ANWAG VERY CONCERNED ABOUT DOL’S

STATEMENT OF WORK FOR NEW CONTRACTOR

Date: April 8, 2005

Contact:

Coalition for a Healthy Environment, Knoxville, TN, Harry Williams 865-693-7249

Grassroots Organization of Sick Workers, Craig, CO, Terrie Barrie 970-824-2260

United Nuclear Weapons Workers, St. Louis, MO, Denise Brock 636-366-4428

Oak Ridge, TN - The Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) has learned that the Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting bids from companies to assist them with the implementation of the new part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA). The request for proposal (RFP) includes providing a matrix of common DOE chemical exposures and the occupational diseases they cause, ascertaining the best method to calculate lost wages, and provide recommendations and an implementation plan for obtaining impairment ratings. Some of the details in this RFP have caused concern.

"Does DOL intend to attempt dose reconstructions for chemical exposures as NIOSH is attempting for radiation?" asks Harry Williams of CHE. "While there are records of the chemicals used at the facilities, the tracking by DOE for levels of chemical exposures are worse than what was recorded for radiation. I strongly suggest that the contractor not waste taxpayer dollars pursuing non-existent data."

"I have issues with how contractors will interpret medical records and determine impairment ratings," says Janet Michel of CHE. "In some cases, such as pulmonary function, it will be clear, but in cases of chronic pain and fatigue, it becomes very tricky. I am also extremely concerned about relying on industry data and research. While society may know a lot about the health effects of lethal doses and acute exposures, there is virtually nothing known about chronic and sub chronic exposures of some of the primary hazardous materials at DOE sites.”

"Another problem with the scope of work is the frequent use of 'industry'. DOL wants the contractor to consult with industry experts and use industry research," added Janet Michel. "Are we sure that 'industry' will be non-partisan? What about government research, such as EPA and others? Are stakeholders, the people who actually used these chemicals daily, going to be consulted?"

"I am quite dismayed that they would want to consider toxin levels at all," says Terrie Barrie of GOSW. "The law states that the toxic exposure is ‘at least as likely as not to have been a significant factor in contributing to, aggravating or actually causing the disease’. I am happy, though, that DOL is developing a list of diseases that are common to the sick nuclear weapons workers. This should expedite compensation to many claimants."

"We were exposed to not one, but many hazardous substances during a normal work day." says Janine Anderson of CHE. "Which chemical, heavy metal or radioactive material is responsible for my illnesses? Is DOL intending to play God? Because only God can pinpoint which material of the hell's brew I was exposed to is the cause of my illnesses."

"One section states that the contractor shall identify the level of exposure that would cause the occupational disease. Baloney," says Paula Graham, a claimant at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. "Levels don't matter. It's similar to allergies - one person can walk through a poison ivy patch and never get a rash, while another needs only to be 10 feet away and have a severe reaction.”

ANWAG has been unsuccessful in teleconferencing with DOL to exchange ideas on how to best implement Part E. But we continue to be hopeful that we, as the primary stakeholders, will be included in the decision making to make this program successful.

* * *