Call Us Now: 716.208.3525

EEOICPA & RECA Attorneys

Stephens & Stephens has obtained over $60 million through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation Act for our clients

Gloria ReynoldsGloria Reynolds
04:16 30 Mar 24
Stephens & Stephens was very helpful in getting my claim processed and helping me in getting my settlement, staff was knowledgeable and professional and very kind if I call and needed to ask a question they would call me back within a timely manner. Thank you so much for your help .Continue to be blessed Gloria
Dee GodfreyDee Godfrey
18:49 12 Mar 24
I was astounded with the service I received from Mr. Hugh Stephens in regard to my husband's compensation claim. He was not only efficient, but also compassionate, and communicated clearly and frequently. Because of his outstanding efforts and expertise, I, who am now a grieving widow, am unexpectedly stabile and secure. I had little to do. He did all the heavy lifting. I'm so very grateful for his help. I'll always remember not only his professionalism, but also his kindness.
Audrey OgletreeAudrey Ogletree
22:19 09 Mar 24
From: Laurence OgletreeI received good assistance from Stephens & Stephens in submitting the recent claim for increased impairment benefits from the Energy Workers program.
Randy MooreRandy Moore
14:48 07 Mar 24
I was a machinist at Honeywell F.M.&T.and developed bilateral tinnitus and bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. They helped me file a claim with EEOICPA in 2017. Stephen’s & Stephen’s was very good to work with, they take care of all the paperwork and help with any paperwork I receive from the Department of Labor. They stay on top of things helping with scheduling impairment reviews etc.I feel that without their help this would have been a very overwhelming process.I plan on still using them if any other illnesses occur due to my employment with Honeywell.
Mike DauzatMike Dauzat
15:54 02 Mar 24
I highly recommend Stevens and Stevens. Hugh Stevens and his staff are very professional and very friendly. They're extremely good at making sure you get the full amount of money you deserve. If you need a DOL lawyer, I highly recommend this team. I can't be more happy that I picked Stevens and Stevens.
Mary YbarraMary Ybarra
01:33 27 Feb 24
Stephen’s and Stephen’s has kept fight for my dad. Now they are fight for my mom. They are on top of things and I would recommend them to anyone who needs help and guidance with the Uranium mines.
Dianne HarperDianne Harper
01:02 17 Feb 24
Robert and I are very pleased with Mr. Hugh Stephens and all that he has done for us. From the first moment we spoke, we sensed that though Mr. Stephens exhibits sharp business acumen, he cares deeply about his clients and he has a huge heart.
Diane pontonDiane ponton
17:38 07 Feb 24
I tried to get others to help me with this claim, and it wasn"t until I hired Mr. Stephens that things started happening. I would recommend any one to get in touch with him . I would go to him again, if i ever needed to.
Judy LeonardJudy Leonard
22:26 06 Feb 24
I very much appreciate the successful litigation concerning my husband's Hanford work related illness. Stephens & Stephens LLP were thorough, caring, considerate, and fair during this difficult time.
Kenneth GKenneth G
18:23 03 Feb 24
Mr. Stephens was able to simplify an otherwise complicated lengthy process (DEEOIC) to file an initial claim as well as a claim for impairment benefits.
18:08 03 Feb 24
Frankie KnucFrankie Knuc
19:24 08 Jan 24
I had other attorneys hired in Cortez, Colorado and Grand Jct., Colorado to assist me with receiving my uranium claim, but they were not successful. I was advised by an employee of CNS of Stephens & Stephens, LLP good work. I contacted them & they took my case It was settled very quickly. I have been very pleased with this group & would advise others of their prompt service. I would recommend them to others. Respectfully, Frankie Knuckles
Rebecca ConsolRebecca Consol
19:57 22 Dec 23
My family used Stephen’s and Stephen’s for a settlement case. We were extremely pleased with all they did. They were very professional, easy to get a hold of, and invaluable when it came to answering questions and handling complicated Department of Labor issues and forms. They also did everything in a very timely manner. I have already recommended them to other people.
Thomas CliffordThomas Clifford
15:29 21 Dec 23
I have been represented by Hugh Stevens for several years now, He and his staff has made everything so easy for me. I had lung cancer from working in the uranium processing industry, they have opened so many doors for me and made dealing with DOL so much easier. They always answer my questions in a very timely manner. I have referred several other people to him and he has been able to get them through this process also. There are benefits that I was not aware of that he has brought to my attention and been able to lead me through the process of obtaining them. I would most highly recommend him to lead anyone through this process.
Lonnie killingHawkLonnie killingHawk
02:35 14 Dec 23
When I first contacted Stephens & Stephens I was at the end of my rope with DOL. Hough and his staff got me on track and handled everything with DOL and just made this process so easy. Do not know where I'd be with out them. They are able to communicate at a layman's level and understand the client. Would strongly recommend this firm.
Ruthy LyonRuthy Lyon
21:00 28 Sep 23
Our initial conversation with Mr. Stephens was productive & reassuring. His previous experience with similar cases was obvious and very helpful, in both asking us specific questions for clarification & also addressing our own questions. Breanna is also a great asset to their team.
James O'DayJames O'Day
15:07 13 Sep 23
I have referred several friends to Hugh Stephens and they were more satisfied than they ever expected. I would refer him with confidence to anyone in need. I trust when he speaks for me, for example, in court. He is a good communicator and a deep thinker. He is well respected in his profession. He handles environmental law, injury law, and medical malpractice. He is tactful and direct and knows what he is doing. He knows the legal briar patches well.

