Two former Hanford Site employees who said they have been diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy and other illnesses asked Washington state senators on Wednesday to revise the state’s workers’ compensation law to help sick workers from the Department of Energy facility.
The state House of Representatives has already approved legislation that would lift the requirement that individuals provide proof that an illness was caused by a workplace exposure at Hanford before receiving workers’ compensation. The state Senate Commerce, Labor, and Sports Committee convened its first hearing on the matter Wednesday, but has not scheduled a vote on the bill.
Lawrence Rouse’s words were halting and clipped as he struggled to list his diagnoses, which his wife said they believe were caused by chemical exposures during his 20 years at Hanford. “He doesn’t speak well. I pretty much speak for him all the time now,” said his wife, Melinda. Another spouse, Bertolla Bugarin, said her husband, Abe Garza, also has been diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy and has memory issues. Garza was an instrument technician who worked at Hanford for more than three decades; his wife blames his neurological and respiratory problems on exposure to chemical vapors in the Hanford radioactive waste storage tank farms, most recently during August 2015. “I am really angry no one is listening to us,” she said.
Industry representatives cautioned that senators were only hearing one side of the story. Workers and union officials have said too many workers’ compensation claims are being denied at Hanford, particularly for chemical vapor exposures. The watchdog organization Hanford Challenge says the state denies Hanford worker claims at five times the rate of claims by workers for other self-insured organizations.
But Natalee Fillinger, an attorney speaking for the Washington Self-Insurers Association, said, “Before you make sweeping law changes, go find the actual internal reports that have been thoroughly reviewed and (that) Investigated issues.” The proposed law is “broad, vague, and will be extraordinarily expensive,” she said.
An Association of Washington Business representative at the Senate committee hearing repeated concerns he raised at a House committee hearing. The presumption that an illness is caused by Hanford exposure would kick in after a single eight-hour shift anywhere on the Hanford Site, even if the worker was miles away from any known toxins. Workers currently must have medical evidence showing a connection between the health condition and the workplace exposure, according to Bob Battles, the association’s director of government affairs.
Under the proposed change, the Department of Labor and Industries would presume that a neurological or respiratory illness, beryllium disease, and a wide range of cancers were caused by workplace exposure at Hanford. In addition, any heart problem that occurs within three days of an exposure to toxins at the former plutonium production site would be presumed to be covered by workers’ compensation. Active and former workers could bring claims. The bill would allow the state agency to consider evidence of lifestyle factors, such as tobacco use, when deciding a claim.
The Department of Energy did not provide testimony at the Wednesday hearing and had no comment after the hearing.
