Gail Balser Spreads the Word

Gail Balser spreads the word:

THE METALS AND CONTROLS CONTROVERSY

THE METALS AND CONTROLS CONTROVERSY

We now present a very intimate look inside the early nuclear fuel business through a very provocative letter written to Dr. Lee Davenport, President of Sylvania-Corning Nuclear by Jim V.  There is much sordid account in this letter, and at this present date (2012) I have absolutely no idea how much of this letter is true, false, founded or unfounded.  What is important here to us in our look at Sylcor is NOT the business-politics controversy at M&C (a direct Sylcor competitor) we're about to uncover, but rather what Jim tells Davenport about the implications it carries for Sylcor.  Also important are Jim's assessments of Sylcor's safety controls.  I hope no one alive today, or related to the principals mentioned in this letter, is offended - no harm is meant or wished by publication of this letter.

This letter is dated August 21, 1958 and is reproduced in entirety.

Dear Lee:

In the course of the past few weeks, the sordid story of what transpired at Metals and Controls has gradually been unfolded to me.  The manner in which the situation apparently developed is such that I felt you should be informed.

The following information is hearsay!

The major items of information were given me by an official of the Atomic Energy Commission.  The inside facts are purported to have come from an executive in a competing company.  We both know this man, and his integrity is unimpeachable.  Further, he is a close personal associate of the principals.

Rathbun Willard, Chairman of the Board of Metals and Controls, is in his late 70's; as a philanthropic gesture, he disposed of certain blocks of stock as outright gifts to various educational institutions.  His legal advisers apparently did not take adequate steps to insure retention of the proxy vote on these shares.  One of the colleges to whom such shares were given is purported to be Northeastern University.

The story has it that Jerry Ottmar, President of Metals and Controls Nuclear Company, was not on the best of terms with Carroll Wilson, President of the parent corporation, ex-Admiral, and close associate of Rickover.  Working through friendly interests at Northeastern, Wilson obtained the proxy votes held by that college, which together with other proxy and personally held stock, gave him a sizable vote for control of the Corporation.  Wilson also called a special meeting of the Board of Directors at a time when Mr. Willard was in Europe.  Mr. Willard's attorneys attempted to forestall the meeting to defer action on the proposed agenda until Willard could return.

The meeting was deliberately called at such a time because Mr. Willard has a known phobia against air travel.  Mr. Willard's attorneys were unsuccessful in their attempt to delay the meeting.  Despite his phobia, Mr. Willard made immediate arrangements to return by air.  The meeting was held on a Saturday; Mr. Willard was unable to return until Sunday.

The following action is reported to have taken place at the meeting:  Mr. Wilson presented to the assembled Board of Directors, minus Mr. Willard, documentary evidence charging Ottmar with mal-administration.  By a unanimous vote of the assembled Directors, Ottmar was removed from office, and Carroll Wilson assumed the Presidency of both companies.

Ottmar has not given up, and upon Willard's return, the entire mess resolved into a free-for-all in which both Wilson and Willard resigned.  Wilson has been named Chairman of an advisory committee, and George L. Williams, Treasurer, has become acting President of both firms until such time as the issues can be resolved.  

Up to this point, the situation would appear to be typical of the machinations frequently found in the internal politics of American Corporations.  The following facts, and I use the word advisedly, since they came to me from the person who is purported to have taken the action, seemed to be worthy of your careful consideration.  The documentary evidence presented to the Board by Wilson is claimed to have emanated from the Idaho Operations Office of the Atomic Energy Commission.  They were reported to be letters expressing dissatisfaction with criticality control, production control, and health physics administration at M&C.  The Commission deplored the lack of concern and attention by Jerry Ottmar on such matters which they maintained to be a major responsibility of his position.  It is claimed that these letters were intended to correct a situation rather than to cause personal discomfiture to Mr. Ottmar.  Wilson probably played the part of an opportunist in using them as he did.  The Commission's attitude is that they do not feel sorry for Mr. Ottmar since they held him responsible for what they considered to be extremely lax and ultimately dangerous handling of the uranium administrative problems, including as the officer expressed to me, one instance of subcriticality, in which criticality was averted only by alert action on the part of the AEC.

