ML19106A202

Part 4 of 5 - NRC-2018-000531_Interim 2 Response Package

ML19106A202
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/11/2019
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML19106A205	List: ML19106A199 ML19106A200 ML19106A201 ML19106A202 ML19106A203 ML19106A204
References
FOIA, NRC-2019-000247
Download: ML19106A202 (495)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC RESPONSE NUMBER (04-2018) RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 2019-000531 2 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RESPONSE TYPE INTERIM FINAL REQUESTER: DATE: Jason Fagone 03/22/2019 DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS: Request: All NRC records between 2011 and the present day (May 9, 2018) involving safety concerns raised by workers at the Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco, California. This request includes, but is not limited to, complaints, emails, records of phone calls, faxes, memos, and reports. This request also includes all records related to the interactions of (ctd) PART I. -- INFORMATION RELEASED The NRC has made some, or all, of the requested records publicly available through one or more of the following means: (1) https://www.nrc.gov; (2) public ADAMS, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; (3) microfiche available in the NRC Public Document Room; or FOIA Online, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (See Part I.D -- Comments) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you. We are continuing to process your request. See Part I.D -- Comments. PART I.A -- FEES You will be billed by NRC for the amount indicated. Since the minimum fee threshold was not met, AMOUNT you will not be charged fees. You will receive a refund for the amount indicated.

         $0.00                                                                                 Due to our delayed response, you will not be Fees waived.                                                 charged search and/or duplication fees that would otherwise be applicable to your request.

PART I.B -- INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions"). See 5 U.S.C. 552(c). This is a standard notification given to all requesters; it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist. We have withheld certain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II. Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at this time. We will notify you of your right to appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination. You may appeal this final determination within 90 calendar days of the date of this response. If you submit an appeal by mail, address it to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-2 F43, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. You may submit an appeal by e-mail to FOIA.resource@nrc.gov. You may fax an appeal to (301) 415-5130. Or you may submit an appeal through FOIA Online, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Please be sure to include on your submission that it is a FOIA Appeal. PART I.C -- REFERENCES AND POINTS OF CONTACT You have the right to seek assistance from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison by submitting your inquiry at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ foia/contact-foia.html, or by calling the FOIA Public Liaison at (301) 415-1276. If we have denied your request, you have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the NRC's Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). To seek dispute resolution services from OGIS, you may e-mail OGIS at ogis@nara.gov, send a fax to (202) 741-5789, or send a letter to: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. For additional information about OGIS, please visit the OGIS website at https://www.archives.gov/ogis.

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC RESPONSE NUMBER (04-2018) RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 2019-000531 2 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RESPONSE TYPE INTERIM FINAL PART I.D -- COMMENTS Request

Description:

Request: All NRC records between 2011 and the present day (May 9, 2018) involving safety concerns raised by workers at the Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco, California. This request includes, but is not limited to, complaints, emails, records of phone calls, faxes, memos, and reports. This request also includes all records related to the interactions of Susan Andrews and Elbert Bowers with the NRC. Andrews and Bowers are former radiological control experts who worked at the Shipyard, and they have both stated in sworn declarations that they informed the NRC of safety concerns and violations in 2011. Please note: This is the best available copy. The NRC is not providing duplicates. The agency already provided a first interim response to you, this is the second interim response. The responsive records are provided to you in part. We continue to process your request. Signature - Freedom of Information Act Officer or Designee Stephanie A. Blaney Digitally signed by Stephanie A. Blaney Date: 2019.03.22 09:31:25 -04'00'

NRC FORM 464 Part II U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC (04-2018) 2018 000531 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST DATE: 03/22/2019 PART II.A -- APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS Records subject to the request are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the FOIA exemption(s) as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552(b)). Exemption 1: The withheld information is properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order protecting national security information. Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of NRC. Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by the statute indicated. Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 2161-2165). Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167). 41 U.S.C. 4702(b), which prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals, except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the Other: Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated. The information is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1). The information is considered to be another type of confidential business (proprietary) information. The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2). Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are normally privileged in civil litigation. Deliberative process privilege. Attorney work product privilege. Attorney-client privilege. Exemption 6: The withheld information from a personnel, medical, or similar file, is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated. (A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an open enforcement proceeding. (C) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (D) The information consists of names and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal identities of confidential sources. (E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. Other: Duplicates PART II.B -- DENYING OFFICIALS In accordance with 10 CFR 9.25(g) and 9.25(h) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, the official(s) listed below have made the determination to withhold certain information responsive to your request. APPELLATE OFFICIAL DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED EDO SECY Stephanie Blaney FOIA Officer Select Title/Office from drop-down list Select Title/Office from drop-down list Select Title/Office from drop-down list NRC Form 464 Part II (04-2018)

REFERENCE 50 HPS RAD Signs: 04.24.11 HPS RAD Signs: 04.24.11

HPS RAD Signs: 04.24.11

                        *CAUTION.

PRE uc16N HPS RAD Signs: 04.24.11

CAUTION PRKAUCtON i1!/ !IJ it1: lJ ~ (J,J .p; ifJIJI ,<

                          *n, if~ l\.
                          "° . lX-*

• tPl ~ti HPS: Current Shaw RAD Sign w/ "Emergency contact information (direct line to RSO contacts)

HPS: EMS RAD Sign w/ "After Hours" contact information (direct line to RSO contacts)

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:50 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Your Request From: Urban, Richard Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:50:01 AM To: DavidAntonlaw@gmail.com

Subject:

Your Request Auto forwarded by a Rule Per your letter to me dated March 17, 2015, NRC allegation files Rl-2011-A-0113, Rl-2012-A-0022 and Rl-2011-A-0019 are closed. V/R Richard J. Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator Region I, US NRC 1

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:53 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; M<:Laughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: CA Attorney Letter From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:53:12 PM To: Urban, Richard Cc: R1ALLEGATION'RES0URCE

Subject:

CA Attorney Letter Auto forwarded by a Rule

Rick, I put the letter back on your desk for inclusion in the allegation file. I spoke with the attorney over the phone. I made him aware that the investigations had been completed. He seemed to be aware of that. If you could just send him an email to confirm that (he asked for our confirmation in the letter), that should be the end to that.

Thanks.

Cheers, Brett Klukan RI Regional Counsel (610)-337-5301 This ema munlcations protected by the attorne -client rivile e ttornev work produet doctrine.

• in addition, this e-mal m 1ve or other protected Information. Please treat

David C. Anton Law Office Contacts 1717 R~4~~Q~ ~~~~,J~a.vis, CA 95616 Tel: (S30)759--8-4 - E-Mail/ DavidAntonlaw@gipaiI.com_ March 17, 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I c/o Mr. Richard Urban 2100 Renaissance Blvd. King of Prussia, PA 19406-2745 RE: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF CHARGES usan Andrews RI-2011-A-0113 (b)(7)(Cl RI-2012-A-0022 Elbert Bowers RI-2011-A-0019

Dear Mr. Urban:

I and!(b)(?)(C) !are legal counsel for the individuals listed above. !(b)(?)IC) !and I have filed litigation in California Superior Court as well as the federal Northern District of California court on behalf of these individuals. On behalf of Susan Andrews,!(b)(7)(C) l and Elbert Bowers~it is hereby requested that the charges filed by each of these individuals that are listed above be dismissed in its entirety. If you have any questions, please feel free to write, call, or e-mail. Please see that a notice of dismissal is forwarded to my office, and the Scott Law Firm whose address is 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715, San Francisco, CA 94109. (b)(7)(C) Esq. (b)(!}(C) Esq.

David C: Anton, Esq. -SAf:RAM~;;u.c.4.957 171'7 Redwood Lane ,; Davis,.CA 95616 18 MAR *20)~ ~H~ l Nuclear Regul6tory Commission, Region I c/o Mr. Richard Urban 2100 Renaissance Blvd. King of Prussia, PA 19406-2745. i940ei271325 h"Hrl,l~11llt1lJUIJlfJ1lilfH11lllufl,ltltJH)l,11*1l1t1.h1J I \-*- -

 *---*-*----------*--------- - -------------------------------~

David C. Anton, Esq. 1717 Redwood Lane Davis, CA 95616 II DavidAnton 1717 Redwood Lane Davis, CA 95616

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAJSSANCE Bl.VO. KlNG OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 JUN 1 0 2014 Mr. Eiben G. Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

The NRC Region I Office is closing your allegation file associated with nine concerns that you initially raised to the NRC in January 2011 regarding Tetra Tech EC, a decommissioning contract company that was performing work at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your concerns. Our most recent letter to you dated June 2, 2014, informed you that we would maintain your allegation file open to monitor Department of Labor decisions regarding your discrimination complaint. We recently became aware that your discrimination complaint against Tetra Tech EC , which you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on July 8, 201 (Case No. 9-3t90-11-064) twas dismissed with prejudice on March 13, 2014, because you filed the same complaint in civil court; your complaint has now been moved to federal court. At this time, all NRC actions regarding your allegation file have been completed. Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions have been responsive. Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission, and as such, we will continue to take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warranted. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely,

                                                 £.L//:!LL Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

JUN 1 0 2014 Mr. Elbert G Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated Dear Mr. Bowers~ The NRC Region I Office is closing your allegation file associated with nine concerns that you initially raised to the NRC in January 2011 regarding Tetra Tech EC, a decommissioning contract company that was performing work at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your concerns. Our most recent letter to you dated June 2, 2014, informed you that we would maintain your allegation file open to monitor Department of Labor decisions regarding your discrimination complaint. We recently became aware that your discrimination complaint ~gainst Tetra Tech EC, wJ,ich you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on July 8, 20111(Case No. 9-3290-11-064Hwas dismissed with prejudice on March 13, 2014, because you filed the same complaint in civil court; your complaint has now been moved to federal court. At this time, all NRC actions regarding your allegation file have been completed. Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions have been responsive. Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission, and as such, we will continue to take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warranted. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely, Orit f tt.t.l !f i ;nt.4 '9v . Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers 2 Rl-2011-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011 -A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME* G:\ORA\ALLEG\20110019clo.docx OFFICE NAME DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

0 From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:08 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Tetra Tech - SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:07:34 PM To: Clifford, James; Marshall, Jane; Ferdas, Marc Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Klukan, Brett

Subject:

Tetra Tech - SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule After getting an interesting ruling from DOL relative to a power reactor case last week, I pursued what DOL was doing for our 4 Tetra Tech allegation files, which were similar in my mind. DOL had told us over a year ago that they were holding the Tetra Tech cases in abeyance, which sounded like a holding pattern to us. Therefore, we were administratively holding the 4 Tetra Tech allegation files open. However, it appears that all 4 DOL cases have been recently dismissed with prejudice in March 2014. Basically what that means is that DOL has closed their files but the allegers can go back to DOL at a later date with the same claims under certain conditions. Since we have completed all NRC actions relative to their 4 allegation files, my plan is to close them. After coordinating with Brett on this, he did not see a down side to closing the allegation files either. If they ever do go back to DOL with the same complaints, and if DOL were to rule in tneir favor at that time, new files could be opened at that time to figure out why we did not substantiate and why DOL did. 1

From: Daly, Catherine@DIR <CDaly@dir.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:16 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases Attachments: 25544 Tetra Tech Ab!;!yance Letters.pdf; 23564 Bowers v Tetra Tech, et al Case Closure (b)(7)(C) form.pdf;21491E } Tetra Tech, et al Case Closure Form.pdf; 25544iAndrews v Tetra Tech, et al Case Closure Form.pdf; 25573! Jv..

                                                                                         . -.. . .IetraTech, et al Case Closure, Form.pdf                                                      ******* *- - **-********* * * * * *-* *-***

• _..(t,?)(7)(~)

Here you go. I just got into IMISafter some password snafus. Now I will close them in the fed database. From: Urban, Richard [1] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:10 PM To: Daly, Catherine@DIR

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases Thanks that was helpful. So my understanding is that their cases are currently closed? If so, is there a letter you could fax or e-mail that I could place into my files. I would like to close their cases if at all possible. Thanks. From: Daly, catherine@DIR [2] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 3:53 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases Sigh. The difference lies with our state statute allowing parties the freedom to take both options (file in court and stay with us). See 98.7(f) attached. Still I closed these cases with proviso parties could return to us if federal court dismissed for failure to exhaust. I will go ahead and update the federal database. We have our own state database plus a huge case backlog so I often neglect to update both. From: Urban, Richard @nrc.gov Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:39 AM To: Daly, catherine@DIR

Subject:

Tetra Tech cases Ms. Daly, My name is Rick Urban and I am the Sr. Allegation Coordinator for the US NRC Region I Office. I currently have four open allegation files regarding Tetra Tech. My files remain open because the individuals have filed with DOL and your cases are still open. The last we heard from you on these cases was that because these individuals filed law suits, you were holding their cases in ab-eyalTce. 1

I was wondering if you could you explain the difference to me regarding a similar set of circumstances I have with a file regarding a power reactor in New York. The complainant filed with DOL, and then took his case to federal court. DOL subsequently dismissed his complaint on that basis. Thanks in advance for your response . Richard J. Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator US NRC Region I 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Cot*t!ml)r DEPARTfvfENTOF.JNDUSTRTAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF LABOR ST A.t,,..'DARDS ENFORCEMENf Rrt11/i11tio11 Co111p/11int lmwstig11ti(,n Unit 455 Golden Gate Ave, 10111 Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 7034841 Fax: (415) 703-4130 cdalv@dir.ca.gov March 13, 2014 By Email John Houston Scott Timothy Murphy Lizabeth de Vries Attorney at Law Attorneys at Law Fisher & Phillips, LLP The Scott Law Firm One Embarcadero Suite 2340 1388 Southe rn Suite 715 S;m Francisco, CA 94111 San Francisco, CA 94133 Grace R. Neisingh David Anton Attorney at Law 1717 Redwood Ln. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker I.LP Davis, CA 95616 525 Market Street - 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2725 Re: Jahr, Bowers, Andrews, ..r_xi_x_ H c)_ .... Tetra Tech State Case 28443-SFRCJ

Dear Counsel:

TI1e Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) "Dismisses without Prejudice" the folJowing RCI Complaints: (1)i(~E!}. Tetra Tech, et al. 1 21491-SFRCI; (2\ Bowers ,.is. Tetra Tech eta/., 23564-SFRC (3) Andrews vs, Tetra Tech et a!., 25544-SFR( (4)~ -ts. Tetra Tech et a!., 25773-SFRC Complaimind ~~~(? ) bert Bowers, Susan Andrews, an~ (b)(7)(C)  !"Complainants'1 filed in civil court. Their civil complaint CGC-12-521105 - now removed to federa l court- seeks judicial relief for alleged violations of California Labor Codes sections 1102-5 and 6310. If a court later determines the Complainants named above failed to exhaust administrative remedies, they may return to the DLSE to reopen their Retaliation Complaints.

