Occupational Safety and Health: Government Responses to Beryllium Uses
and Risks (Letter Report, 05/19/2000, GAO/OCG-00-6).
For decades, the U.S. military has used beryllium--a lightweight
metal--to produce various weapons systems. Lightness, strength, and
other attributes have made beryllium useful in a wide array of products,
from aircraft to x-ray equipment to nuclear weapons. Since the 1940s,
however, scientists have linked beryllium exposure to an inflammatory
lung condition, which can be debilitating, even fatal. Studies from the
1950s showed that beryllium can cause cancer in laboratory animals. From
the 1960s through the 1990s, the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy
and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) took
several steps to assess and respond to risks associated with exposure to
beryllium. DOD discontinued testing beryllium in rocket fuel by 1970,
due in part to concerns about meeting air quality requirements. In 1975,
OSHA proposed a more stringent worker exposure standard for beryllium
that was based on evidence that it was carcinogenic in laboratory
animals. Energy improved working conditions at its facilities and
implemented medical testing for its current and former workers during
the 1980s and 1990s after new cases of chronic beryllium disease were
identified during the 1980s. Energy issued a rule in 1999 that
established new worker safety controls, such as greater use of
respirators and assessing hazards associated with work tasks, for its
facilities that use beryllium. Energy has also proposed a compensation
program for Energy workers affected by chronic beryllium disease.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: OCG-00-6
TITLE: Occupational Safety and Health: Government Responses to
Beryllium Uses and Risks
DATE: 05/19/2000
SUBJECT: Occupational safety
Occupational health standards
Hazardous substances
Industrial facilities
Workers compensation
Working conditions
Carcinogens
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/OCG-00-6
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
22
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Energy
24
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
25
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Security and
International Affairs Division
B-284882
May 19, 2000
Congressional Requesters
Over the last 50 years, federal policymakers and scientists have attempted
to both capitalize on the advantages of beryllium and address health and
environmental risks. Beryllium is a strong and lightweight metal that
generates and reflects neutrons, resists corrosion, is transparent to
X-rays, and conducts electricity. It is also a hazardous substance.
Among the organizations that have played key roles in responding to the
risks associated with beryllium are the Departments of Defense, Energy, and
Labor. The Departments of Defense and Energy are the federal agencies that
have most commonly used beryllium. Defense procures components containing
beryllium for a variety of weapon systems from private contractors. Energy
operates federal facilities (including nuclear weapons production
facilities) that use beryllium, and it has responsibility for protecting
federal and contract workers at these facilities. Energy has identified at
least 17 facilities that use or have used beryllium, and it estimates that
about 20,000 current and former workers at these facilities were exposed or
potentially exposed to beryllium from the 1940s to the present. The
Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has
overall responsibility for protecting the health and safety of workers in
most workplaces throughout the United States, including those that use
beryllium.1
This report responds to your request for information on beryllium as a
hazardous material and on the health and safety controls over its use. As
agreed with your offices, this report (1) provides information on
beryllium's uses and risks and (2) describes selected key events that
illustrate the evolution of the federal government's response to risks posed
by beryllium. To respond to the second question, we identified and
summarized key events from the 1960s through the 1990s involving actions by
the Departments of Defense and Energy and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Appendix I describes the objectives, scope, and methodology
for this review.
Lightness, strength, and other attributes have made beryllium useful in a
wide array of products, such as aircraft, spacecraft, X-ray equipment, and
nuclear weapons. However, beryllium is considered hazardous. Health effects
from high exposure to beryllium particles were first noted in the early 20th
century. Beginning in the 1940s, scientists linked exposure to beryllium
with an inflammatory lung condition now called chronic beryllium disease,
which can be debilitating and, in some cases, fatal. Today, questions remain
about the level of exposure that poses a risk and exactly how chronic
beryllium disease develops. In the 1950s, studies showed that beryllium
caused cancer in laboratory animals. National and international
organizations now consider beryllium a human carcinogen. The magnitude of
the risk from current occupational exposure levels is not known, but may be
minimal.
From the 1960s to the 1990s, Defense, Energy, and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration took a number of actions to assess and to respond
to risks associated with exposure to beryllium. In reviewing selected key
events, we noted that the agencies took the following steps to reduce risks
from exposure to beryllium: discontinued testing of rocket propellant
containing beryllium, assessed beryllium exposure standards, limited worker
exposure to beryllium, established health surveillance measures, and
proposed compensation for workers who have chronic beryllium disease. The
key events are as follows:
� Defense discontinued testing beryllium in rocket fuel by 1970, due in part
to concerns about meeting air quality requirements.