Another source has been quoted to me as saying that, "The Admiral (Rickover) is not displeased."

I am fairly familiar with the production setup at M&C, having administered the production phase in the Core Contract Group at Bettis.  The M&C system was not exemplary; but, I believe, and please forgive me for the remark, was superior to Sylcor's.  The AEC has the prerogative to issue a cease operation order on any organization which it feels is not operating in the best interests of safety.  Several such orders have already been issued.  I am concerned that, with the influx of more and more orders, we may find Sylcor operations have extended beyond the system of controls that have worked so well in the past.  The AEC's attitude, should Sylcor become involved in any unfortunate incident, would undoubtedly be conditioned by a reflection of the fact that the worst commercial accident to date happened at Bayside {a Sylcor facility}.  Certain of our contacts in the west have not let me forget this fact.  Perhaps my concern is groundless.  Certainly you have every right to tell me to stick to marketing and refrain from comments on operations many miles removed from my sphere of action.

However, the potential load of ETR {Engineering Test Reactor, which Sylcor was making elements for} combined with the Fermi elements presents a new production situation at Sylcor.  ETR is under Commission Administration by the same organization which spearheaded the internal situation at M&C, and I felt that it would be unwise if I did not immediately bring this story to your attention.

Because of the personalities involved, many of whom have been associates in the past, I would appreciate your confidence with respect to the disclosure of the contents of this letter.  I informed Stan Roboff  that I was writing you concerning the M&C situation, and he requested a copy promising not to reveal its contents and further agreeing to destroy the copy after reading.  I have a profound distaste for gossip and/or gossipers.  Since what I have said represents hearsay, I may have placed myself in a position of repeating gossip.  The potential significance of the hearsay appeared to me to be so important to you and to Sylcor that I can but trust you will receive its repetition as evidence of good judgment.  If not, I can but ask your indulgence in view of my good intentions."

Texas Instruments Site

Our Nuclear Legacy

Our Nuclear Legacy

BY RICK FOSTER SUN CHRONICLE STAFF | Posted: Sunday, October 10, 2010 12:00 am

In the late 1950s, most of the young men and women who agreed to take jobs manufacturing nuclear

reactor fuel components at Metals & Controls in Attleboro were just starting careers and families.

Few apparently gave any thought to the dangers of working with or around enriched uranium and other

radioactive materials.

Now, more than 50 years later, many of those who worked long hours assembling nuclear parts or

working in test labs are battling cancer, and many - including the government - think the cancers may

have been caused by their work in the nuclear industry.

A federal program has already dispensed $7.3 million in compensation and health benefits locally to

former employees who contracted cancer.

"I thought it was a nice job, actually," said Sally, who worked in a chemical laboratory at the Perry

Avenue plant analyzing samples of metal that may have been radioactive.

Sally, who asked that her real name not be used for this article, said her job was to put specks of material into a beaker and then mix them with liquid to be analyzed by a spectrograph.

She and other workers wore film badges that were used to measure radiation exposure and were collected every day. She worked at the facility from 1956 to 1959, about the time she married.

Decades later, Sally discovered she had esophageal cancer after developing trouble swallowing. Tissue from her lung was also removed.

Over the years, Sally, now 73, discovered she wasn't the only person among her former coworkers at

M&C, a predecessor of Texas Instruments, suffering from cancer.

A close friend from high school who had worked with her died. So did a former boss. Others were being

newly diagnosed with cancer.

But Sally said she never gave any thought that her cancer might be related to her nuclear work until she read a report in The Sun Chronicle last January that the U.S. Department of Labor was inviting former nuclear workers at the Attleboro plant to apply for help.

"It was a very scary thing to see that," she said. "I thought, wow. I had no idea my illness had anything to do with that."

So far, the Labor Department has approved 93 claims from the Attleboro plant under the Energy

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, established in 2001 to help workers and former workers in the nuclear industry.