EEOICPA Covered Facilities: Combustion Engineering

The EEOICPA was passed in 2000. It provides compensation to workers who became ill as a result of their employment manufacturing nuclear weapons in the USA, as well as their spouses, children, and grandchildren. Combustion Engineering EEOICPA coverage is available for qualified former Workers and their families.

Are you eligible for compensation? If you or a family member worked at this or another AWE facility and became ill, you may be entitled to compensation of up to $150K plus medical benefits. Call EEOICPA Counsel Hugh Stephens at 1-855-548-4494 or fill out our free claim evaluation, We can help even if you’ve already filed, even if your claim was denied!

Here, we have compiled publicly available information and documentation about the facilities covered by the Act to clarify how their activities relate to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.

Combustion Engineering

Also Known As: Asea Brown Boveri
State: Connecticut
Location: Windsor
Time Period: AWE 1965-1972; Residual Radiation 1973-October 2009
Facility Type: Atomic Weapons Employer

Facility Description:
Combustion Engineering (CE) sent shipments of uranium to Fernald between 1965 and 1972 for use in the nuclear weapons production process. It is because of these shipments that this site qualifies as an Atomic Weapons Employer for these years. Combustion Engineering performed substantial work for the Atomic Energy Commission in other years as well, but this work is not covered under EEOICPA because it was either non-nuclear or was not related to weapons production. Starting in the 1940s, this initial work at the site involved non-nuclear components. In 1955, CE began to use highly enriched uranium for its work in supporting the Naval Reactors Program. In the 1960s, CE obtained a license to fabricate fuel elements for power reactors.Although this site was designated as part of the Formerly Utilized Site Remediation Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1994, no work under this program was ever performed on site.

During the period of residual contamination, as designated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and as noted in the dates above, employees of subsequent owners and operators of this facility are also covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.

Combustion Engineering is listed as an Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) under the EEOICPA

Special Exposure Cohort(SEC) Classes:
Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who worked at the Combustion Engineering site in Windsor, Connecticut, from January 1, 1965, through December 31, 1972, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC.

As of 01/08/2023, the total compensation paid under Part B of the EEOICPA, including medical compensation, for workers suffering from the effects of having worked at Combustion Engineering is $16,655,618. Click here for a current accounting of compensation paid to former Combustion Engineering Workers under the EEOICPA.

Combustion Engineering Workers:
If you or your parent worked at this or any other AWE facility and became ill, you may be entitled to compensation of up to $150K plus medical benefits from the US Department of Labor. Call EEOICPA Counsel Hugh Stephens at 1-855-EEOICPA (336-4272) or fill out the form to the right, whether or not you have filed a claim and even if your claim has already been accepted or denied.

We can help with all OWCP (Federal Workers Compensation) claims, impairments, wage loss and health care. 2495 Main Street, Suite 442 Buffalo, NY.

At least since the 195Os, CE has operated a facility on the site of approximately l,lOO acres near Windsor, Connecticut. During the late1940’s and early 1950’s, CE supplied certain non-nuclear component parts to AEC reactor projects (CE 1991). A 1955 agreement between CE and the AEC, accepted by parties on March 8 and March 3, respectively, appears to represent CE’s initial involvement in AEC’snaval reactor program. The agreement was followed some months later by AEC Contract No. AT(30-3)-198 that was to run until final settlement in July 1967. The initial scope of work of designing a submarine nuclear power plant facility ultimately led to the manufacture, assembly tests, and operation of the SlC Prototype Reactor facility on the CE site. The first amendment to the contractcalled for the development, design, and fabrication of fuel element subassemblies for the reactor — apparently CE’s entry into reactor core development and fuel fabrication work. The agreement and initial contract identified above cite special benefits to the Government in return for experience gained by CE to facilitate their entry into the fuel-fabrication market. Contracts with other AEC activities followed. According to CE, as many as 20 of some 100 contracts with the AEC during the decade beginning in 1955 involved the use of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and other special nuclear material. The percentage of enrichment in the isotope U-235 in the HEU to which they refer was not provided. However, extracts from a June 1960 materials processing contract provided by CE indicates that Government furnished materials included 895 kilogramsof uranium enriched to approximately 93 percent U-235 in the form of uranium metal buttons for use in fabricating high-enriched uraniumassemblies. Contracts for similar non-naval reactor fabrication workusing uranium metal enriched in the range of 5 percent U-235followed. Therefore, it is apparent that the uranium furnished for use at the CE facility varied from approximately 5 percent to over90 percent enrichment of U-235.

