fbpx

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

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.
dave DONAIDdave DONAID
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.
js_loader

EEOICPA Covered Facilities: Hanford

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. Hanford 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 DOE facility and became ill, you may be entitled to compensation of up to $400K 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.

Hanford

Also Known As: Hanford Engineer Works (HEW), Richland
State: Washington
Location: Richland
Time Period: 1942-present
Facility Type: Department of Energy

Facility Description:
Hanford was established in 1942, as a major government-owned nuclear weapons production site, fabricating reactor fuel, operating nine nuclear material production reactors and building five major chemical separation plants, and producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Later operations also included nonmilitary applications of nuclear energy. In 1965, the laboratory functions performed at Hanford were separately identified as Pacific Northwest Laboratory (renamed Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in 1995) and were operated by Battelle Memorial Institute. This work took place on the premises of the Hanford site through the end of 2004. Beginning in 2005, Battelle also began operating a separate facility in Richland where some on these laboratory functions were performed.

Throughout the course of its operations, the potential for beryllium exposure existed at this site, due to beryllium use, residual contamination, and decontamination activities.

CONTRACTORS:
Entire Site: Fluor Daniel (1994-present); Westinghouse Hanford (1987- 1994); General Electric Company (1946-1965); E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company (1943-1946)

Reactor Operations: UNC Nuclear Industries (1973-1987); United Nuclear Industries (1967-1973); Douglas United Nuclear (1965-1967)

Chemical Reprocessing: Rockwell Hanford Company (1977-1987); Atlantic-Richfield Hanford Company (1967-1977); Isochem, Incorporated (1965-1967)

Pacific Northwest Laboratory: Battelle Memorial Institute (1965-present)

Listing:
Hanford, a.k.a. Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) is listed as a Department of Energy (DOE) site under the EEOICPA.

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Classes:
The SEC classes for HEW include:

Employees of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, or DOE contractors or subcontractors who were monitored or should have been monitored for internal radiological exposures while working at the Hanford Engineer Works in: the 300 Area fuel fabrication and research facilities from October 1, 1943 through August 31, 1946; the 200 Area plutonium separation facilities from November 1, 1944 through August 31, 1946; or the 100 B, D, and F reactor areas from September 1, 1944 through August 31, 1946; 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 Special Exposure Cohort.
(Note: This class was established from Petition 57)

Employees of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and DOE contractors or subcontractors who worked from September 1, 1946 through December 31, 1961 in the 300 area, or January 1, 1949 through December 31, 1968 in the 200 areas (East and West) at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Note: This class was established from Petition 57

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Note: This class was established from Petition 152

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Hanford Engineer Works in Richland, Washington, from July 1, 1972, through December 31, 1983, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Note: This class was established from Petition 201

The SEC now includes U.S. Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Hanford site from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990, for at least 250 days total, either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the SEC.

The SEC excludes employees of the following Hanford contractors during the time periods specified below:

  • Battelle Memorial Institute, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990;
  • Rockwell Hanford Operations, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987;
  • Boeing Computer Services Richland, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987;
  • UNC Nuclear Industries, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987;
  • Westinghouse Hanford Company, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; and
  • Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990.

History:
The Hanford Site in the state of Washington was created in January 1943 to produce plutonium as part of the Manhattan Project. The site was chosen because of its proximity to the Columbia River needed to cool nuclear reactors, rail accessibility, and the availability of hydroelectricity derived from dams along the Columbia River. Hundred of buildings were constructed on the site and eventually about 50,000 people lived there. By the mid-60’s the need for plutonium had decreased and eventually all eight single-purpose plutonium reactors were closed. In 1975 Hartford engaged in energy research until 1989 when the main mission became waste cleanup. No plutonium has been produced on site since that time.

Compensation:
As of 01/08/2023, the total compensation paid under Parts B and E of the EEOICPA, including medical compensation, for workers suffering from the effects of having worked at Hanford is $2,093,392,962.
Click here for a current accounting of compensation paid to former Hanford Workers under the EEOICPA.

Hanford Workers:
If you or your parent worked at this or any other DOE or AWE facility and became ill, you may be entitled to compensation of up to $400K 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 already filed a claim and even if your claim has 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.

Videos:
A detailed description of the activities at Hanford can be seen below:

Another view of Hanford’s operations can be seen here:

And the results of Hanford’s activities can be seen in this video:

DOCUMENTS:

NIOSH Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Evaluation Reports
Petition 50 (1943 to Sep 1, 1946)
Please see Petition 57

Petition 57 (Jan 2, 1942 to Dec 31, 1990)
SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00057-2, Report Rev #:1
Report Submittal Date: March 26, 2008

Petition 78 (Apr 25, 1967 to Feb 1, 1971)
Please see Petition 57

Petition 152 (Oct 1, 1943 to Jun 30, 1972)
SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00152, Report Rev #: 0
Report Submittal Date: September 28, 2009

Petition 155 (Jan 1, 1987 to Dec 31, 1989)
SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00155, Report Rev #: 0
Report Submittal Date: April 28, 2011

Petition 201 (Jul 1, 1972 to Dec 31, 1983)
SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00201, Report Rev #: 0
Report Submittal Date: May 31, 2012

Petition 226 (Jan 1, 1984 to Dec 31, 1990)
SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00226, Report Rev #: 0
Report Submittal Date: March 16, 2015

Technical Basis Documents
Site Profile
Hanford Site – Introduction
Effective Date: 03/02/2010

Hanford Site – Site Description
Effective Date: 02/22/2010

Hanford Site – Occupational Medical Dose
Effective Date: 01/23/2017

Hanford Site – Occupational Environmental Dose
Effective Date: 01/07/2010

Hanford Site – Occupational Internal Dose
Effective Date: 11/16/2015

Hanford Site – Occupational External Dose
Effective Date: 01/07/2010