To date, more than $7.3 million has been paid out locally, mostly in compensation payments. The

program also pays medical bills related to a patient's cancer.

Nationally, compensation paid to sick employees of both government and contractor nuclear sites tops $2 billion, according to Labor Department records.

Ex-nuclear workers can qualify for government compensation in either of two ways, said Stuart

Hinnefeld, interim director of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Division of

Compensation Analysis and Support.

Prior to this year, employees who worked at the Attleboro nuclear plant who believed they had contracted cancer as a result of their jobs had to be meticulously screened under a "dose reconstruction" program to determine whether they had been exposed to sufficient radiation during their career to cause illness.

However, in late 2009, the government designated the former Metals Controls nuclear workers as a

"special exposure cohort" whose cancer can be presumed to be work-related if they meet certain criteria.

To qualify, ex-employees must have contracted one of 22 specified kinds of cancer and worked a

minimum of 250 days in their occupation.

People who may have been affected have to apply in order to get benefits that can include $150,000 in

compensation, plus government-paid medical treatment.

The program is still open and workers who believe they might qualify can contact the Labor Department at 800-941-3943.

From 1952 until at least 1967, workers at the Metals & Controls plant that later became part of Texas

Instruments worked hands-on assembling nuclear reactor fuel and doing allied jobs, such as laboratory

testing.

The company and its officials worked closely with Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover, nuclear propulsion

expert and father of the the nuclear Navy for which the fuel was intended.

At a time when the Cold War was raging and America and the Soviet Union eyed each other warily

behind phalanxes of nuclear missiles, workers supplying the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet with vital fuel

played an obscure but key role in the nation's nuclear deterrent.

Carl, who also asked that his real name not be used for this article, worked as much as 16 hours a day inthe lab and once passed Rickover as he arrived at the plant.

"We were all young and didn't know a lot about what was going on," said Carl, 75, who noted that

employees worked under tight security.

Carl still won't talk in detail about his job even today because of the requirements of his government

security clearance, which - so far as he knows - has never been rescinded.

Carl worked at the nuclear plant for five years before going on to another job and eventually his own

business.

He said he never considered the work a potential threat to his health before a fellow worker brought 

The Sun Chronicle article to his attention. Last summer, Carl developed a growth on his leg that was

diagnosed as cancerous lymphoma.

The former Attleboro worker has since applied to the Labor Department under the energy workers

compensation program.

"I have no doubt that (work in a nuclear plant) is what it's from," said Carl, who has just begun his second round of chemotherapy.

He said his prognosis for a full recovery is good.

According to a 2001 U.S. Department of Energy report containing newly declassified information about

government contractors that processed uranium for nuclear weapons, Metals & Controls and later Texas Instruments fabricated uranium fuel elements for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program from 1952 through 1965.

The plant continued to manufacture fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge National

Laboratory in Tennessee until 1981.

The plant, the first non-government facility allowed to fabricate fuel for nuclear reactors, also filled an

even more historic role.

According to reports at the time, the reactor fuel used in the first nuclear reactor ever used to light a city - Arco, Idaho - was furnished by the Attleboro plant.

The company began cleanup of uranium contamination in 1981 after nuclear operations ceased and the site's government license to manufacture nuclear materials lapsed. Decontamination of the plant was completed in 1997 according to the Energy Department.

However, some of the waste from the plant - as well as from the local jewelry industry - ended up in the

former Shpack landfill on the Norton-Attleboro line.

The Army Corps of Engineers is supervising cleanup of radiological wastes at the landfill, now a federal

Superfund site, in a project that is expected to be completed this fall.

Radioactive waste at the landfill have also allegedly been linked to cancer in lawsuits filed by two

residents against Texas Instruments and several other landfill users. The plaintiffs contend they

contracted cancer because of the dumping.

Neither Sally nor Carl said they harbor any regrets today and didn't give much thought to the potential

dangers during the time they worked at the plant.

"In a way, it set me up for my future," said Carl, who noted he worked so many hours at the company

that he accumulated paychecks he didn't have time to spend.

