Bill Overview
Title: Beryllium Testing Fairness Act
Description: This bill expands eligibility for a compensation program for individuals who developed a beryllium-related illness or sensitivity and who were exposed to beryllium while working at certain Department of Energy facilities or for beryllium vendors. (Beryllium is a metal with various industrial applications, including in the production of nuclear weapons; inhalation of beryllium dust or fumes can have adverse health effects.)
Sponsors: Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals exposed to beryllium through specific industrial workplaces
Estimated Size: 75000
- Beryllium is used in various industrial applications, with a significant amount historically used in the production of nuclear weapons and other defense-related fields.
- Exposure to beryllium primarily affects workers in specific industries such as aerospace, defense, and nuclear sectors.
- Workers who handled beryllium at Department of Energy facilities or for beryllium vendors are the primary population affected by beryllium exposure, as these are the settings specified in the bill.
- Individuals working in environments with potential beryllium exposure run the risk of developing beryllium-related illnesses or sensitivity, hence they are the focus of compensation programs like the one expanded by this bill.
- Statistics from the Department of Energy approximated that about 50,000 to 100,000 workers have potentially been exposed to beryllium in relevant operations since the mid-20th century.
- It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of workers globally in industries where beryllium use is prevalent.
Reasoning
- The policy targets individuals exposed to beryllium, primarily affecting workers in the aerospace, defense, and nuclear sectors who may develop beryllium-related illnesses.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy will need to carefully allocate resources to maximize impact, focusing on the most affected populations within the budgetary limits.
- The policy will likely have varying impacts on different individuals depending on their level of exposure to beryllium and their health conditions.
- Many workers from DOE facilities and beryllium vendors are within the population that this policy aims to assist.
- There is a wide range of impacted individuals, from those who may not realize they are at risk to those already suffering severe health issues, requiring differing levels of support.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Department of Energy Worker (Oak Ridge, TN)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I developed a lung condition from my years at DOE and knowing there's possible help on the way is a relief.
- These health issues have really impacted my quality of life since retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Aerospace Engineer (Los Alamos, NM)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though I haven't had significant health issues, I'm relieved that there will be mechanisms if I develop something later.
- This policy reassures me as I continue to work in this industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Former Nuclear Weapons Engineer (Hanford, WA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My health has been declining due to past exposure, and the policy is my hope for some support in medical care.
- It’s great that finally, there's acknowledgment of the risks we faced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Aerospace Manufacturing Technician (Wichita, KS)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it's nice that compensation is available, I’m not too worried as I follow all safety protocols.
- The policy might not impact me much immediately, but it's a comfort knowing it’s there.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Pueblo, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt I qualify due to my limited exposure, but it’s good to know workers are getting some help.
- A broader safety and health initiative might benefit more workers like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Research Scientist (Sandia Park, NM)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For us in research, the policy emphasizes the importance of continued development of safe handling practices.
- It showcases an investment in worker safety which is encouraging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Occupational Safety Inspector (Knoxville, TN)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will aid in raising awareness and compliance across industries for safer environments.
- I believe it will have more indirect impacts by pushing companies to improve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Artist (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retirement has been tough, with past exposure affecting my health.
- I hope the new policy might cover some of my medical expenses that arose due to beryllium exposure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Beryllium Vendor Employee (Richland, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given my direct exposure, I’m pleased that my risk is being recognized and compensated.
- I've been struggling with health concerns for a while, hoping for support soon.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 1 |
Environmental Health Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are steps in the right direction towards ensuring long-term health and safety of workers.
- However, the reach might still fall short for those already retired or unaware of the risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $185000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $190000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $200000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Key Considerations
- Number of actual claims versus eligible claims will significantly affect cost estimates.
- Administrative efficiency in processing new claims may influence overall costs.
- Potential differences in compensation rates or medical costs not accounted for due to historical baselines should be considered.