� The Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed a more
stringent worker exposure standard for beryllium in 1975 based on evidence
that it was carcinogenic in laboratory animals. The proposal generated
concerns about the technical feasibility of the proposal, impact on national
security, and the scientific evidence supporting the proposed change.
According to Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials, the
agency discontinued its work on the proposal in the early 1980s in response
to other regulatory priorities such as lead, electrical hazards, and
occupational noise. In 1998, the agency announced that it would develop a
comprehensive standard for beryllium by 2001.
� Energy improved working conditions at its facilities and implemented
medical testing for its current and former workers during the 1980s and
1990s after new cases of chronic beryllium disease were identified during
the 1980s. From 1984 through 1999, 149 Energy workers have been diagnosed
with definite or possible chronic beryllium disease.
� In 1999, Energy issued a rule that established new worker safety controls,
such as increased use of respirators and assessing hazards associated with
work tasks, for its facilities that use beryllium. Energy also proposed a
compensation program for Energy workers affected by chronic beryllium
disease, which has been introduced as legislation in the Congress.
The Departments of Defense, Energy, and Labor provided written or oral
comments on our report and generally concurred with the information
presented. They suggested technical changes, and Labor officials also
emphasized that the hazard information bulletin on beryllium cited in the
body of this report was a significant effort to protect worker health.2
In the 1920s and 1930s, beryllium was used for a variety of purposes,
including as an additive for alloying with copper and other metals in
manufacturing, as an ingredient in fluorescent lamps, and for other
purposes. Today, beryllium is used in nuclear reactor and weapons parts;
aircraft, spacecraft, and missile structures and parts; military vehicle
structures and parts; electronics; auto parts; lasers; X-ray equipment;
dental prosthetics; and other consumer products. In some of these products,
substitutes for beryllium can be used (e.g., titanium, stainless steel, and
some forms of bronze and aluminum). However, Energy and Defense officials
state there is no substitute for beryllium in key nuclear components or in
weapons for which lightweight and strength are critical.
According to U.S. Public Health Service reports, people are exposed to
extremely low levels of naturally occurring beryllium in the air, in many
foods, in water, and in soil. The highest exposures to beryllium tend to
occur in the workplace. Occupational exposure to beryllium occurs when it is
extracted from ore; when the ore is processed into beryllium metal; and when
this metal is made into parts (e.g., machined, welded, cut, or ground).
Today, beryllium is used in many applications outside of the Defense and
Energy industries.
Health effects from high exposure to beryllium particles were first noted in
the early 20th century. Beginning in the 1940s, scientists linked exposure
to beryllium with an inflammatory lung condition now called chronic
beryllium disease, which is often debilitating and, in some cases, fatal.
Research on the biomedical and environmental aspects of beryllium is
extensive.3 According to the National Jewish Medical and Research Center (a
nonprofit institution devoted to respiratory, allergic, and immune system
diseases), beryllium primarily affects the lungs. The disease occurs when
people inhale beryllium dust, and it can develop even after workers have
been out of the beryllium industry for many years. There are three main
types of adverse health effects associated with beryllium exposure:
� Chronic beryllium disease is caused by an allergic-like reaction to
beryllium. Even brief exposure to very low levels can lead to this disease,
which often has a slow onset and involves changes to lung tissue that reduce
lung function. The first evidence of what was to be called chronic beryllium
disease was identified in 1946. More recent studies indicate that reaction
to beryllium depends on the type of beryllium and the work task.4 According
to the National Jewish Medical and Research Center, the disease occurs in 1
to 16 percent of exposed people, with the level of exposure that poses risk
and the precise mechanisms of disease not yet well characterized.
� Acute beryllium disease (symptoms lasting less than 1 year) results from
relatively high exposure to soluble beryllium compounds (i.e., compounds
that can be at least partially dissolved). This disease usually has a quick
onset and resembles pneumonia or bronchitis. High exposures may also cause
skin lesions. The earliest cases of this disease involved severe
overexposure to beryllium that affected the lungs and skin of fluorescent
light workers in the 1930s. It is now rare due to improved industrial
protective measures designed to reduce exposure levels.
� National and international organizations have identified beryllium metal
and compounds as carcinogenic to humans. Studies involving workers in plants
with high exposures during the 1940s showed subsequent increases in
mortality. The magnitude of the risk from current occupational exposure
levels is not known, but may be minimal.
The following illustrative key events involving Defense, Energy, and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) document concerns and
actions taken regarding beryllium exposure risks. The events include (1)
Defense's decision to discontinue testing beryllium in rocket fuel by 1970,
(2) OSHA's efforts in the 1970s and since 1998 to lower the exposure limits,
(3) Energy's steps to improve working conditions and medical screening in
the 1980s and 1990s, and (4) Energy's 1999 rule on beryllium worker safety.
