Mortimer, Jill - OWCP I From: Kelly Reavell Sent: Monday, October 07,2002 12:41 PM To: 'Andrea deVry?; 'Dori Omorl'; 'Janet Kempf'; 'Jill Mortimer'; 'Johnna Funk'; 'Marv Applbaum'; ?Randy Cc: 'Jeremy Standen'; 'Kelly Lindlief' Subject: Fw: ETEC items Attachments: ETEC Empl. Verification Memo Hello Unit 8- Attached are some items that were fonrvarded from John Vance in the NO regarding the ETEC site. Hopefully, these will assist us in handling the difficult ETEC cases. I also was in on the conference call held on Friday, October 4th at Jeremy's request. As a result of the teleconference, Roger Anders will be providing our Office with speci?c information concerning an individual employees presence at the site. Judy McLaughlin has been sending him detailed information regarding these employees. In the future, Roger will do the following: 1) Indicate whether or not the employee was employed at the site and if so, the time period the individual worked there, 2) Indicate whether or not a contract exists between DOE and the contractor identified by the claimant and 3) Identify the place that the employee worked at the covered facility and whether or not this work location was within the 90 aCre Subsection of Area IV. Roger will be providing the building number(s) the employee worked in during their period of empIOyment and job classification (department codes), if available. Judy McLaughlin will be sending the NO a map of the site from 1985 that will identify the buildings within which covered activities occurred. Apparently, the site has changed substantially since 1985 and some of the buildings are no longer on the site. The issue of covered employment between 1955 and 1966 has not been resolved, since Currently there is no way to distinguish whether or not employment during this period is covered or not. The NO will be holding another teleconference to resolve the outstanding issues concerning Atomics International. In closing, Rachel Leiton con?rmed with Judy McLaughlin that the only cases where the 90 acre subsection of Area is at issue is in CANCER claims, since beryllium was present throughout the site. Kelly Reavell Acting Unit 8 Manager -?--0rigina From: Christy Long SMTP:caleeadoLesagov] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:09 PM To: 'Andersen, MaryBeth'; 'Carender, James'; 'Lindlief, Kelly', 'Reavell, Kelly' ETEC items Message-?- From: John Vance Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:01 AM To: 'Judy Mclaughlin'; 'Jimmy Dean 'Jererny Standen'; 'Christy Long'; 'Kelly Lindief'; 'Rachei Leiton' (E-mail); 'Roger Anders' Cc: 'Roberta Mosier'; 'Pete Turcic' Subject:ETEC items i have prepared a brief memo concerning the items we discussed on Friday. In addition, I have attached a timeline for the divisional and corporate entities assodated with the DOE site within the Santa Susana Field Station. If anyone w0uld like to add or modify either of the items, let me know. Thanks. ETEC - EnergxiTechnology Engineering Center A Corporate Time Line 1955 . 1984 1934 - 9mm Cami: Atomic: International i comm-am DOE A 1955 . 1988 "h 1988-present Facility A 1 1 I 1 I 1955 North American Aviation I I i565? 70 71 72 7 OOERemediat7.: 757977 75 798C 81 8283848586876889909192 939495 9795990co1c2 I I 1968 1996 North American 1973 Boeing Company COW Angst-or- Rockwell . co Rockwell Intemahonal No?h k'nerar Awation erec me 290 ace: land Ate: IV at IN: Santa Susana Feb Labcem 0' 1M am. a so am.- subsecon was cloned 10 the Denver: 0' Emmy "us 90 can wbsecor we: 69399011090 the Enemy narraqu Enome 0mm TM :?me line than we Vogtusim 01 morale entities 1M1 new on armory but On ETEC woocny me ha pt'mavy carbonic mm. was Noun American Italian in 1955 SW comm wins other muted pro-exmirg arms 0! 011.0996 designation. maniac: WW 0! mo may comm momma. cum Flow Chart of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Ami-Comm. 7: Nun-6mm. :3 emu-um Induldivil'lt ?ManamaU. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS OFFICE OF COMPENSATION PROGRAMS DIVISION OF ENERGY OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION 200 CONSTITUTION AVE ROOM C-JSI WASHINGTON DC 202:0 TELEPHONE. (202) 693-008l Memorandum T0: Seattle District Of?ce Dept. of Energy Of?ce of Worker Advocacy Boeing Corp. FROM: John Vance WCCE Policy Analyst RE: ETEC Employment Veri?cation DATE: October 4, 2002 Effective immediately, Boeing Corp will provide to the Of?ce of Worker Advocacy (OWA) in Germantown the following factual infomiation when a request for employment veri?catiOn is submitted: 0 Start - End dates of employment 0 Employer (Corporate or Divisional Affiliate) 0 Location of employment duties within the Santa Susana Field Station Boeing should be as Speci?c as possible with regard to this information. If Boeing is unable to locate documentation on a claimed employee, a statement should be prepared indicating that there are no records available to verify employment. If only a partial veri?cation is possible, Boeing should state that records are available for a limited veri?cation and that any outstanding items can not be verified given the lack of documentation. A distinction must be made between aspects of claimed employment being veri?ed and items unable to be con?rmed given the lack of evidence. Once Boeing has conducted a search of its rec0rds and prepared its response, the completed package is to be forwarded to OWA in Gemiantown. It will no longer be necessary for Boeing to provide employment classi?cation data at this stage of claim development. However. will likely require the classi?cation data be submitted as part of the dose reconstruction process. When Boeing response is received by OWA, an EE-S will be completed. The completed EE-S along with the documentation from Boeing will then be forwarded to the Seattle District Of?ce. The Seattle District Of?ce will review the employment vcn'fication package to determine whether or not the employment data provided by Boeing and OWA is sufficient to qualify the employee for covered employment. This decision will be made in conjunction with the description of the property and building identified as the DOE portion of the Santa Susana Field Station. Boeing is to provide a site map of the DOE portion of Area IV to facilitate a clearer understanding of covered locations within the complex. In addition, the claims examiner can use information provided by OWA on the covered facilities web page to determine the appropriate time frame for the divisional or corporate af?liates associated with the DOE site. DOL has also prepared a timeline to better illustrate the chronology of corporate and divisional af?liatiOn with the facility. folly Lindlief l=ron'i: John Vance ;ent: Wednesday. October 09, 2002 6:35 to: 'Kelly Lindlief' Cc: genremy LStanden'; ?Jeff Kotsch'; 'Rachel Leiton' (E-maii); 'Regina Cano'; 'Roberta Mosier'; ns ong? Subject: RE: items ETEC Empl. Verification Memo 1. . See my memo below. it specifies the resonsibllites of the parties lnvovled in this process. I will have to check with Rachel to ?nd out how she want to best address the issue with the outstanding claims. As far as the site map. i haven't any idea what it will look like until i see it. in talking with Judy. she said that it was a fairly detailed map of the site. Furthermore, the map is from 1984-5. She sa 5 that the building descriptions didn't change during the course 0 their existence on the site and no buildings were torn down prior to that date. Once we get a chance to look at the information. we will be in a better position to know where to 90. Also. when we talked to Judy it was speci?ed that we needed the location of where the employee worked. Luckily Boeing has fairly detailed records