ARCHIVE
The Government's Spending
Statistics:
(03-06)
Very conservative EEOICP Administrative costs:
~ $590 million plus
(equation: 494 pers. x $25 hr.
x 5 yrs.)
Sick workers paid:
12,012 of 600,500 ($1.4
billion)
(08-14-06)
Sick workers paid:
13,670 of 600,500 ($1.63
billion)
RECA claimants paid:
~ 15,108 ($1 billion)
USDOE mis-appropriated:
~ $95 to $111 million
ORAU (USDOE contractor):
~ $200 million
George Bush: EEOICP non-compliance issues; President's Advisory Board
& conflicts of interest; questionable performance; funding concerns; et.al.
EEOICP sick worker claims . . . Bethlehem Steel . . . overall, USDOL has
denied 72% of the claims filed in the Nation
3. Hanford, WA — USDOL employees claim to be compensating 73.4 Hanford
claimants per month.
For comparison: A chart as of July 28, 2005 (Amount* in millions of dollars)
Site CasesAmount*Approved Denied Under
Nevada Test Site 3,329 $ 21.26 m 193 (6%) 895 1,167
Hanford, WA 5,230 $ 36.85 m 401 (7%) 1,322 2,249
Savannah River, SC 7,554` $ 69.44 m 582 (8%) 2,186 2,376
Paducah, KN 8,416 $211.60 m 1,501 (18%) 2,221 1,122
Portsmouth, OH 4,204 $146.21 m 1,046 (25%) 876 672
Oak Ridge, TN** 7,429 $262.98 m 1,965 (26%) 1,283 1,274
4. [May and June 2006]
Sick DOE Workers Exploited by Contractors . . . Project on Government Oversight
. . .URL internet location:
July 4, 2006 -- USDOE "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program"
(EEOICP) said to have wasted millions on contractors. See report
6. Government Accountability Office (GAO) May 31, 2006, Report
(GAO-06-547) on: "Deficient Controls Led to Millions of Dollars in
Improper and Questionable Payments to Contractors"
Judiciary (09-21-2000). D Guttman was the 1994-95 Executive Director of the
Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE).
Topic: “Nuclear Worker(s) Compensation.”
EXCERPTS:
a. From the 1942-43 dawn of the Manhattan Project, the government, its
contractors, and biomedical researchers were well aware that radiation posed
potential risk to weapons workers, and that such risk had to be understood and
monitored;
b. At its 1947 creation, the Atomic Energy Commission and its contractors
engaged in a long hidden policy and practice of hiding risks from affected
citizens to avoid liability and embarrassment -- even where national security
itself did not require secrecy. The Committee recommended, and the
Administration accepted, that where such coverup occurred, research subjects
(or survivors) be compensated even in the absence of physical injury.
c. The Advisory Committee found that the hidden policy and practice of keeping
secrets to avoid embarrassment and liability applied to workers, and their
communities, as well as to experimental subjects. Ongoing disclosures show
that the policy and practice was not effectively countermanded, and continued
well past mid-century.
d. The Advisory Committee found that government and its contractors were well
aware that radiation risks might be latent for years, with injury occurring long
after exposure. However, they failed to provide for monitoring and
recordkeeping sufficient to assure that risk would be minimized and that its
dimensions could be known at years remove. This finding, recent disclosures
show, applies to weapons workers as well.
U.S. Military in DU denial. Featuring sick veteran John Marshall's
testimony.
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program: Adjudication of
Radiation-related Cancer Claims Utilizing Dose Reconstruction and
Probrability of Causation Procedures" . . . Geneva, Switzerland August 26 -
30, 2002
Key EXCERPTS:
"The HHS regulation on dose reconstruction uses methods similar to those
applied to the DTRA (U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency). These
methods are based on standard approaches of this research field but achieve
efficiency by substituting scientific, reasonable, and fair assumptions in the
place of extensive data collection. The trade-off of reduced precision
of dose estimates for increased processing efficiency is essential for an
effective compensation program, since claimaints cannot await the months to
years of data collection that a dose reconstruction might otherwise require, if
conducted for the purpose of research."
"Of final note on the content of the HHS rules, both include provisions
that allow NIOSH to update scientific elements of the guidelines
and methods without the promulgation of revised rules."
"We expect at some point in these regulations may face legal
challenges, based on procedural and substantive grounds. Legal
challenges are unlikely to occur before DOL renders final decisions denying
cancer claims for which dose reconstructions were conducted."
INDEX:
1. EXHIBIT 60: 06-09-05 Letter from US House Chair to US President George Bush
2. 06-19-06: CBS News...Heroes of the Cold War Out in the Cold
3. Hanford, WA — USDOL employees claim to be compensating 73.4 Hanford
claimants per month. A Natl. nuclear facility compensation comparison chart as
of July 28, 2005
4. [May and June 2006] Sick DOE Workers Exploited by Contractors - POGO
5. USDOE said to have wasted millions on contractors. See report #GAO-06-547
6. (GAO-06-547) -- "Deficient Controls Led to Millions of Dollars in Improper &
Questionable Payments to Contractors"
7. Excerpts: Before the US House Judiciary committee -- D. Guttman testimony
(1994-95) Executive Director of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Human
Radiation Experiments (ACHRE). Topic: "Nuclear Worker(s) Compensation.”
8. U.S. Military in DU denial. Featuring sick veteran John Marshall's testimony
9. International Conference on U.S. "Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program: Adjudication of Radiation-related Cancer Claims
Utilizing Dose Reconstruction and Probrability of Causation Procedures" . . .
Geneva, Switzerland August 26 - 30, 2002 . . . and Key Excerpts