All Counsel Page 2 of i Please see the enclosed forms. Sincerely, Catherine S. Daly Deputy Labor Commissioner Retaliation Complaint Unit RCI 4.2 - Case Assignment Respondent (rev. I 0/2012)

LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Retaliation Unit 455 Golden Gate Avenue 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)703-4841 fax (415)703-4130 NOTICE - INVESTIGATION CLOSED COMPLAINANT Bert Bowers RESPONDENT Tetra Tech, et al. STATE CASE NO. 23564-SFRCI We are closing our investigation of the retaliation complaint made by the complainant shown above. N o further action is contemplated by this office for the following reason(s): The Complainant expressly withdrew the complaint. The Parties agreed to a stipulated settlement of the complaint. The Complainant has abando111ed the complaint. 0 The Complainant filed the same issues in Civil Court ["Dismissed without Prejudice'l STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER Dated: March 13, 2014 Deputy Labor Commissioner RCI 9.1 - Complaint Withdrawn, Settled, or Abandoned (rCI/. I 0120 12)

From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:47 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases No, I don't see any downside That works for me. Cheers. Brett From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:37 PM To: Klukan, Brett

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech cases She sent me the letters that were sent to the allegers telling them that they are dismissing their cases with prejudice, which means to me that they can come back to DOL in the future for the same matter. However, I think I'm inclined to close their allegation files at this point. If they come back at a later date, I could open new files, but basically the facts would be the same , with no action by the NRC. Me keeping the files open are admin in nature and actually some of the regions have closed files while the DOL case is still open. Do you see any down side to this plan? From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:27 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases Essentially, what it boils down to is whether bring a law suit is treated by the law of the jurisdiction as an exclusive remedy. California, per the section she quotes, says no-bringing an action doesn't preclude a person from pursuing rights/ remedies under other laws (such as the ERA with DOL). New Yori< may not have such a provision. Either way, based on what she writes below, it appears that DOL is treating the case it closed out as effectively being held in abeyance given the ability to return to DOL assuming that the federal court dismisses for failure to exhaust options for bringing the claims (i.e., going through the DOL process). So, with everything said and done, the case isn't actually being closed out (in the sense that it could come back to DOL under certain circumstances). Hope that helps. Cheers. Brett From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:13 PM To: Klukan, Brett

Subject:

FW: Tetra Tech cases Interesting. I have a few more questions to her. i.e., looks like they closed . But could you explain the second paragraph in laymen's terms? Thanks. From: Daly, catherine@DIR [3] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 3:53 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases 1

Sigh. The difference lies with c:iur state statute allowing parties the freedom to take both options (fi le in court and stay with us). See 98.7(f) attached. Still I closed t hese cases with proviso parties could return to us if federal court dismissed for failure to exhaust . I will go ahead and update the federal database. We have our own st ate database plus a huge case backlog so I often neglect to updat e both. From: Urban, Richard [4] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:39 AM To: Daly, Catherlne@DIR

Subject:

Tetra Tech Cases Ms. Daly, My name is Rick Urban and I am the Sr. Allegation Coordinator for the US NRC Region I Office. I currently have four open allegation files regarding Tetra Tech. My files remain open because the individuals have filed with DOL and your cases are still open. The last we heard from you on these cases was that because these individuals filed law suits, you were holding their .cases in abeyance. I was wonderi!lg if you could you explain the difference to me regarding a similar set of circumstances I have with a file regarding a power reactor in New York. The complainant filed with DOL, and then took his case to federal court. DOL subsequently dismissed his complaint on that basis. Thanks in advance for your response. Richard J. Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator US NRC Region I 2

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:10 PM To: Daly, Catherine@DIR

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases Thanks that was helpful. So my understanding is that their cases are currently closed? If so, is there a letter you could fax or e-mail that I could place into my files. I would like to close their cases if at all possible. Thanks. From: Daly, Catherlne@DIR [mailto:CDaly@dir.ca.qovJ Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 3:53 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases Sigh. The difference lies with our state statute allowing parties the freedom to take both options (file in court and stay with us). See 98.7(f) attached. Still I closed these cases with proviso parties could return to us if federal court dismissed for failure to exhaust. I will go ahead and update the federal database. We have our own state database plus a huge case backlog so I often neglect to update both. From: Urban, Richard [5] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:39 AM To: Daly, Catherlne@DIR

Subject:

Tetra Tech Cases Ms. Daly, My name is Rick Urban and I am the Sr. Allegation Coordinator for the US NRC Region I Office. I currently have four open allegation files regarding Tetra Tech. My files remain open because the individuals have filed with DOL and your cases are still open. The last we heard from you on these cases was that because these individuals filed law suits, you were holding their cases in abeyance. I was wondering if you could you explain the difference to me regarding a similar set of circumstances I have with a file regarding a power reactor in New York. The complainant filed with DOL, and then took his case to federal court. DOL subsequently dismissed his complaint on that basis. Thanks in advance for your response. Richard J. Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator US NRC Region I 1

California Labor Code 98.7 - Retaliation Procedures (20 14 Version) 98.7. (a) Any person who believes that he or she investigation report submitted to the Labor has been discharged or otherwise discriminated Commissioner or designee shall include the against in violation of any Jaw under the statements and documents obtained in the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a investigation, and the findings of the complaint with the division within six months investigator concerning whether a violation after the occurrence of the violation. The six- occurred. The Labor Commissioner may hold month period may be extended for good cause. an investigative hearing whenever the Labor The complaint shall be investigated by a Commissioner determines, a fter review of the disc1imination complaint investigator in investigation report , that a hearing is necessary accordance with this section. The Labor to fully establish the facts. In the hearing the Commissioner shall establish procedures for the investigation report shall be made a part of the investigation of discrimination complaints. A record and the complainant and respondent summary of the procedures shall be provided to shall have the opportunity to present further each complainant and respondent at the time of evidence. The Labor Commissioner shall issue, initial contact. The Labor Commissioner shall serve, and enforce any necessary subpoenas. infol'm complainants charging a violation of (c) If the Labor Commissioner determines a Section 6310 or 63111 at the time of initiarcontact, violation has occurred, he or she shall notify the of his or her right to file a separate, concurrent complainant and respondent and direct the complaint with the United States Department respondent to cease and desist from the violation of Labor within 30 days after the occurrence of and take any action deemed necessary to the violation. remedy the violation, including, where (b) Each complaint of unlawful discharge or appropriate, rehiring or reinstatement, discrimination shall be assigned to a reimbursement of lost wages and interest discrimination complaint investigator who shall thereon, paym ent of reasonable attorney's fees prepare and submit a report to the Labor associated with any hearing held by the Labor Conunissioner based on an investigation of the Commissioner in investigating the complaint. complaint. The Labor Commissioner may and the posting of notices to employees. designate the chief deputy or assistant Labor If th e respondent does not comply with the Commissioner or the chief counsel to receive and order within 10 working days following review the reports. The investigation shall notification of the Labor Commissioner's include, where appropriate, interviews with the determination, the Labor Commissioner shall complainant, respondent, and any witnesses who may have information concerning the bring an action promptly in an appropriate court against the respondent. If the Labor a lleged violation, and a review of any Commissioner fails to bring an action in court documents that may be relevant to the promptly, the complainant may bring an action disposition of the complaint. The identjty of a against the Labor Commissioner in any witness shall remain confidential unless the appropriate court for a writ of mandate lo compel identification of the witness becomes necessary the Labor Commissioner to bring an action in to proceed with the investigation or to prosecute court against the respondent. If the an action to enforce a determination. The

2 California Labor Code 98. 7 - Retaliation Procedures (2014 Version) complainant prevails in his or her action for a reimbursement of lost wages and interest wl'it, the court shall award the complainant thereon, and other compensation or equitable court costs and reasonable attorney's fees, relief as is appropriate under the circumstances notwithstanding any other law. Regardless of any of the case. When dismissing a complaint, the delay in bringing an action in court, the Labor Labor Commissioner shall advise the Commissioner shall not be divested of complainant of his or her right to b1ing an jurisdiction. In any action, the court may permit action in an approptiate court if he or she the claimant to intervene as a party plaintiff to disagrees with the detem1ination of the Labor the action and shall have jurisdiction, for cause Commissioner, and in the case of an alleged shown, to restrain the violation and to order all violation of Section 6310 or 6311, to file a appropriate relief. Appropriate relief includes, complaint against the state program with the but is not limited to, rehiring or reinstatement United States Department of Labor. of the complainant, reimbursement of lost wages and interest thereon, and any other (2) The filing of a timely complaint against the compensation or equitable relief as is appropriate state program with the United States under the circumstances of the case. The Labor Department of Labor shall stay the Labor Commissioner shall petition the court for Commissioner's dismissal of the division appropriate temporary relief or restraining order complaint until the United States Secretary of unless he or she determines good cause exists Labor makes a determination regarding the for not doing so. alleged violation. Within 15 days of receipt of that determination, the Labor Commissioner (d) (1) If the Labor Commissioner determines no shall notify the parties whether he or she will violation has occuned, he or she shall notify the reopen the complaint filed with the division or complainant and respondent and shall dismiss whether he or she will reaffirm the dismissal. the complaint. The Labor Commissioner may direct the complainant to pay reasonable (e) The Labor Commissioner shall notify the attorney's fees associated with any hearing held complainant and respondent of his or her determination under subdivision (c) or by the Labo!* Commissioner if the Labor Commissioner finds t he complaint was paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). not later than 60 frivolous. unreasonable, groundless, and was days after the tiling of the complaint. brought in bad faith. The complainant may, after Determinations by the Labor Commissioner notification of the Labor Commissioner's under subdivision (c) or (d) may be appealed by determination to dismiss a complaint, b1ing an the complainant or respondent to the Director action in an appropriate court, which shall have of Industrial Relations \.vithin 10 days following jurisdiction to determine whether a violation notification of the Labor Commissioner's occurred, and if so, to restrain the violation and determination. The appeal shall set forth order all appropriate relief to remedy the specifically and in full detail the grounds upon violation. which the appealing party considers the Labor Commissioner's determination to be unjust or Appropriate relief includes, but is not limited to, unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the rehiring or reinstatement of the complainant, director. The director may consider any issue

3 California Labor Code 98.7 - Retaliation Procedures (2014 Version) relating to the initial determination and may modify, affirm, or reverse the Labor Commissioner's determination. The director's determination shall be the deterrrtination of the Labor Commissioner. The director shall notify the complainant and respondent of his or her determination within 10 days of receipt of the appeal. (f) The rights and remedies provided by this section do not preclude an employee from pursuing any other rights and remedies under any other Jaw. (g) In the enforcement of this section, there is no requirement that an individuaJ exhaust administrative remedies or procedures.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD. KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 JUN 2 2014

 , Mr. Elbert G. Bowers                                                                Rl-2011-A-0019 l(b)())(C)

Subject Concerns You Raised to the NRG Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated Oear'Mr. Bowers: This letter provides an update on the status of your allegation file regarding Tetra Tech EC, and responded to all of your concerns. j *Ji, ~. Incorporated and associated activities at Hunters Point. Our previous letters to you addressed (J, (I -1, J_OJ~/ , J ti Th~NRC is aware that your discrimination complaint against Tetra: ect((Case No. 9- o-yf-

       )1
 ,.ol"1 which you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on J;el3ruary-&;,-z6t2, remains open. Further, it is our understanding that your DOL case is being held in abeyance because you filed your case in Federal Civil Court and, as a result, DOL cannot continue the investigation nor issue a report until after the Court issues a decision. Therefore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will notify you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process Per our telephone conversation on May 22, 2014, I informed you that we were aware that you had notified the news media that you had previously brought a number of concerns to the NRC regarding Hunters Point while you were employed with Tetra Tech. The article, published on May 19, 2014, discusses your concerns related to radiological controls at Hunters Point, including your statement that you lost your job after reporting such concerns to the NRC. As a result, I want to inform you that the NRG can no longer protect your identity as the source of these concerns. Additionally, we are reviewing the news article for any new concerns not previously addressed by the NRC, and we will follow up with you by separate correspondence if any new issues are identified.

Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC Gan be of further assistaric~ In this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, eL//&Y-Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

JUN 2 2014 Mr. Elbert G. Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 r (?)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

This letter provides an update on the status of your allegation file regarding Tetra Teen EC, Incorporated and associated activities at Hunters Point. Our previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your concerns. The NRC is aware that your discrimination complaint against Tetra Tech (Case No. 9-3290 021), which you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on February 8, 2012, remains open. Further, it is our understanding that your DOL case is being held in abeyance because you filed your case in Federal Civil Court and, as a result, DOL cannot continue the investigation nor issue a report until after the Court issues a decision. Therefore, we will maintain.your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will notify you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process Per our telephone conversation on May 22, 2014, I informed you that we were aware that you had notified *the news media that you had previously brought a number of concerns to the NRC regarding Hunters Point while you were employed with Tetra Tech. The article, published on May -1 9, 2014, discusses your concerns related to radiological controls at Hunters Point, including your statement that you lost your job after reporting such concerns to the NRC. As a result, I want to inform you that the NRC can no longer protect your identity as the source of these concerns. Additionally, we are reviewing the news article for any new concerns not previously addressed by the NRC, and we will follow up with you by separate correspondence if any new issues are identified. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Ortata.tl &l&ned By : Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers 2 Rl-2011-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110019st7.docx To receive a cop of tflls document, indicate in the boJt: 'C" = Co "N" = No cop OFFICE DNMS:DB Rl:01 NAME M Ferdas a.-.<"-" (b)(7)(C) DATE 05/ *t-U2014 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:46 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: U.S. NRC re: Recent May 2014 p~one messages/ conversations... SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban. Richard Sent: T uesday, May 27, 2014 6:45:43 AM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Ferdas, Marc Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: U.S. NRC re: Recent May 2014 phone messages I conversations ... SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule FYI From~rx7 XC) k= _(7)_(c_) - - - - . . . . I m=ai=lto=l:!(b)_ Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 3:26 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

U.S. NRC re: Recent May 2014 phone messages / conversations... Mr. Urban, As follow up to the the subject line above: A voice message left for me on May 21 , 2014 at 1 PM, detailed your advisement of the following: ... the article that was out in the paper about "Former Contractors Claim Hunters Point Cleanup Is Botched" ... a couple of things to go over ... inspector Orysia Masnyk-Bailey had some questions ... we were trying to make a dual call ... we 'II try to get back with ya ... If we don't hear back from you we'll be calling you separately ... maybe you can give me a call at 610 337-52*71 ... Orysia is at 864 427-1032 The following day (May 22, 2014 at 1 :59 PM), you and I talked directly during which my preference was shared that subsequent communications with the NRC be conducted in writing . To justify, I feel that doing so allows the enhanced opportunity for sufficiently documented detail to be clearly communicated, in particular as to what information is now 1

needed by the NRC and why the agency is attempting to contact me after such an extended lapse in time. Frankly, a rationalized explanation evades me and personal concerns build over circumstances and appearances related to radiological safety at Hunters Point. In particular, that which suggest the NRC's present day agenda is more on damage control / assessment I repair as a greater priority due to negative public scrutiny - complete with overarching licensee protection afforded those with a demonstrated history of suspect intent - who in doing so have allowed for the inexcusable compromise of general public, project staff, and environmental well being, all while making deflective and misleading representations to officials of local, state, and federal government agencies. Mr. Urban, it has been and continues to be my morally preferred and professionally correct objective to openly cooperate with you, your office staff, and representatives of all branches within the NRC. Hence, to ensure a detailed understanding during ensuing communications, please state your intent very clearly, and document what you want from me in detail. I will conscientiously consider your correspondence in like fashion with the best interest of the general public, the Hunters Point project population, and the environment in mind as my top priority. Sincerely 1 Elbert "Bert" Bowers l(b)(/)(CJ 2

From: RlAILLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:21 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: U.S. NRC re: Recent May 2014 phone messages / conversations... SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:20:44 AM To: Klukan, Brett Cc: Bickett, Brice; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Ferdas, Marc; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: U.S. NRC re: Recent May 2014 phone messages/ conversations.. SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule Brett, Just an FYI. rMr. Bowers and Susan Andrew~re basically being informed by their lawyer that they shouldn't talk to us; rather they should only respond in writing to our writing. The reason for my call to them was to inform them of being considered widely known allegers and for Orysia to get more info on a couple new allegations that appeared in a news article. From:IM'lCCl  ![mailtoJ_ )(7_)(C_) - - - - ~ (b_ Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 3:26 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

U.S. NRC re: Recent May 2014 phone messages / conversations.*.

                                                                        ~

Mr. Urban, As follow up to the the subject line above: A voice message left for me on May 21 , 2014 at 1 PM, detailed your advisement of the following: ... the article that was out in the paper about "Former Contractors Claim Hunters Point Cleanup Is Botched" ... a couple of things to go over ... i~spector Orysia Masnyk-Bailey had some questions ... we were trying to make a dual call ... we 'II try to get back with ya ... if we don't hear back from you we 'II be calling you separately ... maybe you can give me a call at 610 337-5271 ... Orysia is at 864 427-1032 1

The following day (May 22, 2014 at 1:59 PM), you and I talked directly during which my preference was shared that subsequent communications with the NRC be conducted in writing. To justify, I feel that doing so allows the enhanced opportunity for sufficiently documented detail to be clearly communicated, in particular as to what information is now needed by the NRC and why the agency is attempting to contact me after such an extended lapse in time. Frankly, a rationalized explanation evades me and personal concerns build over circumstances and appearances related to radio.logical safety at Hunters Point. In particular, that which suggest the NRC's present day agenda is more on damage control/ assessment/ repair as a greater priority due to negative public scrutiny - complete with overarching licensee protectiio n *afforded those with a demonstrated history of suspect intent - who in doing so have allowed for the inexcusable compromise of general public, project staff, and environmental well being, all while making deflective and misleading representations to officials of local, state, and federal government agencies. Mr. Urban, it has been and continues to be my morally preferred and professionally correct objective to openly cooperate with you, your office staff, and representatives of fill branches within the NRC. Hence, to ensure a detailed understanding during ensuing communications, please *state your intent very clearly, and document what you want from me in detail. I will conscientiously consider your correspondence in like fashion with the best interest of the general public, the Hunters Point project population, and the environment in mind as my top priority. Sincerely, Elbert "Bert" Bowers __, ~DJ\lXC) 2

From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:54 AM To: Haverkamp, Trisha Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

INPUT FOR ADAMS - TETRA TECH Attachments: Cover Page Blue - Sensitive Allegation Material.docx; 201100191ic.docx Attached SLJ 1

From: RlALLEGA TJON RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:32 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett. Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Your Request Attachment&: 20110019stl.pdf From: Urban, Richard ~~~?*)t~oes: Ma; 14 11 2011 9:32:11 AM SubJect: our eques Auto forwarded by a Rule Per your request during your telephone call with Ms. Nicole Warnek and myself this morning, please find attached a copy of our letter that was previously sent to you dated June 30, 2011 . Please be advised that the NRC cannot protect the information during transmission on the Internet and that there is a possibility that someone could read your response while it is in transit. Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator Region I U.S. NRC 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19405-2713 June 30, 2011 Mr Beet Rowers Rl-2011-A-0019 l(b)(7)(CJ

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated Dean Mr. Bowers: This letter pertains to nine concerns that you raised to the NRC in your electronic mail messages to Mr. Rick Munoz of our Region IV office on January 31 and February 1, 2011, regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated. You expressed concerns related to health physics practices and alleged discrimination at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project. In addition to the information you provided us on those dates, you provided additional information 1o us in various telephone discussions with Region I staff, electronic mail messages, and a large binder of information that you mailed to us on April 26, 2011. Based on that information, we have revised your concerns as described in Enclosure 1. We have addressed and responded to eight of your nine concerns as noted in Enclosure 1. We note that you have signed an agreement to mediate via Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR) with Tetra Tech regarding your discrimination concern (Concern 1). The NRC will continue to monitor your discrimination concern. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me or one of my associates toll-free via the NRG Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely, Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 1: You asserted that you experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shi ard. You stated that you were repeatedly berated by one of the Tetra Tech ..,,b ~ 7......c....____..... !(b )(7)(C) ~he last instance occurring in the presence of the T b7c during a field supervisory staff meeting. h'ou also stated that th (b)(?)(C) told you that your safety concerns seemed to be based on the fact that your name was listed on the license and that he could arrange to have it removed; later upon advising him of your obligation to

1) resolve the issues at hand or 2) begin steps to inform the NRC, he ordered you to pack up your office and to get off the project site immediately._

Introduction for Concerns 2 - 9 The NRC performed an inspection at Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Hunters Point Shipyard, from March 29 - 31, 2011. The results of this Inspection are documented in Inspection Report 03038199/2011002, which was issued on April 29, 2011 . The cover letter and inspection report is available for review on the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; (ADAMS); the referenced documents can be found with a Web-based ADAMS search, using the advanced search feature with accession numbers ML111230127 and ML111230163 under document properties. Concern 2: You asserted that a Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) sign appeared intentionally turned down (i.e., not visible) in a "Parcel E" area (also referenced in Concern 3) that required the signage. NRC Assessment The inspector observed ma.ny posted areas during the inspection. The inspector did not see any RCA signs that were turned down in areas that required the signage. All areas appeared to be properly posted. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that signage was properiy posted in required areas. Concern 3: You asserted that on multiple occasions a water station was set up inside a "Parcel E" RCA without following proper protocol. 1

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 NRC Assessment As part of the inspector's tour of the work areas at Hunter's Point, several water stations set up in the field were observed. The inspector did not see any water stations inside any RCA areas. In addition, the inspector reviewed incident reports and found none indicating any incidents in which a water station was improperly set up. The inspector also reviewed the controlling procedure describing how to set up a water station; it was found to be adequate. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRG concluded that all water stations were properly set up and none were found in any RCAs. Concern 4: You asserted that vehicles ,leaving the RCA after normal working hours may not have followed the proper procedures for egress. NRC Assessment The inspector reviewed the procedure for vehicles leaving an RCA and it was found to adequately describe what was required. The inspector also observed several vehicles leaving RCAs. The procedure was followed every time. The inspector also interviewed personnel working the egress points as to their knowledge of the egress procedure. All personnel appeared to understand their responsibilities. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that vehicles were leaving RCAs according to procedure. Concern 5: You asserted that licensed activit_ i es were being performed past 4 pm and that there may not have been an Aut~orized User present to oversee this decommissioning work on January 12, 2011 . NRC Assessment The inspector questioned personnel regarding after hours work activities. The inspector was told that this usually involves non-licensed work areas and is not a frequent occurrence. In addition, personnel were aware that an Authorized User is required to be onsite for any work after hours, and in addition, the RSO representative is on hand. 2

ENCL0SURE1 Rl-2011-A-0019 NRG Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that licensee personnel understood the requirements for licensed work conducted after hours. Concern 6: You asserted that the perimeter fence appeared breached and would not have been able to limit or control access. NRG Assessment The inspector noted that the area is large and borders a residential neighborhood. The RSO representative does, at a minimum, a daily fence integrity check. Breaches that have been observed are repaired that day. The inspector did not observe any breaches in the perimeter fence during the course of the inspection. NRG Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC confirmed that there have been breaches in the perimeter fence, but the NRC was unable to identify any improprieties or inadequacies associated with NRC-regulated activities. The licensee appears to act in a timely fashion to assess and repair any breaches in the perimeter fence. Concern 7: You asserted that a survey of a locker was not adequate because the interior was not wipe-tested. NRC Assessment The inspector confirmed that the locker in question was in an office area. It did not contain any radioactive material. It appears the licensee opened the locker to remove NRC license related documents and secure them in another location. No wipe test was required. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that a survey of the locker in question was not required. Concern 8: You asserted that required radiation safety records may be compromised and/or destroyed because the records, which had been kept under lock and key in the site RSO's office as of January 23, 2011 , were accessible due to the locks having been broken and/or removed. 3

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 NRC Assessment The inspector was provided all required radiation safety records that that were requested. The inspector determined that the records were secured with the appropriate level of control and access. NRC Conclusion Ba~ed on the above, the NRC concluded that required radiation records were properly stored and controlled. Concern 9: You asserted that the emergency/off-hours contact list contained your telephone number even though you were no longer working at the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard. NRC Assessment The inspector found that the RCA area signs contained outdated emergency and off hours contact information. This was brought to the attention of the licensee at the exit meeting on March 31 , 2011. All of the signs were corrected with the correct contact information by April 4, 2011 , per an email from the licensee's RSO. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC confirmed that RCA signs contained out dated emergency/off-hours contact information, but we were unable to identify any improprieties or inadequacies associated with NRG-regulated activities. 4

From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:56 PM To: CDaly@dir.ca.gov Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Ms. Daly: Last we communicated, May 2013, the individuals had filed civil cases and the DOL complaints were being held in abeyance due to this civil filing. Can you inform us of the status of the Tetra Tech cases? Thanks Much Sharon Johnson 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD. KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 NOV 2 5 2013 Mr. Elbert G. Bowers Rl-2011 -A-0019 r~n~) I

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated DearlMr. Bowers This letter provides an update regarding your concerns with Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated. As stated in our previous letter dated May 29, 2013, which was re-mailed on July 11, 2013, the NRC has addressed and resgonded to all of your concerns. How~ver, the NRC is aware that your discrimination complaint (Tetra Tech/Bowers/9-3290-11-064), which you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on July 8, 2011 , remains open~ Thererore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will not. fy you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely,

                                                  *£ LL/~

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

NOV 2 5 2013 Mr. Elbert G. Bowers RJ-201 1-A-0019 l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear' Mr. Bowers:

This letter provides an update regarding your concerns with Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated. As stated in our previous letter dated May 29, 2013, which was re-mailed on July 11 , 2013, the NRC has addressed and resi:2onded to all of your concerns. However, the NRC is aware that your discrimination complain{ (Tetra Tech/Bowers/9-3290-11-064), which you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on July 8, 2011 , remains open~ Therefore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will notifi you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Or~.i\1:-::i~l G.i~.rM1d i3J : Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers 2 Rl-201 1-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\status\20110019st6.docx To receive a co of this document, Indicate In the box: "C = Co OFFICE DNMS:DB NAME M Ferdasl'f) DATE 11/ / /2013 11/ l ~ /2013

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 7:20 AM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

FW: Bert Bowers: Contact Information Update Please place in the file. Thanks. From~(7)(C) I(mallto~(b)(7)(C) Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:59 P~..,.M..--------- To: Urban, Richard Cc: john@scottlawfirm.net; antonlaw@sbcglobal.net

Subject:

Bert Bowers: Contact Information Update Mr. Urban, In reference to the subject line above - and for your records (re: Rl-2011-A-0019), please be advised of the following updates / confirmations: Mailing address: . Elbert G., Bowers l(b)(?)(C) Main phone: (b)(?)(C) Alternate: (b )(7)(C) As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback Is needed. Regards, Bert Bowers 1

From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:44 PM To: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

Tetra Tech Files Rl-2011-A-0019 - Rl-2011-A-0113 Rl-2011-A-0138 - Rl-2012-A-0022 Tetra Tech files, are being held in abeyance by DOL until a decision is made by the State of California . Rl-2011-A-0138 has a closeout letter (should be status) ready to be mailed - but- this file is still pending in DOL. 01 finished their case and a 3 week email was done - but - DOL is not done. The Cl is being informed of 01 conclusion but no mention that we will monitor OOL case. Also, should not the licensee get a letter regarding 01 conclusion? Am I wrong??????? Sh"r<>>> ~'4W John~on Allegedion A:i:ii~tt.\nt 610-337-S374 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAJSSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 JUL 1 1 2013 Mr. Bert Bowers RT-2011-A-0019 r (7)(C) Subject Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech -EC, Incorporated

Dear tv1r. Bowers:

The NRC has completed its follow up in response to nine concerns that you initially raised to the NRC In early 2011 regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated. Our previous letter to you dated June 30, 2011 , addressed and responded to eight of your nine concerns. The NRC has completed its review of your remaining concern {Concern 1). Enclosure 1 to this letter restates Concern 1 and describes our review and conclusion regarding that concern. The NRC is aware that your discrimination complain {Tetra Tech/Bowers/9-3290-11-064), which you filed with the U. S. Department of Labor {DOL) on July 8, 2011, remains open. Therefore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will notify you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday Sincerely,

                                                ;;::2_L// !!LL Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 1: You asserted that you experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. a You stated that you were berated by the license Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) during field supervisory staff meeting. You also stated that the Project Manager told you that your safety concerns seemed to be based on the fact that your name was listed on the license and that he could arrange to have it removed; later he ordered you to pack up your office and to.get off the project site. Response to Concern 1: NRC Assessment The Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated an investigation (Case No. 1-2012-002) on October 7, 2011 , to determine whether you were discriminated against by Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated, while working at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS), for having raised safety concerns. Specifically, you stated that you had worked for Tetra Tech, a licensee that was contracted to decommission the HPNS site. You alleged that you raised three concerns to several radiation protection supervisors {RPSs) and the HPNS project manager (PM), all of whom also worked for Tetra Tech. You stated that you had reported: 1) workers entering a radiologically controlled area (RCA) without a Radiation Protection (RP) escort; 2) a water cooler that was inside of an RCA without approval; and, 3) RP equipment being left unattended overninht You testified to 01 that you had worked at HPNS since 2002, first for a previous contract company, and since April 2009, for Tetra Tech. You stated that you were responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance, and it was in that capacity that on January 13, 2011, you raised your concern about unescorted workers entering an RCA to the RPSs and the PM. The RPSs and PM argued that the work location had ~en cleared and down-posted from being an RCA; therefore, your concern was no longer valid. lFollowing the meeting, you confronted the PM about not supporting you. The discussion between you and the PM became heated, resulting in you being asked to leave the site. You claimed that you were placed on paid administrative leave and temporarily reassigned to another work location. You said that when you completed your temporary assignment, you were required to use all of your leave and we.r e then furloughed .. During interviews with 01, the RPSs and the PM denied that you were discriminated against. These individuals testified to 01 that the RCA had been down-posted prior to the workers entering the RCA These individuals provided 01 a copy of an ~mail, which was dated before the alleged incident, and included you as a recipient that described the down-posting of the area. The PM testified that during the argument, you offered your resignation and the PM accepted it. One of the RPSs, who testified to eave~dropping QQ the argument outside of the PM's office, corroborated that you had offered your resignation., rhe PM also acknowledged that you had previously raised the other two concerns regarding the water cooler and RP equipment, but stated that these were low-level issues that the PM directed you to address.,_ 1

ENCL0SURE1 Rl-2011-A-0019 01 also interviewed your supervisor, who claimed that the company had offered you several jobs in alternate locations following completion of your temporary assignment. He stated that you had declined these opportunities and were only Interested in being assigned work in the San Francisco area (01 also reviewed documentary evidence to this effect). The supervisor said that he did not return you to the HPNS site because of the personality conflicts between you and other workers at the site. He also denied that you were discriminated against. In addition, 01 interv.iewed several of your coworkers. They testified to 01 that they believed that you were discriminated against. However, none of these individuals could provide any evidence to that effect. 01 determined that it was within th~any's right to remove you from the HPNS site due to the argument between you and th (b)( ) nd to not return you to that site based on the personality conflicts between you an your coworkers.. Testimony also indicated that you offered your resignation at one point, yet despite acceptance of your resignation, you received several offers from the company to work in alternate locations, which you refused NRC Conclusion Based on the totality of the evidence developed by 01 1 the NRC was unable to conclude that you were discriminated against after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. 2

MAY 2 9 2013 Rl-2011-A-0019

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

The NRC has completed its follow up in response to nine concerns that you initially raised to the NRC in early 2011 regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated. Our previous letter to you dated June 30, 2011 , addressed and responded to eight of your nine concerns. The NRC has completed its review of your remaining concern (Concern 1). Enclosure 1 to this letter restates Concern 1 and describes our review and conclusion regarding that concern. The NRC is aware that your discrimfnation complain (Tetra Tech/Bowers/9-3290-11-064), which you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on July 8, 2011.l emains open. Therefore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will notify you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Ortttnal SJantt IJ : Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Bert Bowers 2 Rl-2011-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\status\20110019st5.docx OFFICE NAME DATE

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 1: You asserted that you experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. p)( You stated that you were berated by the 1Kc> ~uring a field supervisory staff meeting. You also stated that the px7xc> j told you that your safety concerns seemed to be based on the fact that your name was listed on the license and that he could arrange to have it removed; later he ordered you to pack up your office and to get off the project site. Response to Concern 1: NRC Assessment The Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated an investigation (Case No. 1-2012-002) on October 7, 2011, to determine whether you were discriminated against by Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated, while working ,at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS), for having raised safety concerns. Specifically, you stated that you had worked for Tetra Tech, a licensee that was contracted to decommissioh the HPNS site, You alleged that you raised three concerns to several radiation protection supervisors (RPSs) and the rxl)(C) I E!J all of whom also worked tor Tetra Tech. You stated that you had reported: 1) workers entering a radiologically controlled area (RCA) without a Radiation Protection (RP) escort; 2) a water cooler that was inside of an RCA without approval; and, 3) RP equipment being left unattended overnight. You testified to 01 that you had worked at HPNS since 2002, first for a previous contract company, and since April 2009, for Tetra Tech. You stated that you were responsible for ensuring regulatory comp Iiance I and it was in that capacity that on January 13..2.Q.11 , you raised you~cern about unescorted workers entering an RCA to the RPSs and the~ The RPSs andfili:..largued that the work location had been cleared and down-posted from being an RCA; therefore, your concern was no lo,nger valid. Following the meeUf,P*~ou confronted the @XJXC> I about not supporting you . The dlsqussion between you and the l ecame heated, resulting in you being asked to leave the site.:.. You claimed that you were placed on paid administrative leave and temporarTiy reassigned to another work location. You said that when you completed your temporary assignment, vou were required to use all of your leave and were then furloughed. During interviews with 01, the RPSs and th~denied that you were discriminated against. These Individuals testified to 01 that the RCA had been down-posted prior to the workers entering the RCA. These individuals provided 01 a copy of an email, which was dated before the alleged incident, and included you as a recipient that described the down-posting of the rx ! area. The l![)I testified that during the argument, you offered your resignation and the 7XC) ~ t e d it. One of the RPSs, who testified to eavesdropping w, the 2r9.ument outside of the c:J office, corroborated that you had offered your resignatiorp.;, The &J also acknowledged that you had previously raised the other two concerns regard i n ~ water cooler and RP equipment, but stated that these were low-level issues that the Ejdirected you to address. 1 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 01 also interviewed your r lXC) I who claimed that the company had offered you several jobs in alternate locations following completion of your temporary assignment. He stated that you had declined these opportunities and were only interested in being assigned work in the San Francisco area (01 also reviewed documentary evidence to this effect). The rxlXC) !said that he did not return you to the HPNS site because of the personality conflicts between you and other workers at the site. He also denied that you were discriminated against. In addition, 01 interviewed several of your coworkers. They testified to 0 1that they believed that you were discriminated against. However, none of these individuals could provide any evidence to that effect. 01 determined that it was within the company's right lo remove you from the HPNS site due to the argument between you and the~ and to not return you to that site based on the personality conflicts between you and your coworkers. Testimony also indicated that you offered your resignation at one point, yet despite acceptance of your resignation, you received several offers from the company to work in alternate locations, which you refused. NRC Conclusion Based on the totality of the evidence developed by 0 1, the NRC was unable to conclude that you were discriminated against after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. 2 OFFICIAL RECORD COPV

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 r KJNG OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 MAY 2 9 2013 RnrtP,,.,- Rl-2011-A-0019

Subject:

Concerns You Raised t o the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

The NRG has completed its follow up in response to nine concerns that you initially raised to the NRC In early 2011 regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated. Our previous letter to you dated June 30, 2011 , addressed and responded to eight of your nine concerns. The NRC has completed its review of your remaining concern (Concern 1). Enclosure 1 to this letter restates Concern 1 and describes our review and conclusion regarding that concern. The NRC is aware that your discrimination complaint {Tetra Tech/Bowers/9-3290-11-064), which you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on July 8, 2011 , remains open. Therefore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will notify you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely,

                                              #LL/t'LL Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

MAY 2 9 2013 Rl- 2011-A-0019 Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Subject:

NRC Office of Investigations Case No. 1-2012-002 Oear!(b)(7)(C) !: The Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated an investigation (Case No. 1-2012-002) on October 7, 2011 , to determine whether a former Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) was discriminated against by Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, for raising safety concerns . Based upon testimonial and documentary evidence developed during the 01 investigation, the NRC was unable to conclude that the1former RSO was subject to discrimination. Specifically, testimony indicated that the former RSO offered his/her resignation at one point, yet despite acceptance of his/her resignation, the former RSO received several offers from the company to work in alternate locations, which the former RSO refused. Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23. Requests for Records, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Also, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS}. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). No response to this letter is required. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Marc Ferdas of my staff at (610} 337-5022. Sincerely, OrtatAal St&ne4 1,, Raymond K. Lorson, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

As Stated OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

l(b)(7)(C) 2 RJ-2011 *A-0019 Distribution: R. Zimmerman, OE R1Allegation Resource R. Lorson, DNMS M Ferdas, DNMS D. Screnci, PAO SUNSI Review Complete:fr" ___ (Reviewer's Initials) ADAMS DOCUMENT ACCESSION NUMBER: MLXXXXXXXXX DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\LICENSEE\20110019fic.docx After declaring this document "An Official Agency Record" it will be released to the Public. To receive a co of this docume t, indicate in the box: *c* = Co without attachmenVenclosure "E" = Co with attachmentlenclosuro "N" = No cop OFFICE NAME DATE

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I

l100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19406-2713 MAY 2 9 2013 l(b)(7)(C) Rl-2011-A-0019 Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Subject:

NRC Office of Investigations Gase No. 1-2012-002 (b)(7l(C)

Dear The Region I Field Office,

NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated an investigation (Case No. 1-2012-002) on October*?, 201 1, to determine Whether a former Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) was* discriminated against by Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, for raising safety concerns. _Based upon testimonial and documenta!evidence developed during the 01 investigation~e NRC was unable to concluge that th former RSO was subject to discriminationl Specificalfy, testimony indicated that thd former R offered his/her resignation at one point, yet despite acceptance of his/her resignation, the former RSO received several offers from the company to work in alternate locations, which the former RSO refused. Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Also, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readinq-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). No response to this letter is required. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Marc Ferdas of my staff at (610) 337-5022. Sincerely, [Jll Raymond K. Lorson, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

As Stated

From: Daly, Catherine@DIR (CDaly@dir.ca.govJ Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:45 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Yes. Please let me know if and when the Civil Case ends. Cathy From: Johnson, Sharon [mallto:Sharon.Johnson@nrc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:20 PM To: Daly, Catherine@DIR

Subject:

Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Ms. Daly In January, 2013, you informed us that these cases were being held in abeyance because the parties chose to file in Civil Court. Is t hat still the status of these cases? Thanks Much Shen*on )..Aw fohn:,,on Allego.tion .A,d,diidito.nt 610-3*3 7-S374

From: Masnyk Balley, Orysia Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:05 PM To: McFadden, John Cc: Nicholson, John

Subject:

RE: Name and Address for 01 Closeout Letter to Licensee The address is correct but the ne,L.(b_)_(7-)(_c_) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' From: Nicholson, John Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:36 PM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

FW: Name and Address for 01 Closeout Letter to Licensee See Jack's question below. John Nicholson health physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Decommissioning Branch 2100 Renaissance Boulevard Suite 100 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone: 610.337 .5236 Email: john.nlcholson@nrc.gov Fromc McFadden, John Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:33 PM To: Ferdas, Marc Cc: McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Nlcho1son, John

Subject:

Name and Address for 01 Closeout Letter to Licensee 11,1m1CJ Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Is this still the correct address for management for License No. 29-31396-01? l

