These recently released e-mails and memos discuss the compensation program for ill nuclear weapons plant workers. It’s run by the U.S. Department of Labor.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) attempts to reconstructs workers' radiation dosages to decide if workplace contamination caused their cancers.

When exposure records are missing, NIOSH, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and NIOSH's advisory board can approve whole groups of workers for compensation. The groups are called "special exposure cohorts," or SECs.

"I agree with Pete: from what I hear Rocky (Flats) was probably one of, if not THE, dirtiest site. If there’s a justification for an SEC anywhere, common sense suggests that it should be at Rocky."

— Feb. 26, 2004, e-mail from Shelby Hallmark, Department of Labor deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, to his boss, Assistant Secretary Victoria Lipnic; Pete Turcic, chief of the nuclear workers' compensation program; and others. ( Read the full e-mail.)

"Just in case there was any question, it's my strong belief that we should do everything possible to oppose these SEC (special cohort status) amendments.

"It's quite possible that NIOSH may accept petitions creating SEC status for some time periods at both the Iowa plant and Mallinckrodt (near St. Louis), but that process should be allowed to proceed as outlined in the HHS regulations, not be short-circuited — and extensively broadened — by ill-considered legislation which will only inflame other Congressional delegations to join that parade.

"Although it's complicated, we also think the $61 million being discussed as the 10-year cost of the amendments is far too low. But the real issue is, it would be a terrible precedent."

— June 18, 2004, e-mail from Shelby Hallmark, Department of Labor deputy assistant secretary, to his boss, Assistant Secretary Victoria Lipnic and others. ( Full e-mail)

Hallmark talks about how to press the NIOSH advisory board to reject SEC petitions and raises the possibility that officials should "give up and accept SEC everywhere? Any way to cap the costs or narrow the # of undeserving awards? But does it make any sense to continue to defend a dose reconstruction process that will just get more complicated and attenuated? It looks to me like it collapses in a year or so if the Board keeps on its current path."

— Dec. 15, 2004, e-mail from Hallmark to Peter Turcic, chief of the nuclear workers compensation program, and Labor Department attorney Jeffrey Nesvet. ( Full e-mail)

"Board approval of broadly justified SECs for Iowa and/or Mallinckrodt (near St. Louis) will fuel the fire for additional SEC aprovals throughout the complex. The 'data cloud' argument (that workers can’t be given their full histories without disclosing classified data) can be applied with at least as much justice as at Mallinckrodt at virtually every DOE facility and AWE (Atomic Weapons Employer) site.

"The ultimate impact of these two SECs being granted would be to destabilize the entire rationale for the dose reconstruction process. One logical outcome would be a move — gradual or sweeping — to grant SEC status across the board. We estimate a $7 billion 10-year price tag for that eventuality. A second outcome could be the proliferation of SECs in virtually random locations, with the accompanying destruction of any sense of fairness of outcomes for similarly situated claimants across the complex."

— April 14, 2005, memo from Labor Department titled "Assessment of NIOSH/Advisory Board/Special Exposure Cohort Issues." Health and Human Services approved the Iowa special cohort status, but without the precedent-setting language. ( Full memo)

"This bill would really open the floodgates for the SEC" to just about every atomic weapons employer.

— Attorney Nesvet response to an Aug. 2, 2005, e-mail from Hallmark about a bill in Congress proposing special cohort status for certain sites. (a href="http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/news/030807flats1/2.shtml">Full e-mail)

Oct. 5, 2005: "NIOSH dose reconstructions are more freq'y applying assumptions that are systematically and dramatically increasing over-estimations under the premise of 'claimant friendly' assumptions...

"(The contractor hired to audit NIOSH’s assessments of workers' eligibility for compensation) has basically driven NIOSH toward more and more lopsided and extreme exaggerations of dose on the grounds that every decision point must be as 'claimant favorable' as conceivably possible...

"(NIOSH and the advisory board are accepting) more outlandish assertions. This is not a slippery slope, it's the expert downhill chute."

— Oct. 5, 2005, memo from Hallmark to other labor officials. (Full memo)

"If there are any programmatic reforms — leg., admin, reg'y, you name it — that we could potentially tee up for our policy officials, we're all ears. At this pt., nothing should be ruled out. These would be (Office of Management and Budget)ideas, not DOL ideas."

— Oct. 5, 2005, response by Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Wilson to previous memo earlier that day.

"(Special cohort status requests) have the potential to vastly increase the cost of the prog and decrease its sci validity...

"(HHS) appears to be leading to an all-encompassing expansion of the SEC resulting in costs approaching $7 billion... DOL has attempted to raise this issue and a # of others also threatening to result in an excessive, unjustified and inequitable increase in claims accepted under EE... w/little success. At this pt, it is clear that only intervention by the OMB is likely to stem this trend."

— Oct. 6, 2005, redraft by attorney Nesvet of a memo by Hallmark. ( Full memo)

"(Labor Department officials are) to be commended for identifying the potential for a large expansion of (the nuclear weapons workers compensation program) benefits through the designation of Special Exposure Cohorts (SEC).

The Administration will convene a White House-led interagency workgroup including HHS and Energy to develop options for administrative procedures to contain growth in the costs of benefits provided by the program. Discussions are not limited to, but will involve, the following five options:

1. Require Administration clearance of SEC determinations;

2. Address any imbalance in membership of President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health;

3. Require an expedited review by outside experts of SEC recommendations by NIOSH;

4. Require NIOSH to apply "conflict of interest" rules and constraints to the Advisory Board's contractor; and 5. Require that NIOSH demonstrate that its site profiles and other dose reconstruction guidance are balance.

— Undated memo, roughly late 2005, from White House’s Office of Management and Budget to Labor Department (Full memo)

"I am uncomfortable with even an unofficial sharing of my briefing piece for today's meeting with my second floor people (the Secretary of Labor's office) since I am not at all convinced they will be willing to argue directly for any or all the actions it proposes, and I know they are very reluctant to be on the cutting edge of this argument... But if you promise not to spread it, and if you don’t use the language in your documents such that NIOSH will know where the verbiage came from, I'll share it (I'm still smarting from your... citation of the ideas in the budget passback as having been suggested by (Labor Department). Is that agreeable?"

— February 2006 memo from Hallmark to Melissa Benton of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. (a href="http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/news/030807flats3/3.shtml">Full memo)

Compiled by Ann Imse, Laura Frank