On This Page

Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, DOE Facilities. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Definition of, Determination by DOL, and Naval nuclear propulsion program. 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

  • In order to satisfy the “proprietary interest” test in the definition of a DOE facility in § 7384l(12)(B)(i) of EEOICPA, the evidence must establish that DOE (or one of its predecessor agencies) had rights of ownership, use, or control of the buildings, structures or premises in which the employee worked. Merely proving that DOE had some form of interest in the work being performed there because they paid for it is not sufficient to meet the “proprietary interest” test. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10043931-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, March 10, 2008).
  • A “research and development” contract does not satisfy the “contract” test of § 7384l(12)(B)(ii) because it is not one of the limited types of contracts enumerated by Congress in the statutory definition. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10043931-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, March 10, 2008).
  • In the definition of “DOE facility” found at § 7384l(12), the term “operations” in subsection (A) is distinguishable from the term “management and operation” in subsection (B)(ii). The latter refers to a specific type of contract utilized by DOE and its predecessor agencies in contracting with private entities for the management and operation of government-owned facilities. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20121127-84623-1 (Dep’t of Labor, April 30, 2013).
  • 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).
Back to Top

Determination by DOL

  • Claimant presented insufficient evidence for DOL to determine that the former National Bureau of Standards (NBS) facility on Van Ness Street in Washington, DC was a DOE facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10083-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, June 6, 2007).
  • Claimant, who worked for INCO Alloys International, Inc. in Huntington, West Virginia, was not a covered employee under EEOICPA because he did not prove that he worked at or within the Huntington Pilot Plant (now known as the Reduction Pilot Plant), which was the covered portion of a larger establishment, and therefore did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he was employed at a “DOE facility.” EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10432-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 13, 2004).
  • Claimant who worked for Ross Aviation at Hangar 481, Kirtland AFB from December 9, 1985 through February 29, 1996 had covered employment only from March 1, 1989 through February 29, 1996, the time period for which Hangar 481 is a designated DOE facility. Copies of contracts between Ross Aviation and DOE (and its predecessor agencies) submitted to DEEOIC by the claimant did not establish that Ross Aviation performed work under a contract with DOE or its predecessor agencies at Hangar 481, Kirtland AFB prior to March 1, 1989, and non-contractual evidence submitted by the claimant was of diminished value when compared to the actual contracts. EEOICPA Order No. 50245-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, April 14, 2011).
  • Neither the Precision Forge site in Santa Monica, California nor the Macrodyne site in Oxnard, California prior to 1984 meet the definition of a “DOE facility,” because DOE did not have a proprietary interest in either location and also did not enter into a contract with an entity for management and operation, management and integration, environmental remediation services, construction, or maintenance services at those sites. However, DOE purchased the Oxnard, California location in 1984, after which it was called the High Energy Rate Forging (HERF) Facility, and subsequently sold it in 1997. Therefore, the HERF Facility in Oxnard is a “DOE facility” under EEOICPA from 1984 through 1997. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 51955-2009 (Dep’t of Labor, December 18, 2009).
  • To be covered under EEOICPA, employees with cancer must have, among other things, worked at an AWE facility or a DOE facility. In this case, the employee worked at the Sodium Plant of Reactive Metals, Inc. in Ashtabula, Ohio. Only the Extrusion Plant of Reactive Metals, Inc. in Ashtabula, Ohio is considered a DOE facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 54251-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, November 1, 2004).
  • Claimant provided employment evidence showing that the employee worked only for companies providing products and services to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program: Naval Reactors Facility (NRF), the New London Submarine Base, the Westinghouse Plant Apparatus Division (Bechtel Plant Machinery, Inc.) and the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. The Act specifically excludes the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program from its definition of a “DOE facility,” and thus the claimant was not entitled to compensation. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 56578-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 30, 2004).
  • Area 51 is considered to be part of the Nevada Test Site for the period 1958 through 1999. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10038639-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, Nov. 12, 2008).
  • Claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts—which had been designated by DOE as both an AWE facility and a beryllium vendor facility—should be determined to be a DOE facility during the period employee worked there as a civilian, i.e., from January 26, 1945 to October 22, 1945. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10043931-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, March 10, 2008).
  • Part B claimant who worked at Allied Chemical Corporation’s Metropolis Plant, an AWE facility, was not eligible for Part B benefits as a “covered beryllium employee,” as that term refers only to employees who worked at either DOE facilities or beryllium vendor facilities. The evidence submitted by the claimant did not establish that the Metropolis Plant qualifies as a “DOE facility” under § 7384l(12). EEOICPA Order No. 20120912-81095-1 (Dep’t of Labor, May 30, 2013).
  • Part E claimant who worked at Allied Chemical Corporation’s Metropolis Plant, an AWE facility, failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that he was a DOE contractor employee who worked at a DOE facility. Evidence submitted established that Allied Chemical Corporation processed natural uranium concentrates into uranium hexafluoride at its Metropolis worksite for both the AEC and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), and therefore that “operations” on behalf of DOE’s predecessor agencies took place at the site. However, there was no evidence either that DOE or its predecessor agencies had a proprietary interest in the facility, or that they entered into one of the specific types of contracts listed in § 7384l(12)(B)(ii) with an entity at the worksite so as to meet the statutory definition of “DOE facility.” EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20121127-84623-1 (Dep’t of Labor, April 30, 2013).
  • Part B claimant who worked at Allied Chemical Corporation’s Metropolis Plant, an AWE facility, argued that the Metropolis worksite met the statutory definition of a DOE facility because “operations” on behalf of DOE and its predecessor agencies took place there. Although that argument was irrelevant to his Part B claim, FAB determined that even if it were relevant, DEEOIC does not dispute that “operations” took place at that worksite, but that fact alone was insufficient to establish that the Metropolis plant is a DOE facility. However, there was no evidence either that DOE or its predecessor agencies had a proprietary interest in the facility, or that they entered into one of the specific types of contracts listed in § 7384l(12)(B)(ii) with an entity at the worksite, so as to meet the statutory definition of “DOE facility.” EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20140710-84623-2 (Dep’t of Labor, March 19, 2015).
  • 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).
Back to Top
Back to Top