Defense discontinued testing of rocket propellant containing beryllium by
1970 due to the potential risk of public exposure to hazardous levels of
beryllium particles released in rocket exhaust. According to an August 1969
Air Force report,5 the Air Force and the Advanced Research Projects Agency
began development of beryllium rocket propellant in 1959. Experiments in the
1960s showed that rocket payloads could be increased 10 to 30 percent by
using beryllium powder in propellant. Research and development efforts later
expanded to include other Defense agencies and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
As military and civilian agencies experimented with beryllium in rocket
fuel, they also pursued concerns about beryllium's potential risks. For
example, an August 1962 manufacturer's internal memorandum stated that
officials planned a visit from the Navy propellant plant at Indian Head,
Maryland, to discuss health and safety concerns in handling beryllium
powders at a test facility for solid fuel propellants. When testing began to
involve firing large rocket motors that would release potentially hazardous
levels of beryllium particles into the air, concerns expanded to include the
general population in the vicinity of test facilities.
In 1966, the U.S. Public Health Service6 requested the National Academy of
Sciences-National Research Council7 to study the toxicity and hazards of
beryllium propellant and its compounds and to recommend air quality
criteria. The resulting March 1966 council report8 recommended a range of
less stringent limits for atmospheric contamination.9 The U.S. Public Health
Service concluded that releases of any form of beryllium above 75 micrograms
per cubic meter of air could be hazardous, and it did not adopt the
council's recommendation to change the release limit.
According to a 1985 Air Force report,10 as a result of the U.S. Public
Health Service decision, all beryllium propellant and motor testing has been
discontinued since 1970.11 Following the U.S. Public Health Service
decision, Defense issued a directive in 1967 that in effect curtailed
open-air firing of beryllium-fueled rocket motors. The directive required
that the release of beryllium in all open-air firings fall within the 75
microgram contamination limit, that exhaust from rocket motors be filtered
to meet the 75 microgram limit, or that firings be conducted outside the
continental limits of the United States. According to the August 1969 Air
Force report, this directive severely limited development of
beryllium-fueled rocket motors. The report also indicated that the 75
microgram contamination limit could not be met, the equipment needed to
filter exhaust to meet the 75 microgram limit was not available, and firing
at remote locations was expensive. The Environmental Protection Agency,
which is today responsible for air quality standards, continues to limit
such releases to the 75 microgram level.
In 1971, OSHA adopted a beryllium standard developed by the American
National Standards Institute to control exposure to beryllium in the
workplace.12 OSHA subsequently began efforts to determine whether this
standard should be revised. Officials at OSHA believed a change in the
standard was warranted because of research conducted by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a component of the Center for
Disease Control under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare at
the time.13 This research concluded that beryllium exposure caused cancer in
animals and likely posed a similar risk to humans. OSHA policy at the time
required that once a toxic material was confirmed as carcinogenic in
animals, it should be treated as posing a carcinogenic risk to humans and
employee exposure should be reduced to the lowest level feasible. OSHA's
proposal would have cut the permissible exposure limit in half.14
In a 1975 Federal Register notice outlining its proposal, OSHA cited several
issues raised by the revised standard, including OSHA's decision to treat
beryllium as a substance that posed a carcinogenic risk to humans based on
laboratory animal data, the technical feasibility of achieving the proposed
exposure limits, and the method of monitoring airborne concentrations of
beryllium. It solicited comments from the public and received about 150
written comments and 40 requests for a public hearing. As a result, from
August through September 1977, OSHA held an informal rulemaking hearing and
heard testimony from 46 individuals representing business, government,
labor, and academia. Some commenters questioned whether there was sufficient
scientific evidence to support a revision, whether employers (particularly
beryllium producers) could comply with lower exposure limits with existing
technology, and whether the cost of complying with the proposed standard was
excessive.
In 1978, while government panels15 were considering the sufficiency of
scientific evidence, the Secretaries of Energy and Defense questioned the
impact of the proposed standard on the continued production of beryllium,
which was important for national defense. August 30, 1978, letters from the
Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare noted that the proposed standard would place a heavy
burden on the two primary beryllium producers in the United States, who
might stop producing beryllium. Specifically, the letter stated that
"Clearly, cessation of beryllium metal and/or beryllium oxide production is
unacceptable and would significantly degrade our national defense effort."
The Secretary agreed that workers' health was paramount, but believed that
the scientific questions warranted an independent peer review. The Secretary
of Defense--in November 1978 letters to the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare--echoed the Energy Secretary's
concerns about national security and the scientific evidence.