on their employees. Even if the employee is only able to identify a dept. number or the like, Judgorgay be able 0 provide Roger with a location within the complex. lf ?ng is unable to de?nitively identify the location where the employee worked. it will be up to the claimant via affidavit or other evidence to establish their presence on the DOE "llty. While that is no doubt going to be dif?cult. it is the only way we can establish covered emp oyment. In regard to item 3. what we were discussi was the fact that it is difficult to verify employment prior to 1966 en the fact that there is no clear descn tion of the covered DOE facilities within the Santa Susana Field Station. site map was proposed as a resource that could be used to solve this problem. The 00 should wait and see what information we get from Judy before we take any action to make decisions on pre 8- post 1966 cases. As far as RDs that have already been issued. that is an issue for Rachel to decide how best to approach. Jeremy mentioned there were additional roblems with the other CA facilities. We will move on to them once TEC is behind us. My thinking is that Jeff Ketch could help us out a great deal on the other facilities as he was working out there at some point. in addition, you mi twant to start summarizing the particular problems you are having with a other facilities. it s0unds as if they are identical to the ETEC problem. but I think it would be helpful to know the specific problems you are encountering. As far as the covered af?liates associated with the DOE facility. take a look at the time line. it references onl the ET EC facility. The af?liates identified are linked to the operation. While the could have also been performing employment activities throu out entire Field Station. we are only recognizing their presence at the site during the noted time periods on the time line. i am not sure how this might extend to the other facilities until we take a good look at them. And finally, ETEC hasn't taken me over the Thanks. -?-Original Message-- From: Kelly Lindlief Sent: Tuesday. October 08. 2002 6:34 PM To: 'John Vanca' 'Standen. Jeremy? SubjectzRE: ETEC items mportance: High Hi John, i received and reviewed the notes (from you and from Kelly Reaveli) and the attached charts from FRl's telecon and have the following comments/questions: 1. Kelly?s notes indicate that 'in the future. Roger will do the indicate whether or not the employee was employed at the site, and if so 2) indicate whether or not a contract exists between DOE and the contractor identi?ed the claimant and 3) identify the place that the employee worked at a covered facility and whether or not this work location was within the 90 acre subsection of Area lV (Roger will provide building number(s) the employee worked in and job classification department codes when possible). Questions?~This leads me to believe that we will receive this information only for claims we request employment verification for in the future. Is this correct? if so. how should we proceed in making a determination on existing claim files. since this type of information was not provided with the (Are we to base our decision on the last EE-S or memo that we received from the 9C);ermantown DOE and whatever info is currently in the ?le from the claimant. 2. i realize that there will be a site map of the buildings within Area IV considered to be ETEC from 1985 by week?s end. Questionsm-With this in mind. 1) will the department numbers for each building also be identified (as we do sometimes have info from claimants indicating a Dept but not a and 2) is this site map applicable only to the years of (196 through 1985? Kelly's notes of this telecon also indicate that, "The issue of covered 'loyment between 1955 and 1966 has not been resolved. since currently -re is no way to distinguish whether or not employment during this period is covered or not." Questions-m1) Is the Seattle DC to hold off on making RD's for all claims with this employment time period? 2) What about claims where we have already issued a RD based on previous guidance about this. that may have had employment during this time period/site claimed on the 4. There is no mention of the Canoga Park(DeSoto). Vanowen and Downey facilities on your timeline. nor on the "Heritage" chart that Judy provided. Questionsw?Will we receive information on these sites similar to the info we are going to receive later this week for the Santa Susana site? Several of the EE-3's i have seen have 'Canoga Park - DeSoto? on them) urther. are we to hold off on making RD's for an claim where this is indicated by the ciairnant until we receive more in orrnation? 5. In looking at the 'Rocketdyne Her e' sheet from Judy, it looks like 4 Divisions were formed (within the SS in 1955. Atomics intemationai (1984-present) and Rocketdyne (1959-present) are listed on this sheet. this mean that possibly a Rocketdyne employee during 1959-present would have covered employment ?depending on ifwe can determine the employee worked within the ETE portion of the site)? How does this translate With the DeSoto and Vanowen facilities? All of the above is in consideration that the claimant has established that the employee has/had CANCER. That's all I have for now (have i given you a migraine John. Lindlief -Original Message-- From: John Vance Sent: Monday. October 07. 2002 11:01 AM To: ?Jud Mclaughlin'; 'Jimmy Dean 'Jeremy Standen'; 'Christy Long'; 'Kelly Lindie 'Rachel Leiton' (E-mail); 'Roger Anders Cc: 'Roberta Mosier'; 'Pete Turcic' SubjectzETEC items . have prepared a briet memo concerning the items we discussed on Friday. in addition. I have attached a timeline for the divisional and rate entities associated with the DOE site within the Santa Susana ieid Station. if anyone would like to add or modify either of the items. let me Know. Thanks. File: File: ETEC Empl. Veri?cation Memo 10-04-02.doc U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOWENT STANDARDS OFFICE or COMPENSATION PROGRAMS or ENERGY OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION zoo CONSTITUTION AVE ROOM ease I WASHINCJON DC 2OJIO (2023 693-0381 Memorandum TO: Seattle Disuict Of?ce Dept. of Energy Office of Worker Advocacy Boeing Corp. FROM: John Vance WCCE Policy Analyst RE: ETEC Employment Veri?catiOn DATE: October 4, 2002 EfTective immediately, Boeing Corp will provide to the Of?ce of Worker Advocacy (OWA) in Germantown the following factual infomtation when a request for employment verification is submitted: 0 Stan - End dates of employment 0 Employer (Corporate or Divisional Af?liate) 0 Location ofemployment duties within the Santa Susana Field Station: Boeing should be as speci?c as possible with regard to this information. It Boeing is unable to locate documentation on a claimed enTpIOyee, a statement should be prepared indicating that there are no records available to verify employment. If only a partial veri?cation is possible, Boeing should state that records are available for a limited veri?cation and that any outstanding items can not be veri?ed given the lack of documentation. A distinction must be made between aspects of claimed employment being verified and items unable to be con?rmed given the lack of evidence. Once Boeing has conducted a search of its records and prepared its response. the completed package is to be forwarded to OWA in Gemiantown. It will no longer be necessary for Boeing to provide employment classi?cation data at this stage of claim development. However. NIOSH will likely require the classification data be submitted (is part ofthe dose reconstruction process. When Boeing response is received by OWA, an EE-S will be completed. The completed Eli-S along with the documentation from Boeing will then be forwarded to the Seattle District Of?ce. The Seattle District Of?ce will review the employment veri?cation package to determine whether or not the employment data provided by Boeing and OWA is suf?cient to qualify the employee for covered employment. This decision will be made in conjunction with the description the property and building identi?ed as the DOE portion of the Santa Susana Field Station. Boeing is to provide a site map of the DOE portion of Area 1V to facilitate a clearer understanding of covered locations within the complex. In addition, the claims examiner can use information provided by OWA on the covered facilities web page to determine the appropriate time frame for the divisional or corporate af?liates associated with the DOE site. DOL has also prepared a timeline to better illustrate the chronology of corporate and divisional af?liation with the facility. Mortimer 'rom: Jeremy Standen but: Friday. November 01. 