"When I got married, I started with a bank account," he said.

THE METALS AND CONTROLS CONTROVERSY

THE METALS AND CONTROLS CONTROVERSY

We now present a very intimate look inside the early nuclear fuel business through a very provocative letter written to Dr. Lee Davenport, President of Sylvania-Corning Nuclear by Jim V.  There is much sordid account in this letter, and at this present date (2012) I have absolutely no idea how much of this letter is true, false, founded or unfounded.  What is important here to us in our look at Sylcor is NOT the business-politics controversy at M&C (a direct Sylcor competitor) we're about to uncover, but rather what Jim tells Davenport about the implications it carries for Sylcor.  Also important are Jim's assessments of Sylcor's safety controls.  I hope no one alive today, or related to the principals mentioned in this letter, is offended - no harm is meant or wished by publication of this letter.

This letter is dated August 21, 1958 and is reproduced in entirety.

Dear Lee:

In the course of the past few weeks, the sordid story of what transpired at Metals and Controls has gradually been unfolded to me.  The manner in which the situation apparently developed is such that I felt you should be informed.

The following information is hearsay!

The major items of information were given me by an official of the Atomic Energy Commission.  The inside facts are purported to have come from an executive in a competing company.  We both know this man, and his integrity is unimpeachable.  Further, he is a close personal associate of the principals.

Rathbun Willard, Chairman of the Board of Metals and Controls, is in his late 70's; as a philanthropic gesture, he disposed of certain blocks of stock as outright gifts to various educational institutions.  His legal advisers apparently did not take adequate steps to insure retention of the proxy vote on these shares.  One of the colleges to whom such shares were given is purported to be Northeastern University.

The story has it that Jerry Ottmar, President of Metals and Controls Nuclear Company, was not on the best of terms with Carroll Wilson, President of the parent corporation, ex-Admiral, and close associate of Rickover.  Working through friendly interests at Northeastern, Wilson obtained the proxy votes held by that college, which together with other proxy and personally held stock, gave him a sizable vote for control of the Corporation.  Wilson also called a special meeting of the Board of Directors at a time when Mr. Willard was in Europe.  Mr. Willard's attorneys attempted to forestall the meeting to defer action on the proposed agenda until Willard could return.

The meeting was deliberately called at such a time because Mr. Willard has a known phobia against air travel.  Mr. Willard's attorneys were unsuccessful in their attempt to delay the meeting.  Despite his phobia, Mr. Willard made immediate arrangements to return by air.  The meeting was held on a Saturday; Mr. Willard was unable to return until Sunday.

The following action is reported to have taken place at the meeting:  Mr. Wilson presented to the assembled Board of Directors, minus Mr. Willard, documentary evidence charging Ottmar with mal-administration.  By a unanimous vote of the assembled Directors, Ottmar was removed from office, and Carroll Wilson assumed the Presidency of both companies.

Ottmar has not given up, and upon Willard's return, the entire mess resolved into a free-for-all in which both Wilson and Willard resigned.  Wilson has been named Chairman of an advisory committee, and George L. Williams, Treasurer, has become acting President of both firms until such time as the issues can be resolved. 

Up to this point, the situation would appear to be typical of the machinations frequently found in the internal politics of American Corporations.  The following facts, and I use the word advisedly, since they came to me from the person who is purported to have taken the action, seemed to be worthy of your careful consideration.  The documentary evidence presented to the Board by Wilson is claimed to have emanated from the Idaho Operations Office of the Atomic Energy Commission.  They were reported to be letters expressing dissatisfaction with criticality control, production control, and health physics administration at M&C.  The Commission deplored the lack of concern and attention by Jerry Ottmar on such matters which they maintained to be a major responsibility of his position.  It is claimed that these letters were intended to correct a situation rather than to cause personal discomfiture to Mr. Ottmar.  Wilson probably played the part of an opportunist in using them as he did.  The Commission's attitude is that they do not feel sorry for Mr. Ottmar since they held him responsible for what they considered to be extremely lax and ultimately dangerous handling of the uranium administrative problems, including as the officer expressed to me, one instance of subcriticality, in which criticality was averted only by alert action on the part of the AEC.

