Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, Beryllium Vendor Facilities. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Definition of, Determination by DOE, and Distinguished from DOE facilities and AWE facilities. To view a particular decision or order in its entirety, click on the hyperlink for that decision or order at the end of the head note.
Definition of
- A worksite that is designated as a beryllium vendor facility under, or pursuant to, § 7384l(6) may also be designated as a DOE facility if evidence establishes that the facility meets the definition of “DOE facility” within § 7384l(12). EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20121129-6523-1 (Dep’t of Labor, April 10, 2013).
Determination by DOE
- DOE indicated in its September 14, 2023 Federal Register notice that it would only announce the existence of additional beryllium vendor facilities owned and operated by statutory beryllium vendors in its online facility database. One such new beryllium vendor facility that DOE added to its database was the “Shoemakersville Plant” located in Shoemakersville, Pennsylvania, since a statutory beryllium vendor purchased that worksite in 1957. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20231016-50034029-2 (Dep’t of Labor, November 6, 2023).
- DOE published a notice in the Federal Register on September 14, 2023 stating that the Beryllium Mill in Delta, Utah is a covered beryllium vendor facility under EEOICPA. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20230627-50036451-2 (Dep’t of Labor, October 23, 2023); EEOICPA Fin. Dec No. 20230525-50036884-1 (Dep’t of Labor, November 14, 2023).
Distinguished from DOE facilities and AWE facilities
- Evidence submitted by a claimant did not establish that the Hazleton Plant, which was owned and operated by the Beryllium Corporation of America, a statutory beryllium vendor, was also a “DOE facility” as defined in § 7384l(12). A contract under which the beryllium vendor agreed to construct the Hazleton Plant, and produce and deliver beryllium to the AEC over a five-year period, constituted sufficient evidence to meet the first prong of the definition, namely that “operations” were conducted on behalf of the AEC at the worksite. However, neither this contract nor any other evidence submitted by the claimant was sufficient to meet the second prong of the definition, i.e., either that the AEC had a proprietary interest in the Hazleton Plant, or that the contract was one of the specific types of contracts listed in the definition. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20121129-6523-1 (Dep’t of Labor, April 10, 2013).