Occupational beryllium exposure: Reconciling federal policies, regulations and contractor implementation guides to protect worker health

Beryllium is a widely distributed, highly toxic metal. When beryllium particulates enter the body, the body's defense mechanisms are engaged. When the body's defenses cannot easily remove the particulates, then a damage and repair cycle is initiated. This cycle produces chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a progressive, fibrotic respiratory involvement which eventually suffocates exposed individuals. ^ Beryllium disease is an occupational disease, and as such it can be prevented by limiting exposures. In the 1940s journalists reported beryllium deaths at Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) facilities, the Department of Energy's (DOE) predecessor organization. These reports energized public pressure for exposure limits, and in 1949 AEC implemented a 2 μg/m3 permissible exposure limit (PEL). ^ The limits appeared to stop acute disease. In contrast, CBD has a long latency period between exposure and diagnosable disease, between one and thirty years. The lack of immediate adverse health consequences masked the seriousness of chronic disease and pragmatically removed CBD from AEC/DOE's political concern. ^ Presently the PEL for beryllium at DOE sites remains at 2 μg/m 3. This limit does not prevent CBD. This conclusion has long been known, although denied until recently. In 1999 DOE acknowledged the limit's ineffectiveness in its federal regulation governing beryllium exposure, 10 CFR 850. ^ Despite this admission, the PEL has not been reduced. The beryllium manufacturer and AEC/DOE have a history of exerting efforts to maintain and protect the status quo. Primary amongst these efforts has been creation and promotion of disinformation within peer reviewed health literature which discusses beryllium, exposures, health effects and treatment, and targeting graduate school students so that their perspective is shaped early. ^ Once indoctrinated with incorrect information, professionals tend to overlook aerosol and respiratory mechanics, immunologic and carcinogenic factors. They then apply tools and perspectives derived from the beryllium manufacturer and DOE's propaganda. Conclusions drawn are incorrect. The result is: health research and associated policy is conducted with incorrect premises. Effective disease management practices are not implemented. ^ Public health protection requires recognition of the disinformation and its implications. When disinformation is identified, then effective health policies and practices can be developed and implemented. ^

A review of the Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program at ExxonMobil Corporation

ExxonMobil, a Fortune 500 oil and gas corporation, has a global workforce with employees assigned to projects in areas at risk for infectious diseases, particularly malaria. As such, the corporation has put in place a program to protect the health of workers and ensure their safety in malaria endemic zones. This program is called the Malaria Control Program (MCP). One component of this program is the more specific Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program (MCCP), in which employees enroll following consent to random drug testing for compliance with the company's chemoprophylaxis requirements. Each year, data is gathered on the number of employees working in these locations and are selected randomly and tested for chemoprophylaxis compliance. The selection strives to test each eligible worker once per year. Test results that come back positive for the chemoprophylaxis drug are considered "detects" and tests that are negative for the drug and therefore show the worker is non-compliant at risk for severe malaria infection are considered "non-detect". ^ The current practice report used aggregate data to calculate statistics on test results to reflect compliance among both employees and contractors in various malaria-endemic areas. This aggregate, non-individualized data has been compiled and reflects the effectiveness and reach of ExxonMobil's Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program. In order to assess compliance, information on the number of non-detect test results was compared to the number of tests completed per year. The data shows that over time, non-detect results have declined in both employee and contractor populations, and vary somewhat by location due to size and scope of the MCCP implemented in-country. Although the data indicate a positive trend for the corporation, some recommendations have been made for future implementation of the program.^