Another source has been quoted to me as saying that, "The Admiral (Rickover) is not displeased."

I am fairly familiar with the production setup at M&C, having administered the production phase in the Core Contract Group at Bettis.  The M&C system was not exemplary; but, I believe, and please forgive me for the remark, was superior to Sylcor's.  The AEC has the prerogative to issue a cease operation order on any organization which it feels is not operating in the best interests of safety.  Several such orders have already been issued.  I am concerned that, with the influx of more and more orders, we may find Sylcor operations have extended beyond the system of controls that have worked so well in the past.  The AEC's attitude, should Sylcor become involved in any unfortunate incident, would undoubtedly be conditioned by a reflection of the fact that the worst commercial accident to date happened at Bayside {a Sylcor facility}.  Certain of our contacts in the west have not let me forget this fact.  Perhaps my concern is groundless.  Certainly you have every right to tell me to stick to marketing and refrain from comments on operations many miles removed from my sphere of action.

However, the potential load of ETR {Engineering Test Reactor, which Sylcor was making elements for} combined with the Fermi elements presents a new production situation at Sylcor.  ETR is under Commission Administration by the same organization which spearheaded the internal situation at M&C, and I felt that it would be unwise if I did not immediately bring this story to your attention.

Because of the personalities involved, many of whom have been associates in the past, I would appreciate your confidence with respect to the disclosure of the contents of this letter.  I informed Stan Roboff  that I was writing you concerning the M&C situation, and he requested a copy promising not to reveal its contents and further agreeing to destroy the copy after reading.  I have a profound distaste for gossip and/or gossipers.  Since what I have said represents hearsay, I may have placed myself in a position of repeating gossip.  The potential significance of the hearsay appeared to me to be so important to you and to Sylcor that I can but trust you will receive its repetition as evidence of good judgment.  If not, I can but ask your indulgence in view of my good intentions."

Nuclear Power Plant Lawsuits

Environmental Litigation Lawyer

Did you know that approximately one-fifth of the energy produced in the U.S. is produced by nuclear reactors? According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

In the United States, over 100 nuclear reactors supply about 20% of our electricity. Worldwide, over 400 reactors provide 17% of the world's electricity!

A nuclear power plant is a facility that produces electricity through a process called fission, which creates large amounts of energy by splitting uranium atoms. Though this process can create a considerable amount of energy, it also produces hazardous byproducts. People living near nuclear power plants or near waste facilities where these products are stored or disposed of may be at risk of suffering from a number of health problems. The same applies if there is an accident, such as an explosion, at one of these facilities.

Many communities and individuals have suffered from serious health problems or have had their property damaged due to negligence or environmental law violations by nuclear power plants. Representing plaintiffs (injured parties) in environmental lawsuits is an important part of our firm's practice, and we pursue these cases with the level of unrelenting dedication necessary to seek the best possible result. You can learn more about our services and your rights as a member of the community, property owner, business owner or individual by contacting an environmental litigation lawyer at our firm. Your initial consultation is free and confidential.

Recent Nuclear Fuel Plant Lawsuit

In Erwin, Tennessee, Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group and The Atlantic Richfield Company operate a nuclear fuel plant that enriches uranium. Uranium is highly radioactive substance. The operations of this plant may have caused damage to residents in the Erwin and the surrounding area. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, working with Motely Rice, LLC and the Tennessee-based law firm Rogers, Laughlin, Nunnally, Hood & Crum, P.C., hosted a town hall meeting in March of 2011 to present educational information related to radiation contamination and the potential hazards present in the affected area. We wanted to inform residents of the dangers of contamination in that area and give them legal options to pursue.

The truth of the matter is that many people living near nuclear power plants are unaware of their rights and legal options if they are adversely affected by plant operations. Our goal is to educate people across the country, helping them exercise their rights as they seek financial compensation for the losses and injuries they have experienced.

