Grassley described his recent actions as he met today with two dozen Iowans in Washington with the Southeast Iowa Area Chamber of Commerce.
"The previous Secretary of Energy said to these veterans of the Cold War ? who worked in very hazardous conditions while they assembled our nation's nuclear deterrent ? that help was on the way. But any meaningful help remains, at best, a distant hope," Grassley said. "The delays can no longer be tolerated. I plan to keep the heat on the Energy Department until questions about the pending claims are answered and this matter is resolved once and for all."
In addition to sending a letter to the Secretary of Energy that asks questions about the Department's handling of the compensation program for Iowans and others, Grassley requested a formal review of the Energy Department's performance by the General Accounting Office. The GAO is the independent investigative arm of Congress.
"Congress set up a program to make amends to munition plant workers who were exposed to radiation and toxic materials. While money can't change the pain and loss that many families have experienced, this program needs to work for Iowans and others," Grassley said.
Copies of Grassley's letters to the Energy Secretary and the GAO follow here.
March 31, 2003
The Honorable Spencer Abraham
Secretary of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Secretary Abraham:
The purpose of this letter is to gather information from the Department of Energy (DOE/Department) regarding what factors have caused the Department to fail to effectively implement its responsibilities under Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA/Act). Specifically, it is my understanding based upon the Department's website and other sources, that a mere 14 out of 15,000 claims having moved through the DOE Physicians' Panels in the 8 months since DOE issued its Final Rule in August 2002. Indeed, it appears that nearly half of the 15,000 claims filed since July 2001 remain in limbo. This delay is unconscionable.
There are two facilities in Iowa that are covered under Subtitle D of the EEOICPA. To date, about 530 claims have been filed by former employees of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP). These individuals may have been made ill from exposure to toxic substances while employed at the IAAP. To the best of my knowledge, none of these claims have been reviewed by a DOE Physicians' Panel and none have been paid. Furthermore, I understand that the DOE lacks a "willing payor" at the IAAP for claims deemed valid by the Physicians' Panel.
The federal government announced to DOE's "veterans of the cold war" who had worked in ultra hazardous facilities assembling the nation's nuclear deterrent at the IAAP that help was on the way. Workers believed these representations. But, despite the Department's efforts to date, the prospect of meaningful help is at best a distant hope.
In sum, Mr. Secretary, the residents of Iowa are getting restless, I am restless, and the neglect that these workers continue to suffer at the hands of DOE will not be tolerated.
In light of this unacceptable situation, my keen interest in determining the root cause of the problem, and my commitment to fix the situation before any more people die; set forth below are a series of questions for the Department. In responding, please repeat the question, and set forth a clear and detailed response. In the event exhibits are needed to further respond to a question, please ensure that each exhibit is clearly identified and cross-referenced to the applicable question.
1) (a)How many claims have been received by DOE as of March 25, 2003? (b)What is the breakdown by DOE site, of claims filed as of March 25, 2003?
2) (a)How many claims have been approved by the Department's Physician Panels? (b)For each claim approved, please provide me with the status of payment. (c)As of March 25, 2003 how many claimants have actually received payment? (d)In the event payments have not been made to individuals approved by the Physician's Panel, please describe the obstacles preventing payment for each case?
3) Please provide to me a copy of the DOE's procedures manual that has been used to process claims under the Act.
4) Has the DOL provided a detailee to the DOE to review its procedures manual? Please provide me with a copy of any review or analysis of DOE's procedures manual and program.
5) (a)What is the budget for the Office of Worker Advocacy for FY 2003? (b)Please identify how many federal employees and contractor employees are working on the program. (c)Please provide a list of job titles, the number of individuals in each job category, and the organizational chart for both contractors and federal employees working in this program..
6) Please estimate how many years will it take to eliminate the existing backlog of 15,000 claims and include a copy of the DOE plan to reduce the backlog of claims.
7) How many calendar days will it take for the average new claim filed today to be processed, decided by a Physician Panel, and if valid, payment made?
8) (a)Have claimants received communications from the DOE acknowledging receipt of their claims? (b)How long, on average, do claimants wait to receive an acknowledgment? Please provide a copy of this communication.
9) Willing Payors: Please provide a list of all sites and contractors where DOE has identified a "willing payor" including the name of the payor and the specific arrangements made to assure payment of valid claims.
10) Please provide a list of all sites, contractors and categories of workers where DOE lacks a "willing payor" or where uncertainty exists whether or not there is a "willing payor."
11) Please advise me whether or not there is a "willing payor" in the State of Iowa?
12) In the event IAAP lacks a "willing payor" please describe the options available to claimants for compensation in Iowa.
14) How will DOE satisfy claims where there is no "willing payor?"
15) It is also my understanding that the Department provided a contract to Science Engineering Association (SEA) who is assisting, either directly or indirectly, with the processing of EEOICPA claims. (a)Please describe SEA's qualification for processing worker compensation claims? (b)In addition, I would appreciate detailed information outlining their past performance, expertise in the area of compensation claims and a brief history of the award process by which they were awarded the DOE contract. (c)I would also appreciate a copy of the SEA contract, including all amendments, modifications and applicable Requests for Proposals.
We look forward to receiving your response and all necessary attachments no later than April 22, 2003. Should you have any questions on this request please contact John Drake or Ed Wallace of my staff at 202-224-4515.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley, of Iowa
United States Senator
***
March 28, 2003
The Honorable David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
441 G Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20548
Dear Mr. Walker
The purpose of this letter is to request that the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a review of the Energy Department's (DOE/Department) management of the claims and petitions filed under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000 (43 U.S.C. 7384-7385). In addition, I would appreciate your conducting a status review of pending claims, the issue of "willing payer(s)" and its impact upon current and future claimants, and the effectiveness of any contractors engaged by the Department to assist in its implementation of the EEOICPA.
EEOICPA was established as a compensation program to provide lump sum payments and prospective medical benefits as compensation to covered employees suffering from designated illnesses incurred as a result of their exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica while in the performance of duty for DOE and certain of its vendors, contractors, and subcontractors. In my own State of Iowa, thousands of people who worked at the plant in Burlington were exposed to radioactivity, without proper safety procedures. Many are dying, and many more are ill, with little time left to ensure their loved ones will be cared for and compensated as intended by the EEOICPA.
The DOE is responsible for, among other things: reviewing and processing toxic substance claims, compiling records about patients, and forwarding the information to a physical panel. The physician panel thereafter reviews the claim to determine if the claimant's cancer can be shown to be caused by work at the facility. If the panel agrees, the claim can move forward for payment.
Based upon information available on DOE's website dated March 25, 2003, more than 15,000 claims have been filed with the Department over the last two year period. Of those 15,000 claims, the physician's panel has processed only 14 - less than 1 percent. Moreover, I understand that to date, none of the 14 claimants have received any payment on their respective claim(s). This is unconscionable.
I has also come to my attention that in some instances there is no willing payer available to compensate a claimant. If this is indeed the case, it begs the question: why, are these individuals filing claims that may never be acted upon by the executive branch?
As Chairman of the Committee on Finance, and as a Senator representing Iowans who were exposed to substances that are likely to cause their early death, I want to ensure that the EEOICPA, is operating in an effective, efficient, and economical manner.
Let me also take a moment to emphasize, that time is truly of the essence. Timely adjudication of cancer claims is a high priority for all affected individuals-they deserve no less.
In closing, thank you in advance for your cooperation, and I look forward to my staff and GAO officials meeting about the details of this management/status review in the near future.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley, of Iowa
United States Senator