In early 1959, 18 commercial firms were fabricating fuel elements at their own facilities. CE was one of two companies that were not required to license these activities because they were manufacturing exclusively for the Government (AEC 1960). CE presented descriptions of nine contracts for fabrication of core assemblies and fuel components, the last in 1962 (CE 1991). Additional contract information was provided later (Bickwit 1992) as reflected in References ii through qq.

By 1960, CE was designated as a source and special (SS) nuclear material accountability station subject to the policy and procedures of AEC Manual, Part 7400 – Materials Management, Chapter SCH-7401 Control of SS Material, Special Health and Safety Requirements. Enforcement was apparently accomplished by AEC audit and inspection of the CE facilities and operations. The results of an AEC nuclear safety inspection of the CE facility in 1962 included the statement that 8 kg of U-235 were not accounted for. It requested that CE inform the AEC of its conclusions regarding the location of the material and identify what assurances exist that the material did not exist in a form or location constituting a hazard to the plant or environment. It recommended corrective action “with regard to the storage of waste and scrap materials.” This is one of several admonishments for the loss of SS material contained in records reviewed.

In 1963 the AEC conducted health, safety, and fire protection surveys at CE (Glauberman and Weintraub 1964) — evidence of continued control and concern on the part of the AEC for worker protection and for proper operation of equipment and facilities. Available historical records indicate that AEC was concerned about releases to the environment. However, these records focus more on monetary penalties for material losses than on cleanup of any release to the environment resulting from what were then standard waste management practices on the part of CE.

In the early 1960’s, CE began commercial reactor fuel-fabrication. Although AEC contracts continued, some of the commercial work was performed in the same general areas used for AEC HEU work. However, CE has indicated that the commercial work did not involve the use of uranium enriched to the degree of that handled under the AEC contracts. The percentage or range of enrichment in the isotope U-235 was not provided. CE also indicated that some of the buildings used for commercial work were built after completion of the work for AEC. The nuclear fuel manufacturing facility was the example provided (CE 1991). According to CE, the first AEC license, obtained in 1961 for authority to possess source and special nuclear materials, did not include HEU (CE 1991).

However, the license SNM-551, as renewed August 1965(Nussbaumer 1965), authorized possession of specific quantities of uranium enriched to 5%, 15% and a small quantity (2 kg) enriched to any percent. In October 1968, SNM-551 was terminated and the activities were reauthorized under license SNM-1067 (Nussbaumer1968); up to 5 kg were permitted to any enrichment. Today, amendment 21 to SNM-1067 (NRC 1991a) allows for possession of limited quantities of plutonium, encapsulated sources, and uranium in the following quantities and percentages of enrichment in the isotope U-235:

  • -500,000 kg enriched to not more than 5 percent
  • -4,800 g enriched to less than 20 percent
  • -1000 g enriched to or more than 20 percent

For a period during the 1960s, CE was operating as an SS Accountability Station for source and special nuclear material provided for AEC work and subject to the policies and requirements of the AEC Manual chapter pertaining to control of SS material. And, at the same time, CE was doing work for commercial clients under authority granted by AEC license.

Information contained in several of the documents referenced in Section 7.0 indicate that licensed activities were, or could have been, conducted in or in closed proximity to some of the same facilities or areas used in support of AEC-sponsored activities. Examples are Buildings 1 through 6, buried waste lines between buildings, the creek bed, the sewage plant, and outside waste storage areas. Building 3 may be the only building used exclusively by CE for AEC contract work involving highly-enriched uranium (Young and Mitchell 1992).

At the start of the 1990s, approximately 10 percent of 2,500 employees at the site were involved with nuclear fuel fabrication and low-enriched uranium nuclear fuel research and development with uranium oxide powders.





NIOSH SEC Evaluation Report:

Petition 99 (Jan 1, 1965 to Dec 31, 1972)

SEC Petition Evaluation Report – Petition SEC-00099 – Report Rev #_0
Report Submittal Date: December 14, 2007