Byproducts Produced by Nuclear Power Plants

There are three radioactive materials found at nuclear power plants: enriched uranium (as mentioned above), low-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. These must be properly stored and/or disposed of in order to protect the environment and protect the public from serious health problems. Let's take a closer look at these three substances.

Enriched uranium serves as the fuel for a nuclear power plant. A single pellet of enriched uranium, though only about one inch long, can generate as much electricity as an entire ton of coal. A single reactor at a nuclear power plant may contain as many as 100 tons of fuel pellets. This form of uranium is mildly radioactive and, according to the EPA, may be handled safely without shielding.

Low-level radioactive waste includes various items, from clothing to tools, which have been contaminated by radioactive material. There are two ways that a facility may dispose of low-level radioactive waste. The first is to allow the radioactivity in the waste to decay away and then dispose of the waste as normal trash. The second is to ship it to a low-level waste disposal site. Some examples of low-level waste include clothing, protective shoe coverings, filters, mops, rags, tools, and equipment.

Spent nuclear fuel is the most dangerous byproduct of a nuclear power plant, containing numerous highly radioactive byproducts of the fission process. It must be stored in a precise manner to avoid environmental contamination. It is stored at the plant in large pools or dry storage containers that are specially designed for this purpose to cool the fuel and act as radiation shields.

Radiation Contamination Side Effects

If there is an accident at a nuclear power plant or if one of these facilities does not properly store or dispose of radioactive byproducts, this can have disastrous results. The health effects that have been linked to radiation exposure vary, but almost all are severe and even life-threatening. Long-term exposure to radiation increases the likelihood of developing cancer and may also cause genetic mutations that may be passed onto a victim's children. Acute, short-term radiation exposure may cause burns, radiation sickness (nausea, hair loss, reduced organ function, weakness and burns), premature aging and even death.

Our environmental litigation attorneys are prepared to handle nuclear power plant lawsuits related to such health problems as:

• Bladder cancer
• Brain cancer / brain tumors
• Bone cancer
• Renal cell carcinoma (kidney cancer)
• Leukemia
• Lung cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Skin cancer, including melanoma
• Severe burns
• Birth defects
• Genetic mutations
• Radiation sickness

Our Environmental Law Attorneys Can Help

Our experienced environmental law attorneys can discuss the details of your case and help you make an informed decision about whether you want to file suit. If you proceed with environmental litigation, we will be with you at every step of the process to guide you in making important choices about your case and will work with you from the time you contact us until your claim has been completely resolved. Contact an environmental litigation attorney at our firm today for more information. 

Statute of Limitations Not a Bar andCourt reinstates TENORM lawsuit

Court reinstates TENORM lawsuit for deceased pipe yard workers injured by radioactive waste

Posted November 20, 2014
by Jim Orr

There is a small amount of natural radioactivity in almost everything natural. However, certain industrial practices can result in radionuclides being concentrated to such a degree that they may pose a health and safety risk to humans and the environment. “Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials” (or TENORM) refers to materials, such as industrial wastes or by-products that have been enriched with radioactive elements, such as uranium, thorium and potassium and any of their decay products, such as radium and radon.

Varying levels of TENORM can result from such activities as oil and gas exploration, mineral mining, phosphate fertilizer production, water treatment and purification, and paper and pulp production. There is growing concern that some workers have been or will be exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radiation from TENORM. The EPA has stated that it is concerned about TENORM because TENORM has the potential to cause elevated exposure to radiation and because people may not be aware of TENORM materials and need of more information about TERNORM materials.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently reversed the dismissal of claims by the survivors of deceased pipe yard workers in a lawsuit regarding TENORM. Coleman v. OFS, Inc., No. 13-30150, (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2014), is a class action suit on behalf of pipe yard workers and surviving beneficiaries of pipe yard workers. The claims asserted arise out of the pipe yard workers’ occupational exposure to radioactive oil field waste materials including TENORM and other hazardous substances. The plaintiffs allege that, unknown to the workers, pipe cleaning, pipe maintenance, and yard maintenance resulted in their exposure to TENORM, which caused or contributed to the development of various diseases, health problems, and deaths. The defendants in the lawsuit are oil companies who contracted with employers of the workers, including Atlantic Richfield Company, BP Products North America, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and others. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants were aware of the dangers of TENORM and were aware of the workers’ exposure, but failed to warn the workers or the public of the environmental and health dangers.