The first government panel reviewed human cancer studies, but documents did
not show whether or how the panel's review was concluded. The Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare formed a second panel in 1978 to address
three questions. The questions were as follows: (1) Are the animal studies
credible in showing beryllium carcinogenicity in at least two species? (2)
Is beryllium-copper alloy a carcinogen? (3) Is there evidence indicating
that beryllium is a carcinogen in man?
The second panel's consultants generally agreed that (1) beryllium was an
animal carcinogen, (2) no good information existed on cancer involving
beryllium-copper alloy, and (3) epidemiological evidence was suggestive of
an association between beryllium exposure in the workplace and human lung
cancer (however, the data were only suggestive because of alternative
explanations for this association). In a 1978 report to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, the U.S. Surgeon General and the Assistant
Surgeon General, who oversaw the panel and reviewed the scientific evidence,
stated that the conclusion that beryllium was an animal carcinogen required
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to recommend standard
setting and that more definitive answers were needed regarding the last two
questions.
Representatives from Defense, Energy, and OSHA met to discuss the proposed
OSHA standard in 1979. Concerns included national security, technical
feasibility, and the scientific evidence. OSHA continued its efforts to
finalize the standard and prepare a draft rule at least through July 1980.
According to OSHA officials, work was discontinued in the early 1980s
because of other regulatory priorities such as lead, electrical hazards, and
occupational noise.
In 1998, OSHA announced that it was developing a comprehensive standard on
occupational exposure to beryllium. In its announcement, the agency cited
evidence of chronic beryllium disease associated with beryllium exposure
below the 2 microgram limit, a new beryllium sensitivity16 test, and
conclusions that beryllium is a human carcinogen. Officials from OSHA expect
to propose a standard in 2001.
To develop information for this standard, OSHA contracted with a private
firm and has obtained preliminary data on industries that use beryllium. It
also issued a hazard information bulletin17 on beryllium exposure in
September 1999 to alert employers and employees about the potential hazards
of beryllium and to provide guidance on work practices needed to control
exposure.
New Disease Cases in the 1980s
Two Energy facilities that have large numbers of beryllium-related workers
are the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in Golden, Colorado, and
the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Rocky Flats produced
beryllium metal parts for nuclear weapons from 1958 through 1989, but no
longer has any production role and is expected to be closed. Some workers at
Rocky Flats may encounter beryllium during the environmental cleanup process
at the facility. The Y-12 Plant produces nuclear weapons parts from
beryllium powder and has other roles in the nuclear weapons program that may
expose workers to beryllium. Overall, as of March 2000, Energy had
identified at least 17 facilities that use or have used beryllium. Energy's
preliminary estimate is that about 20,000 current and former workers at its
facilities were exposed or potentially exposed to beryllium.18
According to Energy documents, from the 1970s through 1984, the incidence of
chronic beryllium disease appeared to significantly decline at Energy
facilities. This apparent reduction, along with the long latency period for
the disease, led Energy to assume that chronic beryllium disease was
occurring only among workers who had been exposed to high levels of
beryllium decades earlier, such as in the 1940s. However, in 1984 a new case
of chronic beryllium disease was diagnosed in a worker employed in 1970 at
Energy's Rocky Flats facility. Several additional cases were diagnosed among
Rocky Flats workers in the following years, raising questions about the
adequacy of worker protection measures. In response, Energy investigated the
working conditions at Rocky Flats and made improvements to ventilation in
1986 and also improved working practices. Energy also instituted medical
screening programs for beryllium workers at risk of developing chronic
beryllium disease, making use of new medical advances such as a new blood
test. In addition, Energy improved its practices for monitoring worker
exposure.
Energy's Actions at Rocky Flats
After the new case of chronic beryllium disease was diagnosed in June 1984,
Energy's Albuquerque Operations Office, which oversaw Rocky Flats, conducted
an investigation of working conditions at the plant's beryllium machine shop
to identify factors contributing to the disease case. The investigation,
reported in October 1984, identified ventilation problems in the beryllium
machine shop and hazards from performing certain operations outside of
ventilation hoods, which are designed to collect and filter out airborne
beryllium particles. The investigation also found that the affected worker
had repeatedly been exposed to beryllium at levels greater than the
permissible exposure limit of 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air (averaged
over an 8-hour period).
