WASHINGTON — In a statement before the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Advisory Board, Sen. Chuck Grassley today said that it’s time NIOSH admit that they can’t reconstruct dosages with sufficient accuracy, and they should provide compensation on the presumption that the hazardous work performed by the former IAAP workers caused their cancer.
"Four and one-half years have passed since enactment of this compensation program. I’m certain those in Washington could study and evaluate and deliberate on this issue for another four and one-half years. All while deserving workers pass away. It is time to make a decision," Grassley said.
Grassley made the remarks before an advisory board meeting in Cedar Rapids today that is reconsidering the Special Exposure Cohort petition by former workers at IAAP. The board already approved once the class of workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant from 1947 to 1974 be added to the Special Exposure Cohort. But, before the Board transmitted their recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, new data was released by NIOSH.
Here is a copy of Grassley’s prepared statement before the advisory board.
I’d like to extend my appreciation to Chairman Ziemer and the members of the Advisory Board for allowing me to speak today. I also thank Dr. John Howard, Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Dr. Lew Wade for providing me this opportunity in the agenda.
Most importantly, I’d like to thank my friends and fellow Iowans, the former workers of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant for their service to our nation.
It’s because of you that we are here. Hard-working employees who went to work day in and day out. Workers who did what they were told without questioning what they were handling or exposed to. Without questioning what effect it would have on them and their families. You did this work because you were asked, and you did it because we were at war. And in many cases, these workers made the ultimate sacrifice as a result.
In April, 2000, the Secretary of Energy announced that the Administration intended to seek compensation for individuals with work-related illnesses in our nation’s nuclear weapons complex. In October of that year, Congress passed a compensation program to provide fairness and equity to the men and women who produced and tested those weapons.
Today, claimants are being asked to trust compensation decisions by the same government that placed them in harm’s way. The same government that failed to protect them or fully inform them of the dangerous nature of their work.
So, have the former workers of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant been treated fairly or equitable by this compensation program? The answer is clear. No, you have not. Congress surely did not intend for 4 ½ years to pass without a decision on compensation for many former IAAP workers.
Then, when it appeared action was finally going to be taken in St. Louis on February 9, this process was upended. This board voted to approve a petition on behalf of the workers for inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort. It’s my understanding that this decision was made on both the need for transparency and the limited amount of data.
Just one week after that vote, NIOSH learned that additional information had cleared a classification review, and a month later the board was told they must reconsider that past decision. After 4 ½ years spent deliberating on this program, it is incomprehensible to me how this matter could have been put before the board for a decision, and then be told the basis for that decision was made on incomplete information.
Without a doubt, this action has caused irreparable harm to the credibility of this program. It has caused many of the former IAAP workers to lose confidence in the program and agency officials.
And matters are not improving.
My office was verbally advised at 5 o’clock on this past Friday that there is a legal opinion being developed – which I have not seen – that could have a significant impact on the future of the IAAP petition. This opinion, from the Department of Justice, effectively prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from designating a cohort based on the lack of transparency.
It’s my understanding that the Justice Department believes that although the data is classified and unavailable to the claimants, dose reconstructions can still be done. And therefore, a Special Exposure Cohort can not be established. This interpretation raises serious questions about a claimants right to due process.
It’s this type of underhanded tactic that leads me to believe that there is an effort by some in Washington to confound and discredit the process that we are engaged in today. I sincerely hope that it isn’t an outright effort to prevent deserving workers from receiving compensation. Regardless, I intend to get to the bottom of it.
I will also fully examine the legal basis for this interpretation. I believe as strongly today as I did in early February that the lack of transparency undermines the validity and credibility of the dose reconstruction process.
In addition, I intend to fully examine what brought about this review by the Department of Justice. I plan to follow the paper trail wherever it may lead – including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and even the President’s Office of Management and Budget.
Most importantly, I will seek to uncover the individuals that initiated this review, and their motives. I strongly believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I plan to do some deep cleaning.