Multiple defendants moved to dismiss the claims of many of the survivors based on the statute of limitations. Under applicable Louisiana law, “[i]f a person who has been injured by an offense or quasi offense dies, the right to recover all damages for injury to that person, his property or otherwise, caused by the offense or quasi offense, shall survive for a period of one year from the death of the deceased in favor of [specified beneficiaries].” La. Civ.Code art. 2315.1. The defendants argued that all survival claims filed more than one year after the decedent’s death were untimely. The district court agreed and dismissed all such claims.

The plaintiffs argued that the one-year limitations period should not begin to run until a plaintiff discovers the connection between the decedents’ deaths and the toxic tort exposure. Louisiana draws a distinction between “peremptive” and “prescriptive” periods to bring legal claims. If the period is “peremptive,” the period is not subject to tolling or interruption and runs regardless of whether a plaintiff had knowledge of his cause of action. On the other hand, if the period is considered “prescriptive,” the period does not begin to run until the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the facts which would entitle him to bring suit. The plaintiffs argued that the one-year period provided by Article 2315.1 should be considered prescriptive and thus subject to tolling.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit initially decided that it was unclear whether Article 2315.1 was prescriptive or peremptive and certified the question to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Meanwhile, that court decided the same question in another case. In Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2013–1545 (La.5/7/14), 145 So.3d 237, reh’g denied (July 1, 2014), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the time period in Article 2315.1 is prescriptive and not preemptive.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit followed Watkins and held that Article 2315.1 contains a prescriptive period. Coleman v. OFS, Inc., No. 13-30150. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ survival claims and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

- See more at: http://www.hop-law.com/court-reinstates-tenorm-lawsuit-for-deceased-pipe-yard-workers-injured-by-radioactive-waste/#sthash.VCmgUY9c.dpuf

Another lawsuit accuses Mallinckrodt of dumping nuclear waste, causing cancers

Sep 8, 2014, 2:03pm CDT UPDATED: Sep 8, 2014, 2:33pm CDT

The latest of 28 related federal lawsuits filed against Mallinckrodt alleges that people exposed to a predecessor company’s radioactive waste sites in north St. Louis County became sick with cancers and sometimes died from them.

Mallinckrodt in the 1940s and 1950s transported radioactive materials from its downtown St. Louis facility to a 22-acre site north of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, according to the Sept. 5 suit, which names eight plaintiffs.

The areas around haul routes, including Coldwater Creek, which runs from St. Ann to the Missouri River, were contaminated, according to the suit.

The suit says two of the plaintiffs who worked near the waste sites — William Frazier and Harold Banovz, both former McDonnell Douglas Corp. employees — contracted cancer and died. They are suing through relatives.

The other plaintiffs — Maureen Kolkmeyer, William Fatherton, Eric Kluempers, Bruce Calvin, Stephen Kofron and Kurt Zwilling — either lived or worked in the affected areas and have been diagnosed with cancer, according to the suit.

The suit also names as a defendant Cotter Corp., which it says transported radioactive waste in the 1960s to a property at 9200 Latty Ave.

Kenneth Brennan of Torhoerman Law LLC, Collinsville, Illinois, has filed the more than two dozen related lawsuits representing about 150 plaintiffs. The first came in February 2012. None have settled.

“The damages are significant,” Brennan said. “Virtually all involve people who are alleging cancer and/or death.”

Nearly all of those cases have been consolidated, and continue to be heard before U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig.

A Mallinckrodt spokeswoman said the company would not comment.

Mallinckrodt has gone through many ownership and name changes since it was founded in the 19th Century.