During the 1984 investigation, the Rocky Flats facility began taking air
samples from workers' "breathing zones" for the first time, using sampling
devices placed on workers' shirts or lapels. Previously, the facility had
used "area monitoring," in which sampling devices were placed on beryllium
machines or other fixed locations in the work area. Exposure levels measured
by personal breathing zone sampling were generally found to be higher than
those measured by area samplers. Several reasons could account for the
differing monitoring results, according to a 1996 research study and Energy
officials. Fixed area monitors were not always
well-placed to represent workers' breathing zones.19 Also, fixed area
monitors placed on or near machines may not capture exposures resulting from
the use of hand-held tools or poor work practices, such as shaking out
cloths used to clean machines.
Following the investigation, Rocky Flats remodeled the ventilation system,
eliminated most operations outside ventilation hoods, improved procedures
for cleaning tools and work areas, increased respirator use, and improved
worker safety training. For example, starting in 1984, respirators were
required to be worn in the Rocky Flats beryllium machine shop. According to
officials, workers exposed above the permissible exposure limit during the
1984 through 1989 era would have been protected by respirators. Energy
officials indicated that this was an especially important interim corrective
measure prior to completion of the remodeling project in September 1986. In
addition, Rocky Flats hired a health and safety consulting firm to test the
effectiveness of its remodeling by conducting "before-and-after" personal
breathing zone monitoring. According to the consultant's study, samples
taken in September and October 1986 (after the ventilation remodeling)
showed lower average exposure levels and fewer samples were over exposure
limits than was the case before the remodeling.
A second evaluation at Rocky Flats was conducted by the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, at the request of a union's local
chapter. This evaluation, which was completed in May 1986 before the
ventilation remodeling was completed, concluded that a health hazard existed
from overexposure to beryllium in the beryllium machine shop. The Institute
recommended that Rocky Flats routinely use personal breathing zone sampling,
conduct all beryllium machining under exhaust ventilation, and conduct
medical monitoring of beryllium-exposed workers.
Improved Medical Testing
During the late 1980s, medical advances allowed for earlier and easier
detection of chronic beryllium disease and sensitivity to beryllium.
Beryllium sensitivity is an immune system reaction, similar to an allergic
reaction, which can occur in some persons exposed to beryllium and that
indicates an increased risk of developing chronic beryllium disease. A blood
test for sensitivity, known as the beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test,
was refined during the late 1980s. Another new diagnostic device, the
flexible bronchoscope (a tubular lighted device), provided a less invasive
means for examining the lungs for signs of chronic beryllium disease.
Energy and the National Jewish Medical and Research Center first began using
the newly developed blood test on a trial basis to identify workers'
sensitivity to beryllium at Rocky Flats in 1987. Beginning in 1991, Energy
established medical screening programs for many additional current and
former Energy employees, using this blood test. For those identified as
having sensitivity to beryllium, Energy offered follow-up medical exams to
determine whether chronic beryllium disease was present. Medical testing was
provided in phases, due to the funding levels available, according to an
official in Energy's Office of Occupational Medicine and Medical
Surveillance. Specifically, blood testing for current and former Rocky Flats
workers began on a routine basis in 1991, for current Oak Ridge workers in
1991, for former Oak Ridge workers in 1993, and for former workers at
several other facilities where workers could have been exposed to beryllium
in 1996 and 1997.
From 1984 through December 31, 1999, a total of 13,770 current and former
workers (or about 69 percent of the estimated 20,000 workers who may have
been exposed to beryllium) had been screened for definite or possible
chronic beryllium disease. Through this testing, 149 Energy workers have
been diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease. The Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Safety, and Health states that of the 149 workers, 89 have been
diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease and another 60 have clinical
findings presumed to be due to chronic beryllium disease. An additional 299
workers were identified as having sensitivity to beryllium; 219 of these
workers do not have chronic beryllium disease; and 80 workers had yet to
complete clinical evaluations to determine whether or not they have the
disease. Energy plans to continue offering testing to additional former
workers.
Improved Exposure Monitoring
During the 1990s, Energy also expanded the use of personal breathing zone
monitoring at its facilities. For instance, the Y-12 Plant at Oak Ridge took
only 148 personal breathing zone samples prior to 1990, but took 1,448
personal breathing zone samples from 1990 through 1996. According to plant
officials, beginning in January 1998 and continuing through fiscal
year 1999, the Y-12 Plant sampled every beryllium worker on every shift and
reported the results back to the workers the following day. More than 7,900
personal breathing zone samples were collected during this period, according
to the plant's Industrial Hygiene Manager. The purposes of this monitoring
effort were to make workers more aware of safety practices through immediate
feedback, to identify any practices needing improvement, and to address the
monitoring requirements stated in a 1997 Energy notice on chronic beryllium
disease prevention (described below). The Industrial Hygiene Manager for the
Y-12 Plant told us that the plant plans to continue using personal breathing
zone sampling routinely, sampling every worker in some locations and using a
statistically based sampling approach in locations where more extensive data
have already been gathered.