2002 9:26 AM To: 'Applbaum, Marvin?; 'Dempster. Randy'; 'deVry, Andrea'; ?Funk. Johnna'; 'Kempf, Janet'; Kelly; 'Mortimer. Jill'; 'Omon, Dori'; 'Reavell. Kelly? Subject: FW: Hold Onto ETEC Cases [Claim Status Code Stop the presses" Breaking news on Hold All ETEC Casesl! New ECMS Codell Make the code effective 10/31/02 for ETEC cases. Jeremy Message? Frorn: Shelia Wilson Sent: Friday. November 01. 2002 7:52 AM To: 'Andersen. Marybeth'; 'Carender. James': 'Long. Christy; Davis. Jennifer; 'Hester, Lynn'; 'Moruan. Joan'; ?Rldiards. Danene': 'Dean. Jimmy 'Standen, Jererny? Cc: Wool. Susan? Subject: FW: Hold Onto ETEC Cases {Claim Status Code A new claim status code for ECMS. Sheila ?Original Message? From: Jeffrey L. Kotsch Sent: Thirsday. October 31, 2002 8:39 AM To: 'Christy Long - Seattle 00'; 'LuAnn Kresst Cc: 'lesoaneadol?esmgov? Subject: RE: Hold Onto ETEC Cases a follow-up to the previous ETEC message. please use in ECMS for applicable ET EC cases means it?s an issue that the National Ounce is looking into). Jeff Jeffrey L. Kotsch. CHP Senior Health Physicist U. S. Department of Labor Division of Energy EmpIOyees OccupatIOnal Illness Compensation Phone: 202/693-0188 Fax: 202/693-1465 Message?- From: Jeffrey L. Kotsch Sent: Thursday. October 31 2002 11:35 AM To: 'Christy Long - Seattle 00?; 'LuAnn Kressley' Cc: Subject: Hold Onto ET EC Cases Importance: High Christy and LuAnn. Ijust came out of a meeting with Pete. Rachel and SOL on the ETEC site. After a di ssion about how we de?ne DOE facilities. it was decided that SOL to give us a decision on what is meant by operations? and "proprietary interest? in the mean time, Pete asked that Seattle and FAB hold all decisions (denials or approval) related to ETEC. Iks. Jeff Jeffrey L. Kotsch. CHP Senior Health Physicist S. Department of Labor )ivislon of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Phone: 202/693-0188 Fax: 202/693-1465 Pb'fe/ Robe/?bl QWIJK ?7?/ay Les/4342; A m/g' VAA (Rae/x! Dow/Le 1471410244, %Vrl 7% {slimy OWWM Mw? MW?/muz??e J/vrer ?Mic any 7 7rd?? . ?4567 4; r4/ vii? agLaM Mw?g' (W jmgaww Jag/?g zV-W?l?lvw - Pm/Wz? a/oh?bn AV Mex" d- 72L 31W i 75W- "01 7 41M 6 M934 751 55cm (23?7 0,0 m?j?a?k MW A}va gm? (DNA on, MEMORANDUM FOR: Christy Long, District Director Seattle I -. )7 -J - FROM: Peter M. Turcic, Director It? ?4 Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation DATE: September 7, 2005 SUBJECT: Atomics International and Energy Technology Engineering Center A policy determination has been reached by the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) pertaining to the potential eligibility of Department of Energy (DOE) contract workers employed at certain California facilities1 currently listed under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act PA or Act). The DEEOIC finds that any employee of North American Aviation (NAA) or its corporate successors who can demonstrate employment for the company at a location where Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations were conducted is considered to be potentially eligible under the Act. This finding is based on significant internal discussion within the DEEOIC along with thorough analysis of historical contractual documentation. This finding is based on the following historical points of importance: 0 On February 28, 1948, the Atomic Energy Commissmn (AEC), a DOE predecessor agency, entered into a contract with North American Aviation (NAA), now known as Boeing, to perform research and develop nuclear reactors. 0 ABC permitted the NAA to use locations owned by the company or leased by ABC to perform functions affiliated with its contractual obligations. 0 Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory was a property owned by NAA with a small 90 acre subsection leased by the AEC with an option to purchase. Facilities include: Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Station Le. Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC). anoga Park. DcSoto. and Doimey. This portion of Area IV was called the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) and was devoted to AEC research activities involving nuclear reactors and liquid metal heat transfer systems. 0 The property adjacent to the ETEC was used by NAA for various commercial activities. Contractual references indicate that commercial resources were tapped to assist in performing AEC funded operations. 0 In addition to Area IV, NAA conducted AEC operations at facilities named Downey, DeSoto, and Canoga Park. The decision to proceed with a formal determination in this matter was precipitated by a disagreement that transpired between the DEEOIC and the Department of Energy (DOE) as to the appropriate coverage afforded under the Act to workers affiliated with NAA. It was the goal of the DOE to limit coverage to workers employed by an internal division of NAA called Atomics lntemational. DOE argued that these workers were the only contractually authorized personnel who performed services in regard to AEC operations. DEEOIC has taken the position that it is not possible to make such as distinction as the primary contract with the ABC was with the entire corporate entity, NAA. One affect that this decision will have on the DEEOIC employment veri?cation process is that additional development may be required of the DOE and the current operating contractor of the noted DOE facilities, Boeing, to enable the DEEOIC to determine actual employee presence on a covered DOE facility site. However, the affect of this decision on the DEEOIC employment veri?cation process is mitigated by the fact that DOE has already provided personnel data on a significant number of the cases currently pending action. Another affect that this policy determination will have is that benefits will be potentially available to a larger number of claimants than would have been available had DOE restricted covered employees to Atomics International workers. Edwards, John - OWCP From: Leiton. Rachel - OWCP Sent: Monday. October 07. 