From: Daly, Catherine@DIR [CDaly@dir.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11 :52 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Not a problem. Please let me know if you need further information. By the way, the DOL in SF had one of the investigations. However, I believe it got put in abeyance due to our investigation. Take care, Cathy From: Johnson, Sharon [6] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:42 AM To: Daly, Catherine@DIR Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Thank you very much. SU From : Daly, Catherine@DIR [mallto:CDaly@dlr.ca.qovJ Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:36 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints These cases are in abeyance because parties chose to file in Civil Court with the same allegations. I cannot continue the investigations nor issue a report until after the Court issues a decision. We do not want to risk issuing a different outcome from the judge. Catherine S Daly Dcpu ty Labor Commissioner Retaliation Unit 455 Golden Gate Ave rnth Floor San FranLisco, CA 94102 (,115) 703-,~.841 cdaly@djr.ca.gov From: Johnson, Sharon (mallto:Sharon.Johnson@nrc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, J~nuary 30, 2013 8:33 AM To: Daly, Catherlne@DIR Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints

Ms. Daly: My name is Sharon Johnson and I work for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission In King of Prussia, PA. We have been made aware of 3 DOL WB complaints (9-3290-11-064, 9-3290-12-12-021 and 9-3290-12-060) from the individuals filing the complaints and by your agency. At this time, I would like to ask the status of these cases. Thank You Very Much Sht4ron J..Aw Joh~on AtlegAtion A~~iMAnt 610-337-S374 2

         \

From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 8:22 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: 3 Week Email for Of Case 1-2012-002 - OFFICIAL USE ONLY - INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

  .From: Mclaughlin, Marjorie Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 8:21 :36 AM To: McLaughlin, Marjorie; Zimmerman, Roy; Hasan, Nasreen; Hilton, Nick; Day, Kerstun; Coleman, Nicole; Faria-Ocasio, Carolyn; Furst, David; Gulla, Gerald; Sreenivas, Leelavathi; Woods, Susanne; Wray, John; Solorio, Dave; Scott, Catherine; Dean, Bill; Lew, David; R1ENFORCEMENT RESOURCE; Farrar, Karl; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Casey, Lauren; Fretz, Robert; Beckford, Kaydiani Carpenter, Robert; Ghasemian, Shahram; Arrighi, Russell; Burgess, Michele; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Ferdas, Marc; Lorson, Raymond; Collins, Daniel; Marenchin, Thomas; Campbell, Andy

Subject:

3 Week Email for 01 Case 1-2012-002 -OFFICIAL USE ONLY - INVESTIGATION INFORMATION Auto forwarded by a Rule Hunters Point Naval Shipyard: UNSUBSTANTIATED Discrimination against a former contract employee for having raised a safety concern (Case No. 1-2012-002; Allegation No. Rl-2011-A-0019) Investigation

Purpose:

The NRC Office of Investigations (01) initiated an investigation on October 7, 2011, to determine whether a Concerned Individual (Cl), was d.iscriminated against by a contract decommissioning company at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS) for raising a safety concern. Investigation

Conclusion:

Based upon the evidence developed during the investigation, 01 did not conclude that the Cl was discriminated against. Disposition Actions: In an ARB on December 19, 2012, the staff agreed with the 01 conclusion. If no alternative views are received within three weeks of the date of this email, the disposition actions (sending closure letters to the Cl and licensee) will be taken. The allegation and investigation details are summarized below. Allegation: On February 2, 2011 , a Cl contacted a Region IV (RIV) DNMS inspector by telephone and alleged that he had been subject to a hostile work environment after raising radiological safety concerns. The Cl, who had worked for a licensee that was contracted to decommission the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS site, alle ed that he aised three concerns to several radiation protection superv1isors (RPSs) and the HPNS (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) all of whom also worked for the same licensee. Specifically, the Cl alleged thatThe t,:ffl"nsrrnn'l!!n'""'TT----' war ers entering a radiologically controlled area (RCA) without an RP escort; 2) a water cooler that was inside of an RCA without approval; and, 3) RP equipment being left unattended overnight. (b)(7) The Cl claimed to the RIV inspector that the ,RPSs and th (C) id not take, his\concems seriously and that(he felt threatened when the (b)(7) tatedi he couldlremove the ram the company's NRC license. The Cl claimea (C) - 1

(b)(7) that he asked if the (C) ted his resignation and stated that he would go to the NRC with his concerns. The Cl also alleged that,Jn~ (b)(?) old him to leave the site and that he could contact the NRC from his own phone. The Cl claimed that he was subsequently reassigned to a different decommissioning project and was later furloughed. At the direction of a February 16, 2011, Allegation Review Board (ARB), RIV referred the matter to Region I (RI), which had licensing and inspection responsibility for the contract company. A March 16, 2011, RI ARB determined that prima facie had been articulated. In October 2011, the Cl informed 01 that he had engaged in an uns.uccessful Alternative Dispute Resolution mediation session with the contract company on August 17, 2011, pnd 01 opened its investigation . .Investigation uetaus: fhe Cl testified to 01 that he had worked at HPNS since 2002, first for a previous contract company and then for the subject licensee since April 2009. The Cl stated that he was responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance, and it was in that capacity that, o~uary 13, 2011,~sed his concern about unescorted workers entering an RCA to the RPSs and th b ( ) The RPSs an~ ( ( l rgued that the work location had been cleared and down~posted f r o ~ an RCA an hat the Cl's con , therefore, was not valid. Foll

• e meeti ng, the Cl confronted th (b)(7) bout not supporting him. The discussion between the Cl and the (b)(?)(C) became heated, resulting in the eing asked to leave the site. The Cl claimed that he was placed on pa, administrative leave and temporarily reassigned to another work location. The Cl said that when he completed his temporary assignment, he was, required to use all of his leave, and was then furloughed.

(b)(7) The RPSs and the (C) enied that the Cl was discriminated against. These individuals testified to 01 that the RCA had been down-posted prjor 10 the incident. The individuals provided 01 a copy of an email which was dated bef~e alleged incident and included the Cl a.s a recipient that described the down- osting of th,e . area. Th (b)(?) testified that dur1ng their argument, thefCI had offered his resigna~d th (b)(7) ad accepted it. One of e PSs, who testified to eavesdroppi~he argurnent outside the (b)( ) office r, corroborated that ~ was the Cl who resigned. The (b)(?) cknowledged that the Cl a previously raised the other concerns (regarding the water cooler and R eauipment), but stated that these were low-level issues which thel~~? ) r ad directed the Cl to address. QI Interviewed the Cl 's supervisor, who claimed that the company had offered the Cl several additional assignments in alternate locations following his completion of the temporary assignment. He stated that the Cl had declined these opportunities, and was only interested In being assigned work In the Sani Francisco area (01 also reviewed documentary evidence to this effect). The supervisor said that he did not return the Cl to the HPNS site because of the personality conflicts between the Cl and other workers at the site. I He denied that the Cl was discriminated against. Although a few of the Cl 's coworkers testified to 01 that they believed the Cl was discriminated against, none of these individuals could provide any evidence to that effect. Based on the evidence gathered, 01 determined t h i ! l 's the company's right to remove the Cl from the HPNS site[due to the argument between the Cl and th ( )( ) nd to not return the Cl to that site based on the personality conflicts between the Cl and his co rs. 01 also considered that the Cl declined numerous offers by the company to work in alternate (ocations and that the primary safety concern did not, in fact, represent an actual concern. Accordingly, 01 concluded that the Cl was not discriminated against. QFfalQlaO.la W&li QtJh.¥ IJ*V&&=Fl&Ml9tJ IHF9RMATl9N 2

USPS.L-om - USPS Tracking' Page 1 of English Customer Service USPS Mobile E11USPS.COM. Searc Quiel< Tools Ship a Package Send Mail Manage Your Mail Shop Custc USPS Tracking TM Havec Tracking Number: 70031680000491009981 Product & Tracking Information Available Postal Product: Features: Certified Mail"' KING OF February 7, 2013 , 2:49 pm Delivered PRUSSIA, PA 19406 Your item was delivered at 2:49 pm on February 7, 2013 in KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19406. January 29, 2013 , 10:56 am Unclaimed l(b)(7)(C) January 14, 2013 , 12*06 pm Notice Left l(b)(7)(C) December 29, 2012 . 11:46 am Not,ce Left l(b)(7)(C) I December 29, 2012 , 11 :44 am Arrival at Unit l(b)(?)(C) I December 29, 2012 5:11 SAN Depart USPS Sort Facility am FRANCISCO, CA 94188 December 28, 2012 , 11:55 Processed through USPS SAN pm Sort Facility FRANCISCO. CA 94188

USP~.Gom - USPS Tracking' Page 2 cif Track Another Package What's your tracking (or receipt) number? Track It LEGAL ON USPS.COM ON ABOUT.USPS.COM o* Privacy Policy > Government Services > About USPS Home > B1 Terms of Use > Buy Stamps & Shop > Newsroom> P1 FOIA > Print a Label with Postage > USPS Service Alerts > In No FEAR Act EEO Data > Customer Service > Forms & Publications > P1 Delivering Solutions to the Last Mile > Careers> N, Site Index> DUSPS.COM. Copyright© 2014 USPS. All Rights Reserved.

DEC 2 1 2012 Mr. Bert Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear. Mr. Bowers:

This letter pertains to your remaining discrimination concern that you initially raised to the NRC in early 2011 . The NRC is continuing with its review o*f your concern. When we have completed our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and final resolution. Should you have any additional q uestions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely, Ori;i~~-1 Si~~ ~y: Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPV

Mr. Bert Bowers 2 Rl -2011-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File. No. Rl-2011-A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110019st4.docx To receive a co ov of this document, In di cate In the bo x*. ,'C" - Copv without attachment/enclosure "E'*- Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE DNMS:DLB I}J ORA:SAC /": 1//1/ I I I NAME M Ferdas i-\'lr R Urban / <--; DATE 12/ 1<<> /2012 12/iJ I /201~ OEEJCJAL RECORD COPY

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19406-2713 DEC 2 i 2012 Mr. Bert Bowers Rl- 2011 -A-0019 l(b)(~(CJ

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

DearlMr. Bowers:

This letter pertains to your remaining discrimination concern that you initially raised to the NRC in early 2011 . The NRC is continuing with its review of your concern. When we have completed our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and final resolution. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter. please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely,

                                               £ u/.{!L/=--

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED .MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

From: R 1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:25 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: **sensitive allegation** Attachments: arb.2011-A-0019.docx From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:24:47 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Ferdas, Marc; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Roberts, Mark

Subject:

**sensitive allegation..

Auto forwarded by a Rule Attached is the Dec 191h panel form to closeout 2011-A-0019 Steve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399 1

ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-0019 Branch Chief (AOC): M Ferdas Site/Facility; Hunters Point, CA (Tetra Tech Ee, Inc.) Acknowledged: N/A ARB Date: December 19, 2012 Confidentiality Granted: N/A Issue discussed: 01 investigation of case No. 1-2012-002 completed. 01 did not confirm discrimination against the Cl. The 01 transcript was reviewed by DNMS Branch 4 . No new concerns identified. Does alleger object to RFI to the licensee? NIA ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES (b)(7)(C) Chair: R Lorson Branch Chief: M Ferdas SAC: RUrban 01: RI Counsel: KFarrar Others: 0 Masnyk Bailey DISPOSITION METHOD 01 Investigation DISPOSITION ACTIONS 1 ) 3 week email Responsible Person: MMclaughlin ECO: Closure Documentation: Completed:

2) Closeout Jetter to CJ and licensee.

Responsible Person: RUrban ECO: Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: None PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: Completed. RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 0/IDOUOOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement? When did the potential violation occur? NOTES: DNMS ha~omplet~e it eview of 01 report for Case No. 1-2012-002 and agrees with Ol's conclusion that theL!Q!:..mer RSO as not discriminated against for having raised safety concerns. No additional potential allegations or apparen technical violations were identified. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2 100 RENAISSANCE OOULEVARD, SUITE 100 Kl NG OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406-271 3 JUN 2 5 2012 Mr. Bert Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 SEP J2 2012 l{b){?){C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

This letter pertains to your remaining discrimination concern that you initially raised to the NRC in early 2011 . As noted in our last letter to you dated December 27, 2011, we informed you that the Region I technical staff was reviewing a transcript of your interview with an agent from our Office of Investigations (01) . Based on our review, we did not identify any new technical concerns. However, the NRC is continuing with its review of your discrimination concern. When we have completed our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and final resolution regarding your concern. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1 156, extension 5222. Sincerely,

                                                ~                  dlll__

Richard J. Urbai<'" Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

From: Johnson,* Sharon Sent: To: r~~ay, ::;tember07 f012 10;3!i AM Cc: r an, c ard; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

Address Change Mr. Bowers: Sharon Johnson with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Do you have another address where we should send correspondence to you ? Last address we have is: Than.ks Much ShQ.ri"Ol" J..a.w lohMon ,A((eg~tion A~:)tMttnt 610-337-..>,74 1

From: l(b)(7)(C) I Sent: Tuesday, September 11 , 2012 9:05 PM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Re; Address Change Hi Sharon* My apologies for the delay in a response... I've been traveling / visiting with family is~ etc and computer access has been limited. The address which should continue to be used - as has been the case for all other correspondence, Is as follows: l~)a)(C) I As always, feel free lo contact me in the event additional Information or feedback is needed. Regards. (b)(7)(C) In a message dated 9/7/2012 7:35:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Sharon.Johnson@nrc.oov writes: Mr. Bowers: Sharon Johnson with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Do you have another address where we should send correspondence to you? Last address we have is: (b)(7)(C) Thanks Much 1

ShAYon }Aw JohMon A:U~Ation ~~i~tAnt 61<>-337-s,74 = 2

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMTSSION REGIONT 2100 RENAISSANCE BOULEVARD, SUITE I00 KING OFPRUSSIA, PENNSYI. VA'IIA I~406-27 13 1 "*' ., r-uJiY L j "et2 l Mr. Bert Bowers Rl-2011 -A-0019 l'b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

This letter pertains to your remarn1ng discrimination concern that you lnltially raised to the NRC in early 2011 . As noted in our last letter to you dated December 27, 2011 , we informed you that the Region I technical staff was reviewing a transcript of your interview with an agent from our Office of Investigations (01). Based on our review, we did not identify any new technical concerns. However, the NRC is continuing with its review of your discrimination concern. When we have completed our review, we wi'II notify you of our findings, actions, and final resolution regarding your concern. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