Proposed a Beryllium Worker Compensation Program
Energy issued a rule in December 1999 establishing regulations to reduce
beryllium exposure levels among its workforce, to reduce the number of
workers exposed to beryllium, and to provide medical testing for exposed and
potentially exposed workers.20 This rule on chronic beryllium disease
prevention applies to federal, contractor, and subcontractor employees at
Energy facilities where there is actual or potential exposure to
beryllium.21 Energy has identified 17 facilities affected by the rule. These
facilities have a total of about 8,100 workers who currently are associated
with beryllium activities. According to officials in Energy's Office of
Environment, Safety, and Health, each Energy facility is currently
evaluating how it is affected by the new requirements in the rule. This
review may result in identifying additional facilities that are affected by
the rule. Several actions by Energy, such as a survey of its facilities to
identify those with beryllium uses, preceded development of the final rule.
In addition, in November 1999, the Secretary of Energy announced a
legislative proposal to provide compensation for Energy workers who have
contracted chronic beryllium disease or beryllium sensitivity.
Steps Preceding Issuance of Energy's Rule
In 1996, Energy surveyed the contractors that manage and operate its
facilities concerning the extent of beryllium usage and the estimated
numbers of workers exposed to beryllium. Following the survey, in July 1997,
Energy issued a notice to its offices requiring the development and
implementation of programs to minimize workers' exposure to beryllium and to
minimize the incidence of chronic beryllium disease. The Secretary of Energy
stated that the programs were to be followed until an Energy rule on
beryllium could be promulgated. The notice required that the programs
include measures to monitor and reduce workers' exposures to beryllium. For
example, Energy facilities were to assess the hazards associated with each
beryllium-related task. The contractors at these facilities were also
required to offer voluntary medical testing for beryllium sensitivity to
their current workers. Seventeen Energy facilities developed chronic
beryllium disease prevention programs in response to the notice.
Energy's Rule on Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention
Energy's December 1999 rule on chronic beryllium disease prevention includes
a number of provisions designed to reduce beryllium exposure among its
workers. First, the rule adopts OSHA's permissible exposure limit (currently
2 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over an 8-hour period) or a more
stringent limit that may be promulgated by OSHA in the future. Second, the
rule establishes an action level that is one-tenth of the permissible
exposure limit,22 at which level certain controls must be implemented.
Controls required when exposure reaches the action level include using
respirators and protective clothing, periodically monitoring beryllium
levels, setting annual goals for exposure reduction, and limiting work area
access to authorized personnel. The rule requires that periodic monitoring
occur at least quarterly and that facilities use personal breathing zone
monitoring. In addition, some controls are required for any beryllium work,
regardless of the exposure level. These include assessing hazards before
beginning work tasks involving beryllium, providing safety training to
workers, and providing respirators to any beryllium worker who requests one.
Energy's rule includes two other types of beryllium limits. First, the rule
establishes limits for beryllium particles on surfaces such as floors,
tables, and the exterior of machinery. Surface sampling must be conducted
routinely, and specified housekeeping methods must be used to keep beryllium
dust below the limits. Second, the rule sets limits called release criteria
for beryllium-contaminated equipment or items. One limit is set for
releasing equipment and items to other facilities that perform beryllium
work. A second, more stringent level is set for releasing equipment and
items for reuse outside of Energy facilities or in non-beryllium areas of
Energy facilities.
Energy's rule requires that medical surveillance be provided, on a voluntary
basis, to all current workers with known or potential exposure to beryllium.
Beryllium workers' annual health evaluations are to include blood tests for
beryllium sensitivity and a physical examination emphasizing the respiratory
system. These health evaluations are to be provided at no cost to workers.
If medical opinions so indicate, employers at Energy facilities must offer
to remove workers from beryllium work and exposure. Individuals removed from
beryllium work must be provided the opportunity to transfer to other work
for which they are qualified or can be trained in a short period. If a
position is not available, employers must provide such workers with their
normal earnings, benefits, and seniority for up to 2 years.
Worker Compensation Proposal
In November 1999, the Administration transmitted a legislative proposal to
the Congress to provide compensation for current and former Energy workers
with chronic beryllium disease.23 The proposal covers employees of Energy
and its predecessor agencies, Energy contractors and subcontractors, and
beryllium vendors who sold beryllium to Energy. According to Energy
officials who helped develop the proposal, employees of beryllium vendors
were included because (1) Energy's contracts with vendors through the early
1960s generally required them to apply the same worker safety provisions
that Energy used in its own facilities and (2) the vendors manufactured
beryllium parts to government specifications and for the sole use of the
government. Affected workers would be eligible to receive reimbursement for
medical costs, assistance for impairment or vocational rehabilitation, and
compensation for lost wages. Workers with sensitivity to beryllium could
also be reimbursed for medical costs involved in tracking their condition.