2002 10:48 AM To: Vance. John - OWCP Subject: RE: ETEC Memo Attachments: ETEC Empl. Veri?cation Memo 10-0402 rl.doc Here are my revisions. Have you provided Boeing with your timeline yet? And has Judy provided you with hers? Can we send our timeline with his memo? Thanks! Rachel From: John Vance Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:24 AM To: ?Rachel Leiton' (E-mail) SubjectzETEC Memo I wanted to prepare a brief memo for all the parties invovled in Friday's conference call. Can you take a look at the attached an let me know if it is acceptable. If so, I will forward it to Boeing, OWA, and Seattle. Let me know about any changes you'd like. Thanks. File: ETEC Empl. Verification Memo 10-04-02.doc U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIOX OFFICE or- COMPENSATION PROGRAMS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL COMPENSATION 200 AVE ROOM (f45ll WASHINGTON DC 202m TELEPHONE: (202) 693-0081 Memorandum TO: Seattle District Of?ce Dept. of Energy Of?ce of Worker Advocacy Boeing Corp. FROM: John Vance WCCE Policy Analyst RE: Employment Veri?cation DATE: October 4, 2002 Effective immediately, Boeing Corp will provide to the Of?ce of Worker Advocacy in Germantown the following factual information when a request for employment veri?cation is submitted: 0 Start - End dates of employment 0 Employer (Corporate or Divisional Af?liate) 0 Location of employment duties within the Santa Susana Field Station Boeing will be as sxci?e as mssible with regard to this information. If Boeing is unable to locate documentation on a claimed employee, a statement should be prepared indicating that there are no records available to verify employment. If only partial information is available, Boeing should speci?cally state that there are no records for part of the employment, and explain which part of the emplomcnt can be veri?ed. will no longer be necessary/Or Boeing to provide employment classi?cation data at this stage of claim development. However, NIOSH will likely require the classi?cation data be submitted as part ofthe dose reconstruction process.) Once Boeing has conducted a search ofits records, the completed veri?cation documentation will be forwarded to OWA in Germantown. When Bowging response is received by OWA. an EE-S will be completed. The completed EE-S along with the documentation from Boeing will then be forwarded to the Seattle District Of?ce. The Seattle District Office will review the employment veri?cation package to determine whether or not the employment data provided by Boeing and OWA is suf?cient to qualify the employee for covered employment. This decision will be made in conjunction with the description of the property and building identi?ed as the DOE portion of the Santa Susana Field Station. Boeing is to provide a site map of the DOE portion of Area IV to facilitate a clearer understanding Of covered locations within the complex. In addition, the claims examiner can use information provided by OWA on the covered facilities web page to determine the appropriate time frame for the divisional or corporate af?liates associated with the DOE site. DOL has also prepared a timeline to better illustrate the chronology of corporate and divisional af?liation with the facility. Edwards, John - OWCP I From: Vance. John - OWCP Sent: Thursday, August 28. 2003 3:23 PM To: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - OWCP Subject: ETEC I talked to Sheila about this. but am not sure exactly how we want to proceed. They have approximately 50 cases they are holding. There is no indication of the issues involved other than they pertain to ETEC. If we are going to ask them to take action. I am thinking it needs to be from us to Christy Long. Let me know how you'd like to proceed on this one. John Vance Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Message-m- From: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:26 AM To: Leiton, Rad'iel - Turcic, Peter - ESA Cc: Vance, John - ESA Subject: RE: Remands from FAB In our meeting with Shelby yesterday, we said we would look at some of the ETEC cases and see if we can go ahead and issue decisions on some of them. John was going to get a list together. Since some of the cases may be decisionable. and we are very close to getting a memo from the Solicitor on de?nition of a facility. don?t think we should send out this letter. Message-"? From: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:18 AM To: Turcic, Peter - Mosier, Roberta - ESA Subject: FW: Remands from FAB Do either of you have any problems with Seattle 00 sending the attached notice to ETEC claimants advising them of the delay in the processing of their claims until such time as this issue is resolved? From: Long, Christy A - ESA Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 5:25 PM To: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: FW: Remands from FAB Hi Rachel, Have you had a chance to review the attached document? If so, is it okay to send? Thanks. --Christy From: Long, Christy A - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:48 PM To: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Cc: Standen, Jeremy - Murphy, Timothy - Wilson, Sheila - ESA Subject: Remands from FAB Hi Rachel, We are starting to get a lot of remand orders back from FAB for ETEC cases. The recommended decisions were issued in calendar year 2002 and were denials based on employment. We drafted the attached letter to send to the claimants in these cases and would like to get your comments/concurrence before we proceed. Thank you, Christy Edwards, John - OWCP From: Leiton, Rachel - OWCP Sent: Thursday, August 28. 2003 4:47 PM To: Mosier, Roberta - Vance, John - OWCP Subject: RE: ETEC I was thinking that they should screen all of these cases to ensure that none of them are non-covered conditions or otherwise easily deniable cases. and then refer samples to us. I would hate to think that they are sitting on cases that could?ve been denied for another reason. Message-m- From: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:44 PM To: Vance, John - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: RE: ETEC Can we get them to send us a sampling of the cases. maybe 10 or so? From: Vance, John - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:23 PM To: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: ETEC I talked to Sheila about this. but am not sure exactly how we want to proceed. They have approximately 50 cases they are holding. There is no indication of the issues involved other than they pertain to ETEC. If we are going to ask them to take action, I am thinking it needs to be from us to Christy Long. Let me know how you?d like to proceed on this one. John Vance Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Message-m- From: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:26 AM To: Leiton, Rachel - Turcic, Peter ESA Cc: Vance, John - ESA Subject: RE: Remands from FAB In our meeting with Shelby yesterday. we said we would look at some of the ETEC cases and see if we can go ahead and issue decisions on some of them. John was going to get a list together. Since some of the cases may be decisionable. and we are very close to getting a memo from the Solicitor on de?nition of a facility, I don't think we should send out this letter. Message-m- From: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:18 AM To: Turcic, Peter - Mosier, Roberta - ESA Subject: Fw: Remands from FAB Do either of you have any problems with Seattle DO sending the attached notice to ETEC claimants advising them of the delay in the processing of their claims until such time as this issue is resolved? From: Long, Christy A - ESA Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 5:25 PM To: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: FW: Remands from FAB Hi Rachel, Have you had a chance to review the attached document? If so, is it okay to send? Thanks. ?Christy Message-?