A Washington state House of Representatives committee heard testimony from ill Hanford Site workers and their families on Thursday that even critics of a proposed workers’ compensation bill called compelling. But those opponents told the House Labor and Workplace Standards Committee that while they were sympathetic to the suffering of the workers who testified, House Bill 1723 is far too broad. It proposes compensation for any worker who spends a single eight-hour shift on the Hanford Site if they develop any of a broad range of diseases. Covered illnesses include neurological and respiratory diseases and many cancers.
The legislation would override standard workers’ compensation tenets by not requiring causation between exposure and disease, according to opponents. The bill does not require any consideration of where a person worked on the Department of Energy cleanup site and what tasks they performed, said Bob Battles, government affairs director for the Association of Washington Business. Presumption that an illness was caused by workplace exposure to toxic materials must be based on medical evidence, he said, calling for better vetting of the bill.
House Bill 1723 is “breathtaking in its scope,” testified Kris Tefft, executive director of the Washington Self-Insurers Association. “It would cover any person who has spent eight hours on a site that, as you heard, is half the size of Rhode Island,” Tefft said. “That eight hours entitles one to a presumption of coverage for life.”
Ill workers said their claims for workers’ compensation are routinely denied. The Department of Energy does not fully understand what toxins workers may have been exposed to at Hanford, so workers cannot be expected to meet the state requirement that they provide proof that their illness is linked to the site, they said. DOE is self-insured, paying claims found valid, with final rulings made by the Washington state Department of Labor and Industries. “Hanford workers who contest denied claims are met with very aggressive legal tactics with lawyers hired by the DOE,” Tom Carpenter, executive director of the watchdog group Hanford Challenge, told the committee. “It creates an uneven playing field.”
Hanford is the most contaminated work site in the country, Carpenter said, with toxins that include asbestos, mercury, and beryllium. But the state denies Hanford worker compensation claims at a rate five times higher than claims for workers at other self-insured sites in Washington state, he said. “Instead of getting the care and treatment they deserve, many have to battle their way through a worker compensation system that consistently fails them,” he said. Workers are repeatedly told their injury or illness was pre-existing and not work related, he said.
Seth Ellingsworth said he worked at the Hanford tank farms for seven years, routinely breathing in chemical vapors that smelled like onions. He was not concerned until a bad reaction in 2015 that left him with breathing problems within hours, he said. “It felt like someone was standing on my chest all the time,” he testified. He became too ill to work or enjoy activities with his family, staying home while his children participated in school activities or went on vacations, he said. Ellingsworth said he has been diagnosed with severe asthma, heavy metals in his blood, and some cognitive dysfunction while still in his 30s.
Abe Garza’s wife, Bertolla Bugarin, said he was healthy when he started his 34-year career with Hanford. She believes symptoms he developed are consistent with mercury exposure: He had nosebleeds, started losing his teeth in his early 30s, and in the last seven years has been hospitalized four times with breathing issues. Garza has been diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy and has nerve damage in his hands and feet, Bugarin told the committee. Garza has not been able to work since 2015, but the state has denied his worker compensation claims, she said.
A systemic pattern of claim denials has destroyed the health of hundreds of Hanford workers and the lives of their families, said Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO. “It is hard not to conclude that at play here is a casual indifference to the lives of these workers and a clear violation of the central tenet of our workers’ compensation law, which is to provide sure and certain relief to injured workers.”
The House committee is next scheduled to consider the bill in executive session on Feb. 14.