In an announcement regarding this proposal, the Secretary of Energy noted
that the proposal would reverse Energy's past practice of opposing and
litigating most worker health compensation claims. The Administration's
proposed legislation was introduced in the House and the Senate in November
1999. Two other bills concerning compensation for beryllium workers have
also been introduced in the House and are pending.
We provided the Departments of Energy, Labor, and Defense with a draft of
this report for their review and comment. They generally agreed with the
information in the report and provided technical changes, which we
incorporated as appropriate. Energy's written comments are in appendix II.
An official of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Environmental Security orally concurred with the information in our report
and suggested changes to clarify data on air monitoring and medical testing.
An official of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration orally
concurred with the information in our report and suggested changes to
clarify terminology and to expand data on beryllium as a human carcinogen.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable William S. Cohen,
Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Bill Richardson, the Secretary of
Energy; the Honorable Alexis Herman, the Secretary of Labor; and other
interested parties.
If you have any questions about this report, please call the contacts listed
in appendix III.
David R. Warren, Director
Defense Management Issues
List of Congressional Requesters
The Honorable Robert F. Bennett
The Honorable Mike DeWine
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
The Honorable Christopher Shays
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,
Veterans' Affairs, and International Relations
Committee on Government Reform
The Honorable Tim Holden
The Honorable Paul E. Kanjorski
The Honorable Marcy Kaptur
The Honorable Jim Kolbe
House of Representatives
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our objectives were (1) to provide information on beryllium uses and risks
and (2) to describe selected key events that illustrate the evolution of
federal government responses to risks. More specifically, we were asked to
examine key events at the Departments of Energy and Defense and at Labor's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
To obtain information on beryllium uses and risks, we reviewed documentation
such as agency studies and reports and interviewed officials at Energy,
Defense, Labor, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
headquarters. We reviewed current and archived data and reports from the
U.S. Public Health Service; the National Jewish Medical and Research Center,
Denver, Colorado; Brush Wellman, Inc. (one of two producers of beryllium in
the United States) headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio; and the Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
We selected key events during the 1960s through 1990s involving Energy,
Defense, and Labor to illustrate agency responses to beryllium uses and
risks. For each event, we screened current and archived records for
documentation such as agency hearing records, studies, correspondence, and
reports; we interviewed agency officials to identify agency positions; and
we followed up on agency officials' interviews with other parties, to ensure
the accuracy of our report.
� For Energy, we contacted headquarters staff in the Offices of Environment,
Safety, and Health; the General Counsel; Defense Programs; Science; and
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology; and field staff from Defense
facilities, including Rocky Flats, Colorado; Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant,
Tennessee; Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico; and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, California. We obtained data on exposure
sampling; working conditions; medical screening efforts; workplace controls;
policy, practices, and procedures; and the rule, proposed legislation, and
associated history.
� For Defense overview information, we contacted staff from the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security; the military service
headquarters; the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive
Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; the Navy Environmental Health
Center, Norfolk, Virginia; the Air Force Institute for Environment, Safety,
and Occupational Health Risk Analysis, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas; and
selected subordinate commands. Regarding beryllium rocket fuel, we also
visited the Air Force Research Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base,
California. We obtained background information from the headquarters of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, its Langley Research Center,
and the Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, Columbia, Maryland.
� For Labor, we interviewed current and former staff from the Department of
Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Department of
Health and Human Services' National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. We obtained and examined the complete transcript of the
August-September 1977 informal hearing on beryllium, as well as key
documents available from hearing records and related archive files.
This report was reviewed for classification by an authorized derivative
classifier at Energy and was determined to be unclassified. We conducted our
review from June 1999 through April 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Comments From the Department of Energy
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Charles Patton, Jr., (202) 512-8412
Uldis Adamsons, (202) 512-4289
In addition to those named above, Bruce Brown, Rachel Hesselink, Arturo
Holguin, Robert Kigerl, Lori Rectanus, Ronni Schwartz, George Shelton, and
Glen Trochelman made key contributions to this report.
(709457)
1. Defense uses of beryllium (primarily through its contractors) and
Energy's beryllium vendors are subject to Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards. Energy's recent rule covering its
facilities adopts OSHA's permissible exposure limit.