-- From: Long, Christy A - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:48 PM To: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Cc: Standen, Jeremy - Murphy, Timothy - Wilson, Sheila - ESA Subject: Remands from FAB Hi Rachel, We are starting to get a lot of remand orders back from FAB for cases. The recommended decisions were issued in calendar year 2002 and were denials based on employment. We drafted the attached letter to send to the claimants in these cases and would like to get your comments/concurrence before we proceed. Thank you, Christy Edwards, John - OWCP From: Sent: To: Subject: Vance. John - OWCP Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:30 PM Leiton, Rachel - OWCP FW: ETEC So, what do want me to do? John Vance Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation From: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:47 PM To: Mosier, Roberta - Vance, John - ESA Subject: RE: ETEC was thinking that they should screen all of these cases to ensure that none of them are non-covered conditions or otherwise easily deniable cases. and then refer samples to us. I would hate to think that they are sitting on cases that could've been denied for another reason. From: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:44 PM To: Vance, John - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: RE: Can we get them to send us a sampling of the cases. maybe 10 or so? From: Vance, John - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:23 PM To: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: I talked to Sheila about this. but am not sure exactly how we want to proceed. They have approximately 50 cases they are holding. There is no indication of the issues involved other than they pertain to ETEC. If we are going to ask them to take action. I am thinking it needs to be from us to Christy Long. Let me know how you'd like to proceed on this one. John Vance Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Message-m- From: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:26 AM To: Leiton, Rachel - Turcic, Peter - ESA Cc: Vance, John - ESA Subject: RE: Remands from FAB In our meeting with Shelby yesterday. we said we would look at some of the ETEC cases and see if we can go ahead and issue decisions on some of them. John was going to get a list together. Since some of the cases may be decisionable. and we are very close to getting a memo from the Solicitor on definition of a facility, I don't think- we should send out this letter. 1 From: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:18 AM To: Tuncic, Peter - Mosier, Roberta - ESA Subject: FW: Remands from FAB Do either of you have any problems with Seattle DO sending the attached notice to ETEC claimants advising them of the delay in the processing of their claims until such time as this issue is resolved? Message-m- From: Long, Christy A - ESA Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 5:25 PM To: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: Fw: Remands from FAB Hi Rachel, Have you had a chance to review the attached document? If so, is it okay to send? Thanks. --Christy --?Original From: Long, Christy A - ESA Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:48 PM To: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Cc: Standen, Jeremy - Murphy, Timothy - Wilson, Sheila - ESA Subject: Remands from FAB Hi Rachel, We are starting to get a lot of remand orders back from FAB for ETEC cases. The recommended decisions were issued in calendar year 2002 and were denials based on employment. We drafted the attached letter to send to the claimants in these cases and would like to get your comments/concurrence before we proceed. Thank you, Christy Edwards, John - OWCP From: Leiton, Rachel - OWCP Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:44 PM To: Vance, John - OWCP Subject: RE: ETEC I think you should ask them to screen them all for non-covered conditions, deny the ones they can, and then send others (those not easily deniable or borderline) 10 of them to us for review. Message-m- From: Vance, John - ESA Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:30 PM To: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: FW: EIEC So. what do want me to do? John Vance Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation From: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:47 PM To: Mosier, Roberta - Vance, John - ESA Subject: RE: ETEC I was thinking that they should screer all of these cases to ensure that none of them are non-covered conditions or otherwise easily deniable cases. and then refer samples to us. I would hate to think that they are sitting on cases that could've been denied for another reason. Message-m- From: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:44 PM To: Vance, John - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: RE: ETEC Can we get them to send us a sampling of the cases, maybe 10 or so? Message-?- From: Vance, John - ESA Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:23 PM To: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: ETEC I talked to Sheila about this. but am not sure exactly how we want to proceed. They have approximately 50 cases they are holding. There is no indication of the issues involved other than they pertain to ETEC. If we are going to ask them to take action, I am thinking it needs to be from us to Christy Long. Let me know how you'd like to proceed on this one. John Vance Division of Energy Employees Occupational illness Compensation From: Mosier, Roberta - ESA Edwards, John - OWCP From: Turcic, Peter - ESA Sent: Thursday. February 26. 2004 8:46 AM To: Vance, John - OWCP Cc: Leiton, Rachel - Mosier. Roberta - ESA Subject: RE: ETEC cases at NIOSH What does this mean is accordance with the SOL opinion? From: Vance, John - ESA Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:20 AM To: Turcic, Peter - ESA Cc: Leiton, Rachel - ESA Subject: FW: ETEC cases at NIOSH Pete, Here is the analysis performed by Seattle on those 39 ETEC cases that Tom Rollow wrote to us about. Looks like a majority of them involve verified employment for Rocketdyne, but for which DOE is saying the employee didn?t work on the DOE portion of the site. I went through and looked at several of these cases in ECMS. Of the ones I looked at a majority of these were referrals that occurred in 2002. Currently. DOE has Rocketdyne is listed as a ?divisional affiliate' to North American Aviation. North American Rockwell and Rockwell International for the period of 1955 to 1984. The connection that Rocketdyne has to the DOE facility at ETEC is not clear. however. DOE's argument is that there rec0rds pertaining to the site are fairly accurate and they would have been able to conclusively determine who worked on what DOE is saying is the ?covered facility." Given that Rocketdyne is listed by DOE. their records may be good enough to show who would have been working for Rocketdyne and working on the premise of the DOE facility. John Vance Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation From: Murphy, Timothy - ESA Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:46 PM To: Vance, John - ESA Cc: Wilson, Sheila - Long, Christy A - Standen, Jeremy - ESA Subject: cases at NIOSH Hi John, Attached. please find an excel spreadsheet that brie?y describes the em ployment verification process associated with each case. which prompted our of?ce to refer the ETEC cases to NIOSH. As you know they are very old cases and at the time guidance regarding Rocketdyne/Atomic et al. was limited. Basically, the majority of the 38 cases can be divided into a few categories: Catgog Number of such cases DOE verified no ETEC employment. but did verify Rocketdyne employment . 27 or SSA or other doc. indicated Rocketdyne employment. 3 At Nat. Office. 2 At Denver. 2 DOE veri?ed ETEC employment. 1 DOE veri?ed part of the employment at ETEC. DOE verified subcontractor employment at EFEC, but couldn?t ver. If subs. were valid ETEC subs. 1 Should not be on the list, since employ. was at and New Mexico. Total: Let us know if the spreadsheet is suf?cient Tim 38 Edwards, John - OWCP From: Vance, John - OWCP Sent: Friday. August 27. 