WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley today demanded answers from the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health about declassified information that was recently made available for NIOSH to make a revised site profile. Grassley is concerned that this could have an effect on the Special Exposure Cohort petition filed by former employees at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.
Grassley also asked NIOSH to schedule a meeting of the Advisory Board in Iowa as soon as possible to facilitate an open and constructive discussion on this matter.
Here is a copy of Grassley’s letter to Director Howard.
March 17, 2005
Dr. John Howard, M.D.
Director, NIOSH
Hubert H. Humphrey Bldg.
200 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20201
Dear Director Howard,
I’m writing with regard to the revised site profile for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Burlington, Iowa, released by NIOSH on March 14, 2005.
In a March 14, 2005 letter to my constituent petitioners, OCAS Director Larry Elliot states that "the revised site profile describes methods for estimating external doses incurred after 1962 that do not rely on the use of classified data, assumptions, or methods." The letter goes on to state that the methods for estimating doses prior to 1963 continue to rely on methodology and assumptions that remain classified. This implies that the Advisory Board’s recommendations with respect to the lack of transparency, which was based on the SEC Evaluation Report signed by Larry Elliott, may have been misplaced.
This is a remarkable turnabout from the SEC Evaluation Report that was noticed on February 3, 2005. It stated:
"[s]ome of the technical bases (i.e., source term information, process information,
and photon and neutron dose calculations) for sufficiently accurate dose reconstructions
for this petitioned class depend on the use of classified information that is not available to the public for reasons of protecting national security.
As discussed under Section 7.3 of this report, NIOSH has determined this limitation on the transparency of the NIOSH dose reconstruction program, imposed through the use of classified information, may be unacceptable for the purposes of conducting dose reconstructions under EEOICPA. For this reason, NIOSH finds that it is not feasible to estimate doses with sufficient transparency for employees working on Line 1 AEC operations at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Burlington, Iowa during the years of 1949-1974."
As noted above, the SEC Evaluation Report says the entire time period between 1949-1974 involved classified information, not merely 1949-1962.
Outlined below are a series of questions for which I am requesting information and documentation:
1) What changed regarding classification of information between 1962-1975 from the issuance of the SEC Evaluation Report and the release of the revised site profile 5 weeks later?
2) Was any data after 1962 declassified in that 5 week period? If so, please provide a list of documents declassified since the revised site profile was submitted to DOE for classification review on January 21, 2005.
3) If so, will NIOSH be submitting a revised SEC Evaluation Report, and what will NIOSH do to assure that this revised Report is any more credible or reliable than the last SEC Evaluation Report?
4) Please provide all documentation that will justify Mr. Elliot’s statement in the SEC Evaluation Report that the entire time period between 1949 and 1974 involves classified information needed for dose reconstruction.
5) Please provide all documentation that changes his conclusion and establishes a 1962 cut-off date.
6) I understand that a draft version of the revised site profile was provided to the Department of Energy for their review on January 20, 2005. Please provide a copy of the version provided to DOE on January 20, a copy of any changes or additions made to the site profile by DOE, and the date on which DOE completed their review. Also, please provide the date on which the draft was provided to the OCAS Associate Director of Science, and a redlined copy of any changes made by the Associate Director.
7) Please provide a copy of the transcript of the St. Louis Board meeting dealing with IAAP.
I wish to express my frustration concerning the manner in which this additional information has been presented to the petitioners, the Advisory Board Members, and me. As you know, five weeks have passed since the Advisory Board considered the NIOSH Petition Evaluation Report in St. Louis. At that meeting, the Board took action and voted 7-0 (with one abstention) in favor of approval of a Special Exposure Cohort for workers at the IAAP during 1949 to 1974. If NIOSH believed in January that the methodology for estimating doses after 1962 did not rely on classified data, this information should have been made known to the petitioners and the Advisory Board Members at that time.
And yet, after five weeks, the Board has still not transmitted it’s decision to Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt for his consideration. Was the Advisory Board informed by NIOSH of the development of this revised site profile, and subsequently the cause of the Board’s delay in transmitting their recommendation to Secretary Leavitt?
I hope you can provide claimants with information explaining why the Board’s recommendation has not been transmitted and when NIOSH decided not to transmit this decision. I note that the Mallinckrodt SEC recommendation has been transmitted to Secretary Leavitt.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to schedule a meeting of the Advisory Board in Iowa as soon as possible to facilitate an open and constructive discussion on this matter.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please provide a response to my office by March 24, 2005. Please feel free to contact me or Kurt Kovarik on my staff at 202/224-3744 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
United States Senate
cc: Secretary Leavitt
Dr. Ziemer, Advisory Board Chairman