So it is with some dismay we note that A Bill as posted on the DOE Web Site, relies heavily on the Federal Employee Compensation Act that, like state compensation systems, has a straight-forward formula to address occupational injuries that does not translate well to occupational disease. Whether we like it or not, there is currently no model that could be easily modified to address the health issues that arise from beryllium exposure. It is our collective position, that a new model is called for and that the DOE is in the best position to actively support the development of the legislation, implement the legislative requirements, administer the program, and directly interface with affected workers perhaps through strategically located satellite offices. As you and others work through these complex issues, we would like to offer our assistance in any way possible. Seemingly simple definitions such as time of injury become complex when we talk about beryllium.
Some sites have little to no exposure monitoring data relative to beryllium.
Process information can be almost impossible to reconstruct and tends to come directly from workers as opposed to hard data or documentation. From our perspective, time of injury is irrelevant when talking about beryllium affected workers. The definition of disability also needs to be reconsidered and redefined for individuals with Beryllium Disease. It is our position that we should not be forced to wait until we are physically impaired, carrying oxygen tanks in a backpack, or unable to perform normal activities of daily living before we are declared disabled and allowed to leave the worksite. When a beryllium affected worker separates from the workplace as a result of disease or disability, we strongly believe that forcing that worker to accept a reduction in income is neither fair nor reasonable.