2004 11:43 AM To: Leiton, Rachel - OWCP Subject: ETEC Items Attachments: ETEC Cases.doc; ETEC - Corporate Time Line Graphicdoc Rachel. I took a good look at all the ETEC cases that were in your office. I've attached my analysis of the cases. None of these cases involve the 38 or so that Boeing reviewed and DOE forwarded to us. I?m getting those cases in batches of 10 to review. I think the bottom line problem that we are dealing with is the contractual connection that claimed employees had to the DOE portion of the Santa Susana Field Station (ETEC) or Canoga Park (Downey or Vanowen). Some time ago I did a graphic on the corporate Iinage of the corporate and divisional affiliates that did the work for DOE at ETEC. I've attached another copy for review. The initial contract to perform work for DOE was with North America Aviation. In the language of the contract (as noted by DOE in its April 16. 2004 letter): ?The work and services under this contract shall be performed by the Contractor (North American Aviation) through its Atomics International Division at its existing faCIIities in southern California ETEC Canoga Park - Downey Vanowen). and at such other locations, including Government-owned facilities as may be approved by the Contracting Officer. Unless the Contractor otherwise notifies the Commission in writing, the Contractor?s responsibilities under this contract shall be administered by the President, Atomics International Division and his authorized representatives." This essentially means that we can cover any Atomics Intemational Employee who can prove they worked at either the ETEC portion of the Santa Susana Field Station or the DOE facilities in Canoga Park in Los Angeles. The problem comes in when we start looking at employees of the corporate entity or its divisional affiliates who claim that they performed work at the DOE facilities. For CorQrate Employees, we know that the initially the corporate entity was North American Aviation. This is the company that DOE initially contracted with to do work at ETEC and Canoga Park. Over the years the corporate name changed from North American Aviation to North American Rockwell to Rockwell international to Boeing. It can be assumed that as the corporate entity controlling the activities of is divisional elements (Atom ics International Rocketdyne) that corporate personal would periodically come to the DOE facility to review or oversee work activities. It is reasonable to conclude that if you worked for any of the iterations of the Corporate entity that you would be covered under EEOICPA, if you can reasonably prove that the requirement of your job brought you to the areas in Canoga Park or Santa Susana designated as a DOE facility. For Divisional Employees we know that Rocketdyne did become contractually engaged in work with DOE starting in 1984, so that is not an issue. Prior to 1984. there is no evidence that Rocketdyne employees were contractually required to work on DOE projects. However. it has been Suggested in some of the claims reviewed that Rocketdyne employees did perform work that may or may not have been affiliated with DOE operations at DOE facility designated property. Here is the big question: 1. Do we treat Rocketdyne employees as essentially employees of the company that contracted with DOE (North American Aviation and its later iterations) even though the contract with DOE specifically says only Atomic International Employees will work on the DOE projects. If we say no, then it is assumed that there was no DOE work or operations conducted by Rocketdyne employees at the DOE facilities in Canoga Park or Santa Susana prior to 1984. We can then proceed with the denial of most of the cases that DOE has reviewed in its April 16. 2004 letter. This is essentially what DOE and Boeing are arguing in their correSpondence to DOL. If we say yes. then the next step would be to review all the cases where Ftocketdyne is the claimed employer and determine whether there is reasonable evidence to establish (1) the employee worked for Rocketdyne and (2) the employee did work within the boundary of a DOE facility. For item this will have to be done either by affidavit or other evidence as neither Boeing nor DOE has this type of information. I should note that when I looked at the Pay Stubs for a Rocketdyne employee (See the Lash Case) even though Boeing says the employee worked for pay was issued by North American Aviation. The advantage of this action would be to allow all the Rocketdyne employees who can establish a presence at the DOE facility to proceed through the dose reconstruction process. However. DOE and Boeing would both challenge this course of action by referring back to the DOE contract with North American Aviation. 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HMPLOYMEST STANDARDS or DIVISION EMPLOYEES amass (warms-mos EUU CONSTITUTION AVE ROOM (ful?l I wsnmoton 202m TELEPIIUNL: Comma-oust TO: Rachel Leiton Branch Chief Branch of Policy, Regulations and Procedure FROM: John Vance Policy Analyst RE: Analysis of ETEC Cases DATE: August 2004 This memorandum explains the ?ndings on several cases involving the Energy Technology Engineering Center. In the following sections narrative descriptions of evidence and recommended actions are reported. It Should be noted that the analysis pertains strictly to the employment claims presented. No review or examination of the medical evidence was conducted. 1. Fi e: reports that he worked for Rocketdyne at the Santa Susana Field Station from April I96 to 1963. He also claims that he worked for Atomics International at the Desoto and Canoga Park facilities from April 1964 to October I967. DOE performed employment veri?cation on February I l, 2002, but was unable to identify any information on the employee. A pay stub from the claimant shows he received pay from Rocketdyne. It was issued from Canoga Park. California. In a letter dated October 2, 2002, the claimant notes that he was stationed on Area II of the Santa Susana Field Station. but that his employment activities took him all over the facility. He states that he was in Building 20, the hot labs, and the plutonium lab (SCTI). He later worked for Atomics Intemational taking pictures of various facilities involved with the SNAP program. The claimant indicates that he was cleared for work by the AEC. Recommended Action: a. Request additional veri?cation from Department of Energy. In particular, DOE should make a specific inquiry to Boeing for any evidence that the employee worked at the Santa Susana Field Station for Atomics International. b. Obtain SSA records of employment. The pay stub submitted by the employee is suggestive of employment by Rocketdyne during the claimed period. c. Request more detailed description of employment activities during the claimed period from the employee. He should also be speci?cally asked to supply any affidavits or other evidence that may place him in the 90 acre section of Area IV designated the Energy Technology Engineering enter. d. Once the district office has completed its collection of this evidence, it must determine if the evidence is suf?cient to reasonably conclude that the claimant pert?onned the function of his job within ET EC. 2. File An Eli-2 claim was submitted for employee,_. It is claimed that he worked for TRW in Lydhurst, 0H from 1957 to 1963. It is further noted that he was assigned to the Santa Susana Field Station from April, 1961 to December, 1961. On June 9, 2003, DOE reported that Boeing did not have any information on the employee. In a handwritten copy of the employee?s resume, it is noted that ?'om April 1961 to December 1961, the employee served in an advisory capacity as a Field Coordinator to the Prime Contractor (Atomics International) on the SNAP II Program. In a letter, dated August IS, 2003, a representative of the Boeing Company writes that the employee was assigned a dosimetry badge by Atomics International during the period of April l, 1961 to December 1, 1961. It is noted that TRW was a subcontractor to Atomics lntemational and that the employee worked in Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. Recommended Actions: a. Depending on the medical evidence, there is sufficient evidence to place the employee at the DOE portion for the period of April 1, 1961 to December 1, 1961. The claimant should be advised of this and afforded the opportunity to supply additional evidence of employment at the covered portion of the facility. Following appropriate development of the case ?le, including identification ot'a covered cancer. a NIOSII referral can be prepared. 