From: RlALLEGATJON RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:47 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjone

Subject:

FW: Tetra Tech EC, Inc./ Hunters Point Inspection- 2011 Attachments: ML1112301630.pdf; ML1112301800.pdf Cc: er as, arc; ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. I Hunters Point Inspection- 2011 Auto forwarded by a Rule I have attached the inspection reports you requested. The Allegations folks will have to provide you the closeout memo for Rl -2011-A-0019, for information about the cleared finding. I don't have a copy in my files. Please let me know If I can provide anything else or help in some other v,ay. From :!(b)(?)(C) Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:24 PM To: Nicholson, John

Subject:

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. / Hunters Point Inspection- 2011 John-Good Afternoon. 1 was reacn1ng out with the hope that you might be able to assist in a particular area. I understahd that you went out to Hunters Point last fall and conducted an inspection following the complaint raised by former RSOR Bert BOWERS.1 lf the infonnation I have been give~orrect, you all did not have any findings out at the site, other than the self-report against BOWERS an~s.Jise and or storage of a radium dial button (I could be wrong with the exact terminology). Is tt possible that I can get a copy of that report and the cleared finding? T hanks and feel free to give me a ring if you have any questions. l(t>)(?)(C) Special Agent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region-I Field Office 2100 Renaissa nce Blvd. Renaissance Park Kin of Prussia, PA 19406 (b)(?)(C) Direct 610-337-5131 Fax

!(b)(?)(C)         IMobile 1

Iinitial I .J IAnnounced I Unannounced .J I Routine I Special I I increased Controls NRC FORM 591M PART 3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (1~~ ) 10 CFR 2201 Ooclret Fl/e Information SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

1. LICENSEE 2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1000 The American Road Region I, 475 Allendale Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415 REPORT NO(S). 201 1-002

3. DOCKET NUMBER/S) 4. LICENSE NUMBERCS\ 5. DATE/Sl OF INSPECTION 030-38199 29-31396-01 03/29 - 31/2011

6. INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 7. INSPECTION FOCUS AREAS 8. INSPECTOR 87124 03.01 to 03.02 John Nicholson SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION INFORMATION

1. PROGRAM 2. PRIORITY ., , ll"Ch*..,cc: CONTACT I 4. TELEPHONE NUMBER 03219 3

                                                                                          \D)\f)(C)                           l(b)(7)(C)

I D Main Office Inspection Next Inspection Date: 03/2014 D Field Office Hunter's Point Shipyard, San Francisco, GJ Temporary Job Site Inspection PROGRAM SCOPE Tetra Tech EC, Inc. {TT) changed the location of their corporate office from Washington to New Jersey. This generated a new license and therefore an lnltfal Inspection within one year of the Issuance of the new license even though TI is a long time NRC licensee. This inspection was conducted at a temporary Job site in order to follow*UP on lhe inltlal corporate office inspection earlier this year. TI is one of several contractors involved in the remediation of the Hunter's Point Shipyard facility. The primary radionuclldes of concern are Ra-226, Sr-90, and Cs-137. The majority or the work Involves soil excavation but there is some building demolition taking place as well. Soil is removed and movec:1 to the radiological screening yard pads (RSY} where it is '(,'Orked into six Inch deep lifts. The soil ls surveyed with sodium iodid'e dectectors to identify areas greater than approved criteria. Samples are taken and analyzed of areas exceeding established levels by gamma spectrscopy. If the soil samples exceed release criteria, the soil is removed from the RSY and shipped out as LLRW through Environmental Management Services representatives on site. In addition, the area from which the soil was excavated Is surveyed and sampled. Excavations that are found to be below release criteria are filled in with clean fill or RSY pad dirt that has been cleared and found to be below release criteria. Chemical contamination of the soil Is also an Issue and the soil Is screened for various chemical contaminants as well. Air sampling is conducted at various locations especially around the RSY. Areas are posted and roped or fenced off and entrance/exiting of radiological control areas ls controlled at access points. n performs on site laboratory analysis for all contractors on site. The TT organlZatfon on site consists of a senior project manager overseeing three main areas, lab operatons, field operations, and radiological screening yard operations. There is an RSO representalive on site at all times acting as a representative of the corporate RSO. The corporate RSO visits the site about once a month. NRC required program audits included corporate issues as well as focusing on one of the major decommissioning job sites every year. This is a long tenn decommissioning project. Contracts with the Navy usually are for two year periods. There was one non-cited violation Identified during this inspection. During a training session, a very low activity radium button check source was left unsecured in an unrestricted area during the lunch break for a training session on March 18, 2010. The source was discovered later during lunch time that day and placed Into the posted and secured source storage location. This violation was self Identified by the licensee, non-repetitive. and adequate corrective actions were taken. NRC FORM 591M PART 3 (RI Rev.10/2010) G:\Rererence\Word 2007 blank rorms\Blank 591M-Part3-NonPublic NonSeAsitive.doc John Nicholson SUNS! Review Completed By: _ :l...Rc=A;..:.;.. I _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ W Public Supervisory Review Completed By: _ :l...R  :..cA Judith A. Joustra I _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ W Non-Sensitive This document becomes an NRC OITrdal Agency Record once it is signed by the Supervisor

NRC FORM 591M PART 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (10-2003) 10 CFR 2.201 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

1. LICENSEE/LOCATION INSPECTED: 2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Hunters Point Shipyard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, California Region I, 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1416 REPORT Nos 2011-002

p. DOCKET NUMBER(S) 4. LICENSE NUMBER(S) 5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION 030-38199 1 29-31396-01 1 03/29 - 31/2011 LICENSEE:

The lnspecllon was an examination of the activities conducted under your license as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC} rules and regulations and the conditions of your license. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records. interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. The inspection findings are as follows: D 1. Based on the Inspection findings, no violations were identified. D 2. Previous violation(s) closed. [I] 3. The violalion(s), specifically described to you by the Inspector as non-cited violations, are not being cited because they were self* ldentlfled. non-repetitive, and corrective action was or Is being taken, and the remaining criteria In the NRC Enforcement Polley, NUREG* 1600, to exercise discretion, were satisfied. [] Non-Cited Vlolatlon(s) was/were discussed Involving the following requlrement(s) and Corrective Actlon(s): 10 CFR Part 20.1802, control of material not in storage, states that the licensee shall control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that Is In a controlled or unrestricted area and that Is not In storage. Contrary to the above, on Thursday March 18, 2010, a radium button source, used for training purposes. was found on the table in an empty conference room. It was used for training purposes and was left unsecured when personnel went to lunch. The source was discovered during lunch time and immediately secured in the approved and labeled storage area. An incident report was generated. Radioactive material control requirements were reviewed with the employee. An inventory of button and instrument check sources was checked. Sources are no longer used for the traininQ session. D 4 . During this Inspection certain of your activities, as described below and/or attached, were In violation of NRC requirements and are being cited. This form Is a NOTICE OF VIOLATION, wtiich may be subject to posting in accordance with 10 CFR 19. 11. Licensee's Statement of Corrective Actions for Item 4, above. I hereby state that, within 30 days, the actions described by me to the Inspector Will be taken to correct the violations Identified. This statement of corrective actions is made in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 (corrective steps already taken, corrective steps which will be taken, date wtien full compliance will be achieved). I understand that no further written response to NRC will be required, unless specifically requested. Tttle J Printed Name I Signature Date LICENSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE NRCINSPECTOR John Nicholson I IRA/ 04/29/2011 BRANCH CHIEF Judith A. Joustra IRA/ 04/29/2011 591M PART 1 (RI Rev. 10//2010) G:IReference\Word 2007 blank forms\Blenk 591M-Part1 .doc SUNSI Review Completed By: I RA / John Nicholson 0 Public Ci] Non-Sensitive This documen* bttomu an NRC Official Agtncy Recordl onct ii is sigatd by tht Branch Chief

UNITED STATES NUCLFAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION l 2100 RENAJSSANCB BOULEVARD, SUITE lOO l< INCi OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYL.VANIA l 9406-27 13 JUN 2 5 2012 Mc Bert Bowecs Rl-2011-A-0019

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

This letter pertains to your remaining discrimination concern that you initially raised to the NRC in early 2011 . As noted in our last letter to you dated December 27, 2011 , we informed you that the Region I technical staff was reviewing a transcript of your interview with an agent from our Office of Investigations (01). Based on our review, we did not identify any new technical concerns. However, the NRC is continuing with its review of your discrimination concern. When we have completed our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and final resolution regarding your concern. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely, o~tata.i1 Signa4 ly: Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Bert Bowers 2 Rl-2011-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110019st3.docx To receive a co of this document, indicate In the box: ~c" = Co with attachmenVenclosure "N" = No co OFFICE NAME DATE /2012

G: \ORA \ ALLEG\ PANEL\20110019arb3 . docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-0019 Branch Chief (AOC): Ferdas Site/ Facility: Hunters Po1nt - Tetra Tech Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: February 1, 2012 Confidentiality Granted: No Issue discussed: Review of 01 transcript (01Case No. 1-2012-002) from interview with Cl to determine if any new concerns were identified . Does alleger object to RFI to the licensee? NIA ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD AITENDEES (b)(?)(C) Chair: Dlorson Branch Chief: M. Roberts SAC: RUrban 01: RI Counsel: KFarrar Others: Hammann/Nicholson, J . McFadden, D. Holody, A. Turilin .___ ____. DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet) Inspection/Technical Review DISPOSITION ACTIONS (List actions for processing and closure. Note responsible person(s), form of action closure document(s), and estimated completion dates.)

1) No new concerns were identified. 01 Case is still open.

Responsible Person: Ferdas ECO: 2/1/12 Closure Documentation: ARB Form Completed: 2/1 /12

2) Continue 0 1Investigation 1-2012-002.

Responsible Person: !(b)(l )(C) ECO: 3/30/2012 Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: see previous panel form PRIORITY OF QI INVESTIGATION: see previous panel form RATI ONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: see previous panel form ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: see previous panel form NOTES: (b)(7)(C) The Cl's original concerns included wrongful termination. 0 1conducted an interview with the Cl and performed a review of the 0 1transcript to determine if any new concerns were identified. .___ ___. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:50 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; Mcf adden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Ma~orie

Subject:

FW: R1-2011-A-0019 Attachments: ARBDispostion2011-A-001 9 01 transcript (2).docx From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:49:40 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

R1 -2011-A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule 0 SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION - DO NOT DISCLOSE** See attached for ARB form . 1

From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 6:22 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Roberts, Mark

Subject:

RE: ARB for 1/4/2012 7 Yes, take all of the Branch 4 items off the schedule for 1/4/1 2 .... l(b_)_ ( _)(_c _

                                                                              ) ---------

1have reviewed two 01 transcripts. One interview w1tM Bert Bowers land one interview wlth1 Susan AndrewsJ Neither of them had any new concerns. From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:22 PM To: Hammann, Stephen Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

ARB for 1/4/ 2012 Importance: High Steve I assume you have eliminated all iaf your items to discuss at A RB on 1/4/2012. Please let me know what you are doing with the 01 interview transcript review you did (Rl-2011 -A-bO19) vice (Rl-2011 -A-0113). Sh"ron J.."w Joh~on .AUee"tio>> .A~~iM"nt 610-3*37-S374

From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:54 PM To: Hammann, Stephen Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: ***S ENSITIVE ALLEGATIONS MATERIAL******* Importance: High In my previous email I was trying to explain tha~he.v,,as interviewed as a witness (discrimination issue) for Rl-2011 -A-0019 so this interview transcript applies to that file. I am sooooooooooooo sorry I screwed up. From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:47 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: ***SENSITTVE ALLEGATIONS MATERIAL******* From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:46:52 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Roberts, Mark; Masnyk Balley, Orysia

Subject:

***SENSITIVE ALLEGATIONS MATERIAL...****

Auto forwarded by a Rule Regarding the schedule for tomorrows panel: 2011-A-ffi:J 113m:::},ay all be' removed from the schedule. We have reviewed the !(b)(7)(C) f Fl and we will accept it, we owe you the RFI checklist and enclosure 1 We have done a preliminary review of th~(b)(?)(C) IRFI and will most likely accept that as well, I have reviewed the 01 transcript for1Susan Andrew~ nd there are no new concerns which have not been 1 captured in the 20 concerns we already have listed for 2011-A.:.0113. Steve Hamma nn Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399 1

2 From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:39 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: QI Interview Transcript Rl-2011-A-0113 vs Rl-=2011-A-0019 No problem, I finished reviewing it anyway From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:35 PM To: Hammann, Stephen Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

OJ Interview Transcript RI-2011-A-0113 vs RI-=2011-A-0019 Importance: High STEVE FIRST I HUMBLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY APOLOGIZE!!!! After doing s~me research on the confusion, it would appear to me that the 01 interview transcript (1-2012-002) for thel'.fu_mal~oes actually belong to Rl-2011-A-0019, as a witness. It should still be reviewed to ascertain if there are any new issues that apply to either case. The latter case, Rl-2011-A-0113 has not even been offered ADR or 01 let alone DOL although they have filed a complaint with DOL. So - there is no real rush to review the transcript if you really do not have the time - just let me know please. SOR.RYii!!!! 9h'4v-on ~'4W John.don. .A:Ueg'4tio>> .A:ddiM'4>>f 610-3*37-S374 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1M0&-1415 FEB 1 0 2012 Mr. Bert Bowers Rl-2011 -A-0019 l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

This letter pertains to concerns that you raised to the NRC regardiryg Tetra Tech EC, Inc. You expressed nine concerns related to health physics practices and alleged discrimination at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project. Our previous letter to you dated June 30, 2011 , addressed and responded to your technical concerns (Concerns 2 - 8). With respect to your remaining open concern (Concern 1), although you had signed an agreement to mediate via Alternative Dispute Resolution (AOR) with Tetra Tech, negotiation, were unsuccessful and your discrimination com laint was turned over to the NRC Office of Investigations (01). You were interviewed by (bJ(7)(C)

• Special Agent, Region I Field Office, 01, on October 26, 2011. Our technica s I a transcript of your interview In order to determine if you raised any new technical concerns. In addition, we are aware that you have filed a formal discrimination complaint with the US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration {DOUOSHA).