2. An OSHA bulletin titled Preventing Adverse Health Effects from Exposure
to Beryllium on the Job was issued in September 1999. The bulletin cautioned
that the current permissible exposure limit may not be adequate to prevent
the incidence of disease, and it recommended measures to reduce exposures.
3. A database sponsored by Energy contains over 2,500 citations (dating up
to 1994) on biomedical and environmental aspects of beryllium, and more
studies exist. For example, although Energy's database contains only 20
citations identified as relating to beryllium use in propellants or rocket
fuel, databases maintained by Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration contain more than 350 additional studies on rocket fuel
issues alone.
4. For example, the size of beryllium particles has been identified as a
possible factor in toxicity, and machining tasks have been associated with
higher rates of disease.
5. Review of Toxicity Aspects of Beryllium Propellant, The Aerospace
Corporation (San Bernardino, California: Aug. 8, 1969).
6. The U.S. Public Health Service is part of the Department of Health and
Human Services, the major health agency of the federal government. During
the time of the request, the Service was part of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Part of its mission is to control and prevent
disease and conduct and fund biomedical research.
7. The National Academy of Sciences, a private and nonprofit organization
composed of scholars, is engaged in scientific and engineering research for
the purpose of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. The
National Research Council, the principal operating agency for the National
Academy of Sciences, provides services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering community.
8. Air Quality Criteria for Beryllium and Its Compounds, Committee on
Toxicology and the Advisory Center on Toxicology, National Academy of
Sciences-National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 1966).
9. At that time, the U.S. Public Health Service was responsible for such
standards. The 1966 Academy report stated that, for intermittent rocket
firings totaling up to 1 hour during any
2 weeks, releases of forms of beryllium oxide believed less toxic could
total as much as 1,500 micrograms per cubic meter. Forms believed more toxic
were limited to a peak of 75 micrograms per cubic meter in such
circumstances.
10. Beryllium Propellant Feasibility Study (Revised), Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (Pasadena, California: Jan. 1985), p. 4.
11. According to an August 1969 Air Force Systems Command report, a key
document in the decision to discontinue testing was "Control of Air
Pollution Associated with Beryllium Enriched Propellants," a memorandum from
the Director for Defense Research and Engineering to the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Research and Development) dated November 20, 1967. It
directed that all open-air rocket firings be within the lowest proposed
limits or that firings be made within protected facilities or outside the
continental United States.
12. The American National Standards Institute is a private organization that
facilitates the development of voluntary standards by consensus. The
standard for industrial exposure set a permissible exposure limit of 2
micrograms per cubic meter of air based on an 8-hour time weighted average,
with a ceiling concentration of 5 micrograms per cubic meter for
30 minutes.
13. Currently the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is
part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Department
of Health and Human Services.
14. In addition to reducing the permissible exposure limit from 2 to 1
micrograms per cubic meter, OSHA proposed reducing a ceiling concentration
of 5 micrograms per cubic meter from 30 to 15 minutes and added requirements
such as employee exposure measurements, medical surveillance, compliance
procedures, and protective equipment.
15. The first panel (generally called the Beryllium Review Panel) included
six members from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and its Center for Disease
Control. The panel was active from March to September 1978. The second panel
(generally called the Health, Education, and Welfare Beryllium Review Panel)
met during early October 1978 and included seven members from five academic
and two government institutions.
16. In this report, sensitivity and sensitization have the same meaning.
17. OSHA issues hazard information bulletins to provide information and
guidance to affected workers on new or misunderstood health and safety
hazards when they arise.
18. Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is now responsible for
producing a small number of the beryllium metal parts that Rocky Flats used
to produce. Energy workers were exposed to beryllium at several additional
facilities where nuclear weapons research and development, production,
maintenance, or testing occurred. In addition, Energy conducts many
scientific research activities, such as investigation of the basic nature of
matter and atoms. Some Energy research laboratories use beryllium or
beryllium parts. For example, several nuclear reactors that are used for
scientific research contain beryllium parts called reflectors. Workers at
Energy facilities may also be exposed to beryllium during environmental
cleanup and decontamination of buildings.
19. Anthony E. Barnard, Janet Torma-Krajewski, and Susan M. Viet,
"Retrospective Beryllium Exposure Assessment at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site," American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal (Sept. 1996).
20. 64 Fed. Reg. 68854 (Dec. 8, 1999).
21. The rule does not apply to Energy's beryllium vendors, which are
regulated by OSHA. It also does not apply to certain Energy laboratory
operations that are regulated under an OSHA rule for laboratories.
22. The action level is 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over an
8-hour period.
23. The proposal also addressed compensation for several other groups of
Energy workers.
*** End of document ***