3. File: Mr. claims that he worked for Rockwell International in Palmadale, California from 1988 to 1994. He also claims he worked for the company in Los Angeles from March 1984 to April 1988 and in Chicago. Illinois from 1963 to 1982. On his EE-3, he indicates that he wore a dosimetry badge; however, he does not describe any radiation exposure. Rather he states that his exposure was to industrial chemicals. In a letter submitted by the claimant, received in December 2001, he further describes exposure to chemicals during his 3 years of employment. DOE completed the EE-S and indicated that the employee never worked for Atomics International or ETEC. On October 3. 2002, the claimant was asked by the district of?ce to supply evidence of employment at a covered DOE facility or Atomic Weapons Employer facility. Subsequently, the claimant submitted a 1994 W-2 form showing wages paid by Rockwell International Company. An affidavit submitted by the claimant's wife was also submitted. In the af?davit, the claimant?s spouse substantiates the work history. Recommended actions: a. The claimant has not submitted any evidence of employment at a covered facility. All of the evidence submitted describes employment for Rockwell International. There are several covered facilities where Rockwell or an affiliate was working, but the claimant has not identi?ed employment at any of these locations. For the California employment, the claimant offers no evidence of employment at either the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) or the Atomics International Downey or the Vanowen facilities. A letter should be sent to the empIOyee describing the type of facilities and employment covered by the EEOICPA- In particular, he should be advised of the covered facilities where Rockwell International was either the operational contractor or a subcontractor. lie should be asked to supply a statement as to whether or not he worked at any of these locations and, if so, whether any evidence exists to reasonably substantiate his claim. Upon receipt of any evidence, the CE should review the medical evidenced to ensure that a covered medical condition exits. lie or she then must decide if evidence has been submitted to reasonably demonstrate that the employee worked at a covered facility. 4. File: The claimant has claimed that the employee worked for Rocketdyne at the Canoga Park Facility in California from 1960 to February 1966. In support of the claimed employment, the claimant submitted a variety of employment documents. A November 1. 1963 document shows that the employee completed 240 hours of Ultrasonic Training. In response to a request for employment veri ?cation, on January 7, 2002. DOE reported that Mr. - worked for the Rockedync Division from March 12, 1962 until his death on March 4, I966. DOE noted that they did not have employment records to verify that he was ever located at the Santa Susana facility. In a March 18, 2002 letter from Boeing, it is noted that the employee worked for at the Canoga Park facility from March 12, 1962 through March 4, 1966. Boeing noted that the employee died on February 17, 1966. but they paid him through March 4, 1966. Tax documents were also submitted by the employee. W-2 forms were submitted for years 1962-1964. All of the W-Z forms were paid by North American Aviation, Inc. Two completed Form 1040s were submitted for 1963 and 1966. Both listed wages paid by North American Aviation. A picture of the employee wearing a badge was also submitted. Recommended Actions: a. The claimant should be asked whether they agree with the dates of veri?ed employment provided by Boeing. If they disagree, they should be asked to supply additional evidence for any balance of employment remaining. In particular, the claimant should be asked to supply evidence of employment for either or Atomics lntemational for any period outside of March 12, 1962 to February 17. 1966. The CE should also obtain SSA records that may assist in the veri?cation of any period of employment beyond what was veri?ed by Boeing. b. The evidence submitted with the claim is suf?cient to show that the employee worked for for the period ofMareh 12, 1962 to February 17, 1966. However, there is no evidence to show that he worked on the premise of a DOE facility. The covered portions of the anoga Park location are the Vanowen and Downey facilities. The claimant should be asked to supply any information concerning the speci?c projections the employee worked or the locations within Canoga Park where the employee performed his services. Fi e: It is claimed that the employee worked for Rockedyne. The initial claim forms did not specify the dates of employment. Later in SSA records, it is shown that the empIOyee had eamings from Rockwell lntemational Overseas from the second to third quarter of 1956, the third to fourth quarter of 1957, and the third quarter of 1958. In a recommended decision, dated September 13, 2002, the Seattle District Of?ce rejected the claim for compensation on the grounds that the evidence of record did not establish employment at a covered facility. This decision was subsequently vacated in a Remand Order issued by the Final Adjudication Branch on December 2, 2002. In the Remand Order the district of?ce was instructed to forward the dates of employment listed in the SSA records to the DOE for veri?cation of employment. In addition, additional development was to be undertaken to determine whether employment for is c0vered under the EEOICPA. In an EE-S Employment Veri?cation dated January 21. 2003, the DOE reported that they did not possess anv information on the employee. An affidavit was submitted. dated June 23, 2003, from In the af?davit, Mr. - indicates that he was a friend of the employee and that he knew that the employee worked in the summers of 1956. 