Now, I’d like to review some of the key elements of the revised site profile presented by NIOSH. I know there are many others here who are more qualified and can more precisely speak to the weaknesses in the science. But it appears clear to me that these weaknesses make it nearly impossible to come up with reasonable dose estimates with any certainty.
First, there is very little monitoring data available for the IAAP. In fact, there is no internal radiation dose records for the entire time period of 1949-1974. Only a tiny fraction of the workers exposed to radiation were monitored at all prior to 1968. According to the auditor, only 3% to 7% of the workers were monitored for external radiation.
Such a limited amount of monitoring data is available that NIOSH must rely on data from the Pantex plant in Texas. Strong arguments can be made that NIOSH is in no way comparing apples to apples.
It’s also unclear what percentage of records from IAAP have been found and reviewed by NIOSH. Is it 5%? 50%? It’s difficult to have confidence in the assumptions made by NIOSH not knowing what fraction of the records that were shipped from Iowa to Texas in 1974 have been found and reviewed.
There are also questions concerning some assumptions in the site profile, and the possibility of inequities between workers employed prior to 1963 with those after 1963. Dose estimates using the NIOSH site profile could result in a significant reduction in exposure to radiation, and the likelihood for compensation, for the later time period. It’s my understanding that the risks did not decrease from 1962 to 1963.
If this is the case, it doesn’t appear to be uniform or fair.
Given the limited monitoring data and the serious questions about the accuracy and completeness of the data, it seems that NIOSH would have a number of problems attempting to perform individual dose reconstructions.
It is this precise situation that Congress envisioned when the law was created. That doesn’t happen very often. But in this case, Congress knew that situations would arise where there was insufficient information to estimate radiation dose with sufficient accuracy. For this, the law provides for inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort.
I understand there are scientists within our federal government who believe very strongly that there’s not a single dose that they cannot reconstruct. Could this possibly be realistic considering there are hundreds of facilities around the country just like the IAAP? Is it really likely that sufficient data exists for every single claimant? It doesn’t seem possible.
Yet, of the nearly 8,000 claims NIOSH has reviewed, they have not found a single one that couldn’t be done, except for those at the Mallinckrodt facility in Missouri. And NIOSH just made that admission in February.
So, what leads these health physicist’s at NIOSH to believe in what they are doing with such certainty? Is it pride? Is it arrogance? Perhaps they just can’t admit that something cannot be done? Or, is it driven by private contractors who rely on this process for their work?
Regardless of the reason, I’d ask those scientists to think long and hard about what they’re proposing for my constituents.
My final point cannot be stressed enough. Congress intended and envisioned "timely, uniform, and adequate compensation" for those deserving workers. I think it’s been demonstrated that this process over the past five years has been anything but timely. The events during the past several weeks and now the 11th hour legal opinion raise serious doubts concerning the fairness of this process.
Does the science provided by NIOSH lead one to believe that they can estimate the radiation doses of workers at IAAP with sufficient accuracy? I think the independent audit contractor raised significant questions and concerns regarding the representativeness of the data. I believe the testimonials by former workers raise serious doubts about the science.
The fact is, it’s like stacking hay bales in a barn. When you put layer on top of layer, it’s critical that the bottommost layers are stable. You can have the neatest row on top, but if the bottom is faulty, the whole pile will be shaky and eventually fall down.
I’m afraid that’s what we have here. The NIOSH site profile doesn’t rely on just one theoretical assumption. It’s effectively assumption on top of assumption, with very little grounding in real data. Unfortunately, assumptions don’t stack very well.
In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with a few thoughts to consider. Will the path outlined by NIOSH provide deserving workers with compensation? Are you confident that the scant data, certain classified information and seemingly far-fetched theoretical models lead to fair and adequate compensation?
Most importantly, can you guarantee that by using this data, that not a single worker deserving compensation will be denied? These are the questions you must address.
Congress did not intend to create a program plagued with delays and hurdles. 4 ½ years have passed since enactment of this compensation program. I’m certain those in Washington could study and evaluate and deliberate on this issue for another 4 ½ years. All while deserving workers pass away. It is time to make a decision. I encourage you to make that decision here this week.
-30-