While most workers surveyed at the Department of Energy Portsmouth Site believe management is looking out for their safety most of the time, many lack confidence in radiation measurements and worry about chemical hazards at the former gaseous diffusion plant.
Those are a couple of takeaways from a report done for the United Steelworkers Union and its Local 1-689, which represents about 1,000 members at the nuclear cleanup site. The study was also funded through the union.
An “Investigation of Awareness and Knowledge of Workplace Hazards at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,” is a 53-page document completed in August and viewed this week by Exchange Monitor. The report, drafted by a University of Michigan graduate student and an Oberlin College undergrad, is based on a written survey of 312 Portsmouth workers, and 14 in-person interviews, along with public records on the site.
Two-thirds or 206 of the people who took the survey answered every question on it, the local union president and the CEO of the prime contractor in charge of cleanup told ExchangeMonitor in a joint telephone interview Thursday.
The report will hopefully assist the union in documenting justification of benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act for workers whose Portsmouth employment dates to the 1990s, said Local 1-689 President Herman Potter.
Many surveyed said there are gaps in the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act database and believe eligibility should be expanded for that program’s special exposure cohort status.
The compensation program is designed to assist workers, or surviving spouses, who suffered radiogenic cancers, chronic beryllium disease and a variety of other serious illnesses linked to roughly 300 DOE workplaces. The Steelworkers union is trying to help employees build the case for compensation even if they cannot show 250 days of service in the most hazardous areas prior to 1992, Potter said.
The 250-day benchmark is a key measuring stick for those trying to establish a work-related illness prior to 1992, when measurement of radiological and chemical exposure was less advanced, Potter said.
“While most workers had experienced a radiological or chemical exposure incident, most responded that these were rarely or never reported or documented,” according to the document. “Survey data tells us that most workers frequently wore radiation dosimetry badges, but write-in comments and interview transcripts reveal that there is worker skepticism about the efficacy of radioactive exposures being detected and whether these are being correctly documented.”
Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth President and CEO Greg Wilkett told Exchange Monitor the contractor appreciates any feedback. “We look at it, we take it seriously.”
The union-sponsored survey included some people who “spent many decades” at Portsmouth, long before the current contractor team took over in 2011, Wilkett said. Some of their views might be colored by past experience, he added. The surveys the company carries out twice per year, typically are taken by 1,000 of the total 2,200-member workforce, salaried and union, at Portsmouth, the company executive said.
Occupational radiation levels recorded at Portsmouth in recent times are far below the standards set by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Wilkett said.
As for the union-sponsored report: “There are some really high levels of positives in here,” Wilkett said. It shows the vast majority of workers surveyed felt comfortable reporting safety problems, he added.
Written copies of the survey were distributed at a couple of union meetings and retiree gatherings, while the electronic version was posted on Local 1-689’s website and on Facebook. It was a “blind” survey so there could be both some retirees along with some salaried people surveyed, Potter said.
The research is part of a larger union effort to see more workers win compensation for health conditions resulting from their work at DOE-contracted nuclear facilities, according to the report.
While overshadowed by the specter of radiation exposure, workers described health concerns from non-radiological exposures including asbestos, beryllium, trichloroethylene, hydrogen fluoride gas, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs and chlorinated compounds, according to the report.
