TAKING on the GOVERNMENT – in CONCLUSION

In the Introduction to this series of articles, a brief synopsis of EEOICPA Cohort is given along with a description of the controversy surrounding it. In Par I it was explained why former workers believe that note only AEC Division B, but Army-side, Division A employees should have been covered under the EEOICPA Cohort too. A case was made for including Division A in the Cohort that already exists. Division A former workers believe DOL has drawn an arbitrary line in the sand that excludes them when they, in addition to the already eligible Division B workers, should have been covered by the EEOICPA Cohort too.

IN CONCLUSION

DOL (Department of Labor) was provided with evidence that:

we who did not physically work on Line 1, still did work for Line 1, and that former workers were paid to do work for Line 1 by the Atomic Energy Commission (the 1963 ARMY/AEC contract), by way of work orders from AEC, by charging man hours to those work orders, then billing AEC for the work completed, then receiving financial compensation from AEC for that work.

DOL was made aware a SEC Petition 00191 had been filed with NIOSH to expand the EEOICPA Cohort to include additional designated classifications at the Iowa Ordnance Plant in Middletown, Iowa. DOL has allowed the petition to die a natural death without taking any action on it.

SEC 00191

Former IAAP workers were able to gather evidence to make a case for why the class designations at the former Iowa Ordnance Plant should have been expanded. NIOSH has informed me, the petitioner and contact person for the Petition, that DOL has made the decision that the covered area will not be expanded. I provided solid evidence why it should be. I was also made aware that DOL and DOE could have input on that decision. Meanwhile, DOE continues to withhold documents that could strengthen the case about why the designated classifications should be expanded.

Letters were received from Kathryn Norris of Georgia, and the State of Iowa Water Department about water records requested under the Freedom of Information Act that there are additional water records that cannot be handed over without the consent of DOE. So far, DOE has made no decision about releasing them. Meanwhile, DOE is protected by Congressional legislation to withhold those water records if they so choose.

Both DOL and NIOSH were provided with a copy of the 1963 Army/AEC contract that clearly states the IAAP was a ‘joint facility’. That the workforce was a ‘shared’ workforce. That water contamination was plant-wide. That Lake Mathes, the plant water source, was contaminated. That Radionuclides were found in sediment in the bottom of Lake Mathes in 1971. That Radionuclides were found in the soil at FS-12. That DOE began plant clean-up, shipping the contaminated soil in barrels to Pantex in Texas. That ARMY/DOE knew this as early as 1971. That the Army requested the IAAP be added to Burlington Municipal Water in 1971. That there were no water pipes going out to Middletown. That Senator Tom Harkin helped get congressional funds to add IAAP and Middletown to Burlington Municipal Water. That IAAP and Middletown were not added to Burlington Municipal Water until Jan. 1977. Meanwhile the ARMY/AEC continued to use the contaminated water for drinking purposes and for production until Jan. 1977. Exposing the entire work force to whatever was in the water supply. That lab workers at IAAP never tested for anything except bacteria in the water. So there was no possibility anything about contamination would have been in the IAAP records located at Pantex.

In closing, I would like to add I received a letter from Patricia R. Worthington, Ph.D., with the Department of Energy on February 11, 2011. In it she assured me that the Former Workers Program remain a top priority for DOE. If that is the case, then why is this whole process “lassoed and hog-tied” by the very departments that are supposed to make the process navigable.

DOL should not be the department that determines whether a SEC Petition will be reviewed when DOL is the department holding the line on adding designated classes to the EEOICPA Cohort to begin with.

DOE should not be able to say there will be no additional class designations to the EEOICPA Cohort while they withhold documents that could add additional support to the case for why they should be added.

* All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form whatsoever without permission in writing from the author except for the inclusion of brief quotations in an acknowledged review.


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *