryllium
BeLPT Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Test
BeS Beryllium Sensitization or Beryllium-Sensitized
BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory
CBD Chronic Beryllium Disease
CBDPP Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CY Calendar Year
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOE-ORO U.S. Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Office
DOL U.S. Department of Labor
EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act
ETTP East Tennessee Technology Park
EX Arithmetic Mean
F Percent Exceeding 0.2 µg/m3
Fermi Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
HAN Hanford Site
INL Idaho National Laboratory
KAPL Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
LLNL BU Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Boston University (subcontractor) 
LLNL CHES Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Clean Harbors Environmental Services (subcontractor) 
LLNL ENVC Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Envirocon, Inc. (subcontractor)
NA Not Applicable
NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory
NNSA DOE National Nuclear Security Administration
NNSS Nevada National Security Site
NSC National Security Campus
NSPS National Strategic Protective Services, LLC for ETTP and ORNL
OIG DOE Office of Inspector General
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
OSHA DOL Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PADUCAH Paducah Site
PEL Personal Exposure Limit
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PTX Pantex Plant
Respirator APF Respirator Assigned Protection Factor
RF Rocky Flats Closure Project
SLAC SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
SNL Sandia National Laboratories
SOMD Site Occupational Medical Director
SRS Savannah River Site
SWPA Southwestern Power Administration
TWA Time Weighted Average
µg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter
UTL Upper Tolerance Limit
WSI Wackenhut Security Services, Inc. for ETTP, ORNL, and Y-12
Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex
Y-12 ANS Y-12 National Security Complex Atkins Nuclear Secured (subcontractor)
Y-12 NRE Y-12 National Security Complex Navarro Research and Engineering (subcontractor) 
Y-12 URS Y-12 National Security Complex URS Corporation (subcontractor)

Calculations

Beryllium Sensitization Algorithm (current until revisions to 10 CFR 850 are passed): An employee is considered sensitized if any one of the following clinical criteria and incidence rules for the case definition of beryllium sensitizations is met. Often, an employee’s data will satisfy multiple criteria, and their date of sensitization is calculated as the earliest date any one of these is met.

  • 2 positive or abnormal BELPT results (based on 2 separate blood draws).
  • 1 positive or abnormal plus 2 (or more) borderline BELPT results.
  • A positive or abnormal bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) result.
  • A CBD evaluation with a finding of sensitization but no chronic beryllium disease (CBD).

Exposure Monitoring Statistics: These calculations are based on the methods described in the Statistical Methods and Software for the Analysis of Occupational Exposure Data with Non-Detectable Values. Due to the limitations in laboratory analytic methods approaching nano- scales much of the airborne exposure monitoring data are subject to left censoring with a measurement below the detectable limit. The methods applied estimate non-detectable levels using maximum likelihoods for randomly left censored, lognormal data with alternative non-parametric methods applied when the lognormal distribution is in doubt due to small sample sizes.

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient: The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient monitors the dose response represented by the BAWR data, and is calculated by site with the percent exceeding the action level and the percent beryllium sensitized or diagnosed with CBD.

References and Resources

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Clinical and laboratory factors contributing to uninterpretable beryllium lymphocyte proliferation tests (BeLPT), Derek Smith, et. al., March 2018. Abstract: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29574954

American Journal of Public Health, Illness Absences Among Beryllium Sensitized Workers, Janice Watkins, et. al., September 2014. Abstract: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302132

Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry 2017 Annual Report, Department of Energy, Office of the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/05/f62/2017_Annual_BAWR_Report_Final.pdf

Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, 10 C.F.R. § 850 (1999). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1999-12-08/99-31181

Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, 10 C.F.R. § 850 (2012). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2012-title10-vol4/CFR-2012-title10-vol4-part850

Department of Energy Technical Specification 1142, Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Testing (BeLPT). DOE-SPEC-1142-2019. https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/1100/1142-dspec-2019

Department of Energy Technical Standard 1187, Beryllium-Associated Worker Registry Data Collection and Management Guidance.  DOE-STD-1187-2019. https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/1100/1187-astd-2019

Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Beryllium - Overview. https://www.osha.gov/beryllium

Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA’s Rulemaking to Protect Workers from Beryllium Exposure. https://www.osha.gov/beryllium/rulemaking

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 10 CRR Part 850, Federal Register, June 2016. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-07/pdf/2016-12547.pdf

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, 10 CFR 850, page 36748. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-07/pdf/2016-12547.pdf

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Exposure and genetics increase risk of beryllium sensitisation and chronic beryllium disease in the nuclear weapons industry, Michael Van Dyke, et. al., November 2011. Abstract:  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21460389

PEARSON function. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/pearson-function-0c3e30fc-e5af-49c4-808a-3ef66e034c18

STAND: Statistical Analysis of Non-Detects. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/STAND/index.html

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

The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org  

Worker Safety and Health Program, 10 C.F.R. § 851.10 (2006). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2020-title10-vol4/CFR-2020-title10-vol4-sec851-10