Plaintiffs and defendants have agreed to mediation in an attempt to settle the lawsuit over worker protection from tank waste vapors at the Hanford Site in Washington state.
They filed a joint motion in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington asking the judge to extend the schedule in the case to allow time for mediation. The proposed new schedule would delay the nonjury trial, if the lawsuit continues, from Oct. 30, 2017, to March 5, 2018. The parties have asked District Judge Thomas Rice for a ruling on the requested new schedule by Feb. 1 because the plaintiffs’ expert disclosures now are due in February.
Washington state, the nongovernmental watchdog Hanford Challenge, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 598 sued the Department of Energy and its tank farm contractor, Washington River Protection Solutions, in September 2015 seeking increased measures to safeguard workers from chemical vapors associated with radioactive waste stored at Hanford.
After Rice agreed in early December to extend deadlines in the case for several weeks, the plaintiffs and defendants engaged in preliminary settlement discussions. They recently agreed to pursue mediation, according to court documents. The requested extension of the trial date to 2018 and other deadline extensions would allow the parties to agree to a mediator and start the process to settle the case outside of the courtroom, the documents said. “The parties may jointly request further deadline extensions, or a stay of litigation, if they agree that continued efforts at mediation or other settlement negotiations would be productive,” says a joint filing by the plaintiffs and defendants.
The same week the parties requested a trial delay, Hanford workers reported the first two potential chemical vapor incidents of the new year.
On Wednesday, nine employees reported odors near worker trailers outside the AP Tank Farm, and were told to leave the area, according to Washington River Protection Solutions. Workers are required to use supplied air respirators within the tank farms, but were meeting for a pre-job briefing at the trailers about 200 yards east of the AP Tank Farm fence line when the odors were detected. Workers likened the odors to rotten eggs, sulfur, or onions.
On Thursday, three employees were performing calibrations on a ventilation continuous air monitor system outside the AZ Tank Farm. They opened the sample system cabinet and reported a smell variously described as burning electrical, musty, or ammonia.
All 12 workers declined medical evaluations. None had symptoms consistent with chemical vapor exposure, such as coughing or a metallic taste in their mouths. Industrial hygiene technicians collected air samples after the odors were reported. After analyses of the samples found no chemicals above background levels, workers were allowed to return to the area.
In 2016, more than 60 workers received medical evaluations for possible exposure to chemical vapors after smelling suspicious odors, experiencing symptoms, or being in areas where other workers reported symptoms or odors. They all were released by the Hanford occupational medical provider to return to work. Workers are concerned that exposure to chemical vapors could lead to serious neurological or respiratory illnesses. DOE has spent $50 million in the past two years to improve vapors protection at Hanford.
The state lawsuit requests that the court order new measures to protect workers, which could include provisions for independent oversight, engineering controls, administration controls, and personal protection equipment. Hanford Challenge and Local 598 are more specific in their case, which has been merged with the state’s, adding additional requests for independent expert oversight of the industrial hygiene program to include employee training, sampling and monitoring protocols, quality control, worker protection policies, and personal protective equipment. They also want complete information about exposure incidents released to the public and a mandatory comprehensive medical monitoring program for past and present workers.
The plaintiffs also had sought a preliminary injunction to increase vapor protections for workers until the case is decided. Rice ruled against the preliminary injunction in November, finding that the requirement for supplied air respirators to enter any tank farm was adequate to protect workers. But the judge cautioned that his preliminary injunction determination should not be read as a finding that Hanford workers have not been harmed by chemical vapors in the past. “Defendants arguments debunking and minimizing Hanford employees’ health-related claims are unpersuasive and belied by the record,” the judge said in his ruling.
State Legislation
In other chemical vapor news, six lawmakers on Thursday submitted to the Washington state Legislature legislation to make it easier for Hanford workers to receive workers’ compensation.
The bill would make DOE liable for compensation and prohibit any state payments. It would provide protection similar to what the state has offered to firefighters since 1987, requiring that certain illnesses be presumed to be caused by workplace exposures. Hanford workers exposed to chemical vapors have found it difficult to prove that the exposure caused their illnesses, leading to denial of their claims, said Nick Bumpaous, vice president of Central Washington Building Trades. Chemical data is not available, he said.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reported similar worker concerns about Hanford’s workers’ compensation program when it released the results of its review of tank vapor issues in November. “Workers feel the system is onerous, with an extensive burden on the worker to demonstrate work-relatedness of health conditions and are frustrated when work-relatedness is disputed by the insurer because of insufficient proof of exposure or because a particular health effect cannot be sufficiently attributed to work,” NIOSH said.
The legislation would require the compensation program to presume that respiratory illnesses, neurological illnesses, and a wide range of cancers are caused by chemical exposure at Hanford if a worker has spent at least one eight-hour shift on the Hanford Site. Any heart problems experienced within 72 hours of exposure also would be presumed to be caused by a workplace exposure. Unlike protections offered to firefighters, the bill for Hanford workers would not require examination of other causes for the illness, including smoking, hereditary factors, or lifestyle. Bumpaous said Hanford workers are far more likely to experience serious illnesses such as thyroid cancer or chemical-induced dementia due to exposure to chemical vapors than from lifestyle factors.
Rep. Larry Haler, a Republican state lawmaker who represents the Hanford area, said modifications to the bill are likely if it is granted a hearing and advances in the Legislature. The other five sponsors are Democrats. Haler, who worked at Hanford for 40 years, said he wants to ensure workers are safe at Hanford and are taken care of following any injuries. “My entire concern is supporting worker safety,” he said.