1957, and 1958. In another af?davit submitted by the employee?s daughter, it is noted that the employee worked for Roeketdyne during the summer and a school teacher during the school season. Recommended Actions: a. Based on the information supplied in this case, it is established that the employee did engage in employment activities for Rockwell lntemational Overseas during the summer months of 1956, I957, and 1958. It is not established where the employment activities occurred. DOE has not provided any infomiation about the employee and there are merely two af?davits suggesting that the employee worked at the Santa Susana Field Station. There is no evidence that the employee ever engaged in any work for DOE. projects at the facility or that he actually ever entered the premise ofa DOE facility. Moreover. while the employer listed in the SSA records is Rockwell lntemational Overseas, it should be noted that the corporate entity of Rockwell International that was af?liated with North American Aviation at the Santa Susana Field Station did not assume its name (Rockwell lntemational) until approximately I973. This would suggest that Rockwell International Overseas is a separate entity from the Rockwell lntemational that was established in 1973. As such, it unknown whether or not the claimed employer ever had any connection to a DOE project at the Energy Technology Engineering Center at Santa Susana. The claimant should be advised of these de?ciencies in the evidence and asked to supply any information that could resolve the issue. While it is suggested that the employee worked for Roeketdyne, there is nothing in the contemporaneous evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of this claim. Had the employee actually been working for for the period alleged, his SSA records would have shown the employer as either Rockedyne, North American Aviation, or North American Rockwell. Unless the employee can provide suf?cient evidence to reasonably establish employment for one of the known contractors employed at the DOE facility in Santa Susana, there is no basis to accept the claim. 6. File On the submitted with the case ?le, it is claimed that the employee worked for Rocketdyne various period from 1965 to 1966. The case ?le also contains a variety of Union Dispatch Records. In some instances there is reference to being assigned to work projects with Atomics International or but none of these indicate where the employment occurred. In a letter from DOE, dated May 2, 2002, it is reported that none of the employment history listed on the EE-3 was for an employeri'facility which appeared on the covered facilities list. In a recommended decision issued on August 6, 2002, the district of?ce denied the claim for compensation on the ground that covered employment was not established. On August I, 2003, the FAB remanded the case back to the district of?ce. The basis of the remand was to obtain additional information that could potentially be used to establish covered employment. In particular, FAB instructed the district of?ce to obtain the statements from a known work associate of the employee. Upon return of the case, the district of?ce requested additional information from the employee, but was advised that the person who knew the employee had died and all the information available to the employee was submitted. a. There is insuf?cient evidence presented in this case ?le to adequately determine that the employee worked at a covered DOF. facility. There is some evidence that the employee worked on projects associated with Atomics International, but the location of these work activities are not revealed. The initial action of the district of?ce should be to write a letter to the claimant advising him that employment must be claimed at a covered facility. It should be noted that there are some records to show that he worked for Atomics International. but the location of employment duties is not know. The claimant should be asked to supply any information on the name of the facility where the employee worked. b. The District Of?ce can then proceed with collection SSA records. These may be able to identify the employer during the claimed period of time. c. The letter from DOE indicates merely that the employee did not work at a covered facility. DOE should be asked to supply any infonnation they have on the employee regardless of where he might have worked. d. After the CE has developed all available evidence, he or she must decide if the evidence can reasonably establish that the employee worked at a covered DOE facility during period when DOE operations where being conducted. ETEC Energy Technology Engineering Center A Corporate Time Line 1955 - 1934 1984 - present (233.3: mire Atomic: International Rocketdyne connected 'ggf565758596061628364656667 =5 697071727? 1955 1968 1996 - 1973 . I Corporate Af?liation North American North Amorlcan Boeing Company i WW1 DOE Aviation Rockwell _l Intomational Field Laboratory. This . I tr'wix' :1 3-30m MEMORANDUM FOR: Christy Long, District Director Seattle . FROM: Peter M. Turcic, Director XL Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation DATE: September 7, 2005 SUBJECT: Atomics International and Energy Technology Engineering Center A policy determination has been reached by the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) pertaining to the potential eligibility of Department of Energy (DOE) contract workers employed at certain Califomia facilities? currently listed under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOIC PA or Act). The DEEOIC finds that any employee of North American Aviation (NAA) or its corporate successors who can demonstrate employment for the company at a location where Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations were conducted is considered to be potentially eligible under the Act. This finding is based on significant internal discussion within the DEEOIC along with thorough analysis of historical contractual documentation. This finding is based on the following historical points of importance: 0 On February 28, 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a DOE predecessor agency, entered into a contract with North American Aviation (NAA), now known as Boeing, to perform research and develop nuclear reactors. 0 ABC permitted the NAA to use locations owned by the company or leased by ABC to perform functions affiliated with its contractual obligations. 0 Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory was a property owned by NAA with a small 90 acre subsection leased by the AEC with an option to purchase. facilities include: Area IV ol'the Santa Susana icld Station i.c. Technology Engineering (ETEC), anoga Park. DcSoto. and Downcy. This portion of Area IV was called the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) and was devoted to ABC research activities involving nuclear reactors and liquid metal heat transfer systems. 0 The property adjacent to the ETEC was used by AA for various commercial activities. Contractual references indicate that commercial resources were tapped to assist in performing AEC funded operations. 0 In addition to Area IV, NAA conducted AEC operations at facilities named Downey, DeSoto, and Canoga Park. The decision to proceed with a formal determination in this matter was precipitated by a disagreement that transpired between the DEEOIC and the Department of Energy (DOE) as to the appropriate coverage afforded under the Act to workers affiliated with NAA. It was the goal of the DOE to limit coverage to workers employed by an internal division of NAA called Atomics lntemational. DOE argued that these workers were the only contractually authorized personnel who performed services in regard to ABC operations. DEEOIC has taken the position that it is not possible to make such as distinction as the primary contract with the ABC was with the entire corporate entity, NAA. One affect that this decision will have on the DEEOIC employment verification process is that additional development may be required of the DOE and the current operating contractor of the noted DOE facilities, Boeing, to enable the DEEOIC to determine actual employee presence on a covered DOE facility site. However, the affect of this decision on the DEEOIC employment verification process is mitigated by the fact that DOE has already provided personnel data on a significant number of the cases currently pending action. Another affect that this policy determination will have is that EEOICPA benefits will be potentially available to a larger number of claimants than would have been available had DOE restricted covered employees to Atomics International workers.