The NRC is continuing with its review of your discrimination concern. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely, e l l/fLL Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Bert Bowers 2 Rl-2011-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110019st2.docx To receive a co of this document Indicate In the box: "C": Co OFFICE NAME DATE

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 DEC 2 7 2011 Mr. Bert Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 l(b)(/)(G)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Mr. Bowers:

This letter pertains to concerns that you raised to the NRC regarding Tetra Tech EC, Inc. You expressed nine concerns related to health physics practices and alleged discrimination at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project. Our previous letter to you dated June 30, 20:1 1, addressed and responded to your technical concerns (Concerns*2 - 8). With respect to your remaining open concern (Concern 1), although you had signed an agreement to mediate via Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) with Tetra Tech, negotiations were unsuccessful and your discrimination com laint wa over to the NRC Office of Investigations (01). You were interviewed by (b)(7J(C) , Special Agent, Region I Field Office, 01, on October 26, 2011 . Our technica sta s review ng a transcript of your interview in order to determine If you raised any new technlcal concerns. In addition, we are aware that you have filed a formal discrimination complaint with the US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (POUOSHA). The NRC is continuing with its review of your discrimination concern. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-600-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely,

                                                £L//fLL_

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, December 21 , 2011 2:30 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: *"'*SENSITIVE ALLEGATION********** From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:29:57 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Urban, Richard; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

***SENSITIVE ALLEGATION**********

Auto forwarded by a Rule I have completed reviewing the transcript of the 01 interview with)Elbert Bowers\associated with Rl-2011-A-0019 and there aren't any new concerns in the interview. Steve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399 1

From: Johnson, Sharan Sent: ,..ll!IIULWlalL....L.U:::i;;e,Q ber 19, 2011 4:53 PM To: Cc:

Subject:

Importance: High l(b)(7)(C) Mark Roberts has asked if the 01 interview transcript (1-2012-002) can be provided to Orysia Masnyk-Bailey for review. Orysla's official work duty station is her residence and that is where this document would have to go. Rl-2011-A-0019 and 1-2012-002 Thanks Sh'4l'On J..o.w fohn:Son AUe.eo.tion A:S~i:Sto.nt 6,o-337-S374

November 17, 2011 Cl called and wanted the NRC to know that he/she ~ tates still RSOiat the site in name) was aware of two other individuals who have NRC/OSHA issues at the California site whom he/she informed they should contact the NRC concerning. The Cl indicates that one of the individuals has already been terminated from the site and the other still works at the site and fears retaliation because of what has happened to him/her. Sharon Johnson

QiAilfil/lis efl'1 QiPTI.Y QI IiiRQyi,TlwA'.J:xJQN li'TFQIIIHr\'fIQPT OO~STJGATlON STATUS RECORD l(b)(7)(C) Facility: TETRA TECH EC, INC. Case Agent Case Number: 1-2012-002 Date Opened: 10/07/2011 Docket Nurnber(s): 03038199 ECO: 01/2012 Priority: High Case Type: Materials/ Industrial Status: Field Work In Progress Primary Alleg Source: Alleger Allegation Nurnber(s): Rl-2011-A-0019 Subject/Allegation: DISCRIMINATION FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN NRC PROTECTED ACTIVITY Monthly Status Report: 1017/2011: On January 31 and February 1, 2011 Bert BOWERS. former Tetra Tech RSO representativelat the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard decommissioning project provided a number of technical concerns and a discrimination complaint in electronic mail messages to Rick MUNOZ, NRC:RIV. Because Tetra Tech is a Region I (Rt) licensee, U,ese con_cerns were f9.fY!a.wed to the RI Office Allegations Office for disposition. Specifically BOWERS,J!llegedthaYhe. experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological concerns to include the need f~r improved anq timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point. BOWER~ claims to have been repeatedly berated by a Tetra Tech b 7 C  !!_l)e~t instance_occurringjn the presence~t e Te!.[a _ Te ( or ra,s n!b_is__Joncems. BOWERS claimed that th (b) old(hlrn tha , to be based on the fact that hisJ[BOWERSl na s listed.. on tn NRC license and t (b)(7)(C) could arrange to have it removed }30WERS claims that wher1helnfor~ (b)(7) ,l.J)..is o 1gation;o*~olve issues at the site or begin steps to inform theNRC, th (b)(7) r erecl!Jl~~ pack u hl~ffice and to get off of the site im~diately. On April 1, 2001, w last day thav BOWER _,performed work for Tetra Tech, buYhelvas paid for accumulated overtime, ~ick and annual leave until August 1, 2011. These concerns were discussed during a March 16, 20'\ 1, NR<tRI Allega,ion Review Board (ARB). The ARB, to include Regional Counsel determined that BOWERS had articulated a prima facie case of d iscrimination and thatfBOWERS]Nould be offered access to the NRC's Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) program or to have Ol 1iwesUgate.jBOWER$..icf:!..ose fo pursue the ADR option.; BOWERS and Tetra Tech mediated on AUQ_Ust17 , 2001. but01anol reach a settlement and the tssue was returned to RE for Investigation. On October 5, 2011 , Region I Field Office Directo (b)(7)(C) spoke with, BOWERS who confirmed that ADR mediation had failed" and tha he eslred that 01 investigate his discrimination concern. Potential Violations include 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate misconduct) and 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee protection). The Statute of Limitations tolls on April 1, 2016. Status: FWP ECO (90 days): 01/2012. Completion Date: Total Staff Hours: 17.0 Issue Date: Months Open: 0.0 DOJ Action(s): DOJ Referral Date: 01 Violation{s): Harassment and Intimidation - No Result Statute of Limitations Date: 4/1/2016 10/25/20119:18:54AM Page #1 8ft'I@tAl5 '8815 8N:fs¥ 8I JN,5B8Tl8/t'fI8l'f If ff 8Rl\~'tTl8N

From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:4 7 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Tetra Tech From: (b)(7)(C) Sent: urs ay, co er 06, 2011 7:46:39 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Urbanj Richard Cc: Holmes, Marcy

Subject:

Tetra Tech Auto forwarded by a Rule Rick - this is provided for the Allegation file. The 01 case# is 1-2012-002. (b)(7)(C) Region I' 47ey Allendale Rd King of Pruss,a. PA 19406 [O]l(b)(7)(C) I [F] 6 10-3~7-5131 Blackberr~... (b_H7_H_ci_ _ __, From ' (b)(l)(C) sei,t;*"""w""'e"..,d-ne_s_,d-ay-,"""o,...ct-o...b_e_r """os"""',"""2""'0....11.......s..,:1""'s"""P,...M_ _ _ _ _ _.... T o:f_(b)(7)(C) I Cc: patel.sewall.k@dol.gov

Subject:

Re: (no subject) l(b)(?)(C) Regarding the referenced phone conversation Just completed, this response confirms my request that 01 Investigate the discrimination complaint of record. Information related to the corresponding USDOL Investigator involved with the complaint is as follows: Sewali K. Patel Regional Investigator U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA 90 7th Street, Suite 18100 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 625-2'538 Fax: (415) 625-2534 E-mail: patel.sewali.k@dol.gov In parallel.. should the need for additional information or feedback becomes necessary, feel free to contact me using any of the options that follow. Your promptness as reflected in your timely effort to contact me is appreciated, Bert Bowers r )(7)(C)

7 In a messaae dated 10/5/201 11:17:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ... l(b-)( -)(C _)_ _ _ _ _!writes: Mr. Bowers - During our telephone discussion a few minutes ago, you requested ttiat 01 investigate your discrimination comp1aint. Please confirm that and also provide me the name of the USDOL Investigator in a return email. Thank you, USNRC, Office of Investigations Region I 475 Allendale Rd, King of Prussia, PA 19406 [OJ !(b)(7)(C) [FJ 610-337-5131 Blackberry ... l(b-)(?_l(_ c)_ _ _....

=

2

From: Sent: Wednes ay, October 05, 2011 7:23 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 (adr-11-022) Tetra Tech Rick - this looks like the original allegation. I will be over to get copies of what we need to open the case, l(b)(7)(C) USNRC, Office of Investigations Region I 475 Allendale Rd, King of Prussia, PA 19406 [O]!(b)(?)(C) I [F] 6 i 0-33.... 7....

                  -5....

13_1_ _..... Blackberrv!...(b_)(7_)(C_l _ ____. From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:33 AM To: RlALLEGATION RESOU ,,._R C__ E _ __ Cc: Ghasemian, Shahtam;!(b)(7)(C)  !; Traci L. Morse

Subject:

RI-2011-A-0019 (adr-11-022) Tetra Tech In this case, the parties mediated on 8/17/2011 but did not reach a settlement. However, it seems that they wanted to continue negotiations because they asked whether we (the NRC} would pay for another round of mediations. I declined that request mainly because of the cost but gave the parties several weeks to work on their own to see if they can reach a settlement. We gave them until the end of September, Since no settlement was reached and there was no status from the parties, Cornell will be notifying the parties that we are closing the ADR case file and returning it to the region for investigation. So, given this background, it may be worthwhile for 01 t o contact the alleger first before we open a case to see what the alleger wants. For all I know, they may still be working on settling it on their own. Thanks Shahram Shahram Ghasemian Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.3591 1

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:40 AM To:  !(b)(WC) I Jo nson, Sharon; McFadden, John; Farrar, Karl; Ferdas, Marc Cc:

Subject:

FW: NRC Mediation !(b)(7)(C) Please provide us an 01 case and get in touch with the individual to set up an interview. We do have..a lot of information from the alleger that has already been reviewed and closed. The ONLY issue open i$ his discrimination complaint. Thanks. From J(b)(?)(C) Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:55 PM To: t1m6@cornell.ec:lu Cc: john@scottlawfirm.net; Urban, Richard; patel.sewali.k@dol.gov; cdaly@dir.ca.gov

Subject:

Re: NRC Mediation Traci, In response to the subject line above , Mr. John Scott (Scott Law Firm. San Francisco, CA) advised me as legal counsel of Mr. Grey's message. Many thanks for confirming tt,at you will 1) close the mediation case and 2) send it back to the NRC for investigation. In parallel, your efforts and professionalism extended to coordinate the mediation were greatly appreciated ~it was a pleasure working with you. Regards, Bert Bowers !(b)(7)(C) In a message dated 10/4/2011 8:30:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tlm6@comell.edu writes: HifRert and Jim, The NRC case between Elhert Bowers and TetraTech EC, Inc itas mediated on August 17, 2011 and did not reach a settlementyfhe case has been left open since that time to see if a settlement could be reached. The mediator, Robert Grey1informed you that the NRC would be closing the case by September 30. This email is to rtotify you that I am closing the case here and will be sending it back to the NRC for investigation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Traci

Trut:i L. Mors(.) AD R Program Manager Scheinman Institute on Cm~flict Resolution ILR School Cornell University 450 Research Building lthiu:a. NY 14853-3901 607-255-9298 ph. 607-25)-0574 f(t}: tlm6(a Icomell. edu www.ilr.cornelJ.edu/conflictres Advancing the World of /York 2

From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:13 PM To: Urban, Richard Cc: Wilson, Ernest; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

ADR-11-022 (RI-2011-A-0019 (Tetra Tech) Update This is an update on the ADR case. The parties mediated on 8/17/2011. They started far apart but they seemed to be close to reaching an agreement. However by the end of this mediation session, they had not reached a written settlement agreement. They have asked for the NRC to pay for another round of mediations in October hoping to finalize their deal. I plan decline their request to pay for another round of mediations but am willing to give them until the end of September to work out a deal on their own. If I don't receive their agreement by the end of September, I plan to turn it over to RI for investigation. Shahram Shahram Ghasemian Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.3591 1

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:29 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: SENSITIVE INFORMATION - LIMITED DISTRIBUTION Attachments: Cover Page Blue - Sensitive Allegation Material (2).doc From: Modes, Kathy Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 201 1 4:29:11 PM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

SENSITIVE INFORMATION - LIMITED DISTRIBUTION Auto forwarded by a Rule

************"©FFlelAL l::J8[ ©f4LY     e©PJ~IPde 6[14~1Tl'o!E IFJFe"~'~TIOl4 ****************************

Rl-2011-A-0019 I called the Cl in regards to the 8/4/2011email s/he sent to Ms. Daly of California ands/he cc'd Richard Urban of our office. The Cl indicated that in his/her discussion with Ms. Daly, Ms. Daly suggested to the Cl thats/he notify the NRC as to the what is happening in his/her case. The Cl indicated that mediation would start tomorrow. I informed the Cl that the information contained in the email was within California's jurisdiction and that based on my review, there is no action needed by the NRC at this time. The Cl agreed and thanked me for the call. The Cl was glad to hear that we rec'd the email and that we called him/her back. No action needed on our part based on this email. Continue with course of action described in ARB. K~/vf~ Senior Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch USN RC - Region I DNMS (P} 610.337.5251 (F) 610.337.5269

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9Ffl81AL el9E 9t4LY 8 0U..A:1tJ9 8EU81fl'o'E ltJF0RMNJiil©t4

From: McFadden, John Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:36 PM To: Urban, Richard Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John; Modes, Kathy

Subject:

FW: DOL Complaint Fyi. Kathy was requested by Judy to call the Cl regarding the Cl's email to Daly@ca.gov. We were successful on the second attempt bu1 ne )Nas boarding a plane at the time and could not talk. Kathy plans on trying again next Tuesday. From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:59 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; Mcfadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: DOL Complaint From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:59: 11 PM To: Roberts, Mark; Joustra, Judith Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: DOL Complaint Auto forwarded by a Rule I already looked at the DOL complaint. No further action is needed there. Someone in DB needs to look thru the emails I gave Mark and determine if there are any new assertions that we are responsible for, or that we need to send to CA From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 20111:53 PM To: Ur ban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; Mcfadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: DOL Complaint From: Roberts, Mark Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 20111:52:47 PM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: DOL Complaint Auto forwarded by a Rule I did not have time to completely follow up on this. I reviewed the documents and believe that,w~eed to talk to his individual to gain more information; however this may be in California's jurisdiction sincfi_bejs asking for an evaluation on something that is being provided for a California license. Hard copy is on your desk. Mark 1

From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 7:31 PM To: Roberts, Mark

Subject:

Fw: DOL Complaint Importance: High Please follow up on this. Determine the next step. Sent via blackberry device From: Johnson, Sharon To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John Sent: Mon Aug 08 16:40:56 2011

Subject:

DOL Complaint FYI The Cl for Rl-2011-A-0019 (Tetra Tech) filed a DOL complaint on 7/8/2011 . We just received it from RIV today, 8/8/2011 . Sharon Law Johnson Allegation Assistant 610-337-5374 2

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:52 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Tetra Tech Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:51 :54 AM To: Roberts, Mark Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Joustra, Judith Subj~t: Tetra Tech Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule Please re.spend to this e-mail after you had a chance to review the alleger's 8/4 e-mail string that I provided to you this morning. Thanks. 1

From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:46 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadd,en, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 TETRA TECH DOL COMPLAINT - SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:46:06 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Wilson, Ernest; Farrar, Karl Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0019 TETRA TECH DOL COMPLAINT - SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule This alleger is currently in ADR. I have reviewed the OOL complaint and determined there were no technical issues. However. there were some additional examples provided rela~QQ to(hia.ldiscrimination concern . However, we don't nee,d.Jo do anything different at this point because~s in ADR. But if the process fails, we would add the info tofhis purrent complaint that states: You asserted that you experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to r diolo ical controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. You stated that you were berated by the (b)(7J(C) during a field supervisory staff meeting. You also stated that the (o)(7)(C) o you a your sa ety concerns seemed to be based on the fact that your name was listed on the license and that he could arrange to have it removed; later he ordered you to pack up your office and to get off the project site. ' The DOL complaint states the following: 1

complainant alleges that on l/13 /11 1 l(b)(7)1C) I threatened ~o i:-amove

Complainant?e name from Reepondent?..&_ NR _ C_ l_i _o_11_n_11_e_ a_n_d_ r _em

_o_v_e_d_ C_o_rn_p...., lainant:. from the Hunte.r?s Point faval ShiFyard project in retaliation for reporting a nuclear eafet:.y issue/violation of the NRC fegulationa on the all.Ille day, 1/13/11, Complainant further a lleges that Respondent laid him ofI fro~ a suhsequant project in Ala.1neda affective 4/l/ll and e~bseguently forced him to use up hio leave (by not giving him any other aaaignx11onts) in retaliation for, (l) filing a complaint wi th the NRC against Respondent relating to the incident on 1/13/11, (2) meeting with the NRC on 3/31/J.l t.o discus& hia concerns, and (3) reporting the nuclear safety ieeue/violation on 1/13/11, 2

From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:16 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: DOL Referral for RI Case Attachments: DOL referral.pdf; 11021 Referral to RI re TETRA TECH ALLEGATION 3-4-2011.pdf From: R4ALLEGATION Resource Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:1 4:47 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: R4ALLEGATION Resource

Subject:

DOL Referral for RI Case Auto forwarded by a Rule The attached PDF is a copy of a DOL referral received by Region IV today. Region IV believes this DOL issue is related to a case that was referred to Region I in March, 2011; a copy of the original referr al is also attached.

    **    The licensee in question is Tetra Tech.

• the location is Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard.
• Based on an AMS search. this appears to be related to Region I case file Rl-2011-A-0019.

Region IV is forwarding to Region I for appropriate action. If it is determined that this is not relat ed to an active RI case please let us know.

Thanks, Peter Jayroe Allegation Coordinator/ Enforcement Specialist 817-860-8174 1

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration San Francisco Federal Building 90 - 7'h Street, Suite 18100 San Francisco, CA 94103 August 2, 2011 Senior Allegations Coordinator Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011 REGION IV Re: TetraTech, Bowers / 9-3290-11-064 Sir or Madam: Enclosed is a copy of the complaint in the above-caption ed matter for your information and appropriate action. Complainant and Respondents are being notified of the investigative procedures of this office under separate cover. If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,

         .~-t>(/<.,,(_ _u,a,z~
 .d,,tJAMES D. WULFF f'"'   Assistant Regional Administrator, Enforcement Programs Enclosure

case Activity W~rkeheet Run Data, 07/29/11 Occupational Safety and Health Administration jj,Ued.Da\:e, 107/0B/11 §c2.}* ,C.a~;'~,;~:,,l9-3290-ll-064 ~<=-~i.,_f~-'lf~:_:~.]22623722 ~ -l!POX:j;ing ID: I0900000

 ~ a fy.pe : iEAA                           ~-~ -t~:ory *I lllp'l'.~c iat.S.oll.:' _______ ~ - -                    .      _           _ __ ..
~llegation*: ;A - Filing with otnar Agency                                                                       nves't.t.gat.o r ,¢ a tel , s*ew,1:q                 \Ji:'!'!igned Date : :07 /2~/11
 !            *                       . 1:omplainant 11.llege11 tha~ on 1/13111 (b)(7)(C)                                                                    hroat,;ne~ to r~.,;;-*-

swm11ary1~omp1ainant1s n11.111e from Reepondont7D NRC licanaa r"d remove Comp einant ~rorn the Hunter?s Point I

                                     . *raval Shipyard project in retaliation tor rep~rting a nuclear aafaty iauue/violat!on of th* NRC
                              ~               egulationa on the s.une day, l/13/ll , l COllplau,ant further allaga& that Re epondeot lai d him off trom a &ubuguent project; in Ala111ada at!active 4 /1/ l!. and >>ub**guantly forcad b.i:in to use up hia laava (by not giving him any other a&sigm,ects) in                              r,etaliation !or, NRC against Respondent relating to the incident on 1/13/11 , (2) ~eeting with the NRC on 3/31/11 to (ll filing a. OOl!lphinl. W'lth the discus& his                    ooncercs,    and (3)    reportitlg the nu.claa.r ~afety isaua/violation on 1/13/11 ,

lla_s _p _o_n_d_e_n _t _ l ?_,_f ~ _ -~~ ,.-t :- i~ ~,n-,'"'/-II:- ain

                                                            -_,-~-,,_-:y
                                                                       - ;e-;;-'T11cb, I!. C ., Inc.                                -'.* _ .-'-',:rlio~,i-~:{;*                   1:mai-le r*~~,~~?:,?t?:.\. \'-~*.;: *::') ::t:::n::::: :v::l:~:;:~l:A::her                                                          Ave.                                               . -- - - .**..

L: .'-\',' I,_;*.,.:., ',:,.,J: *, *,' *.-.:*::.:

ii.einatate111ent II

                                                                                                                                                                          ~----*- -

l certify that the complaint was Hlad with ma~ (d.;t&) , I/ Note:This report contains **n*itive information that may not be appropriate for distribution outside OS!iA. Local offices should review the information BEFORE it is provided to outside requester .

Urban, Richard From: Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4: 16 PM To: cdaly@dir.ca.gov Cc: Urban, Richard; patel.sewafi.k@dol.gov

Subject:

Tetra Tech EC: "Make Adjustments" Request to Info in CDPH Form 2050 A Attachments: BowersCAForm2050AtoErikA080311.pdf; EAs TtEC Response to NRC re RSO 080409.docx Ms Daly, After our discussion over the phone today, the purpose of this communication 1s to document your notification for the purpose of official record and consideration. In reference to the subject line above. recent events involving assigned actions by my employer Tetra Tech EC, Inc have resulted in additional concerns related to my ongoing complaint and as outlined below: Specifics: Tetra Tech's ._!tb_x i_xc_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.!asked recently that I comptete and return to him CDPH Form 2050 A (using the link below to access the form template): http://www.cd ph.ca. oov/pubsforms/forms/CtrldForms/rh2050a. pdf Completion of the document was - per the r xixc) !email, pertinent to Tetra Tech's "need to apply for a California State radioactive materials license to do work ar Alameda, and some other places in California" After complying with the request and returning a completed form to him (as attached}, he sent another email request (today) as follows.

 "Could ou do me a m,or and make some adjustments to your training and experience form 71 need you listed as an RSOR, as I am the ~

on (b)(?)(C) CJ Reaction: As is common knowledge, there are NRC "Right to Know" posting templates which in fact use the RSO and RSOR acronyms. However, regarding COPH Form 2050 A, pg 1, section 3 part a,# 1 and the "Experience" section (as submitted) - in particular information pertinent to the "Employer" & "Title(s) and duties" fields relevant to time with Tetra Tech, the title entered as [ "Radiation Safety Officer reflects Tetra Tech's official company advertised job title for the project position I was hired to fill at Hunters Point ("Sup" reflects the assigned supervisory role while at Alameda). In parallel - and as he clearly knows (see supporting email attached), prior to my direct report's employment, I was listed on NRC documentation as the License RSO for Tetra Tech's material license. 7 Preliminary concern : In consideration of the facts as provided within, I feel through ulterior motives that Tetra Tech is requiring "some adjustments" (aka: improper and inaccurate modifications/alterations and intentional omissions/etc) which adversely affect the truthful accuracy of information as reflected on a State of California controlled document destined for filing as a legal record. Overriding concern: I feel I am being asked by Tetra Tech to knowingly trim down" a document which would in turn result in some degree of intentional falsification / lack of due consideration for future job openings. Summary:

I feel, unfortunately, that I am being asked by my employer to engage in a directive which negatively alters my highest level of experience and actual rank within the company. Plus, I feel belittled by an opinionated job title interpretation which is not supported by what's documented as factual record and maintained as such wittJjn the company. I conscientiously choose not to ignore the importance of the fact that I have successfully performed in the roleli3s License RS01.. and while at sites within the State of California. Accordingly, I would appreciate the addition of this complaint to my file. ' As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed. Your time dedicated to this important matter is sincerely appreciated. Regards , Bert Bowers Radiation Safety Office Tetra Tech EC, Inc 2

                                             , 2009 3:14 PM Mr. Munoz, Hern is IJ1e NRC li~ense umendment appointing Bert Bowers as the RSO for the tetraTech EC license. [ am current! w or k in wi th (b)(7)(C)                                 to amend O\tr license to appoint myself as th (b)(7)(C)                                                        o ltce as the area where the records arc kept.

Thanks! (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) Direct. (b)(7)(C) Fa;l: 757 461 .41481 Cell: (b)(?)(C) (b)(7)(C) Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oa!'.s. Suite 309. 5700 Lake Wrigl1l Drive I Norfolk, VA 23502 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: Thfs rnessage, lnduding any attachments, rnay include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or llse of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and rnay be unlawful. If ~ou a re not the intended reciplen(. please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system

       ~ Think Green - Not every email needs to be printed.

From;!(b)(7)(C) I - Se~ lTuesday,.~ust 04, 2.009 6:09 PM

      ~ wers, Bert~           ~...
                              ... )(...,

7)(.C_._

                                          ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ,

Subject:

NRC License Amendment 07.27 .09 (b)(7)(C) lease see ,macneo document (b)(7)(C) 3200 George Washington Way Swte G Richland, WA 99354509-372-5800 l(b)(7)(C)

      =

STATEMENT OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE (Use additional 'sheefs as necessary.) Instructions: Each lndMdual proposing to use radio8ctive material is* requited to submit a Statement of Ttatnlng and Experience (RH 2050 A) In dupllcate to: ca!ifomia .~rtme.nt of Publk. H~, RadiOloglc Health Brenc:h, MS 7610, Licensing Section, P.O. Box 997414, Sacramento, CA ~99-7414. Phy81dans sh~ld 1tJquest form RH 2000 A when applying for human-use authorizations. Radiographers should. request form RH 2050 IR For mo11:t lnfonnation, go to www.dhi,,ca.gov/rhb or phone (916) 327-5106. 0 a College or university . 8-V& D No (b)(7)(C)

                                                              . (b )(7)(

(b)(7)(Cl (2) Dales (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) From: To: (b)(7)(C) (b )(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) To: (b)(7)(C ) (b)(7)(C)

                                                                                                                     )

n Paae 1 of2

(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) To (b)(7)(C) ZIP l"A,l,. 1 l(b)(7)(C) I

~~f)                    :ii: l(b)(?)(C) I ,..

L.r,.,..,..,,="""""'=r;,.-*11__1.:s.....

                                    ~,__,.1........

111111,__

                                                                                            ,l(b)(7)(C)
                                                                                                                                - jj(b)(~7)(C) '

L_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_,-

                                                                                                                                                                         ---r(ihb)('7'i
                                                                                                                                                                                  'v?)Tr (C")- - - - - - - - - ,

• I 1 /b )(7)1C) 1 1

                        "       *         * ** '                     <.,cc11$~ Number l(bl(7l(Cl                               I                                                                                                                                                          l(b )(7)(C)

_l(b)(7)(C)

                 * *.. f:.,..   .1-. . *-     .& .I.I. ~C'C' ft.:**   ,:...r A.i.1;_... .. \

• I Ci1~(b)(7)(C) .(
• r*si~i~!IJ ZIP C()(lc l (h\f7 \/ I (b)(7) t-,~: j(b)(?)(C) I Tu J(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C)

(C) Till~ ,uul Outici l(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) 10 ;,.c 1v1; 11.:, .. ........\: ,y,.,.,..., Oa..tc I . ml~ *l(r"f,;;r(~7~

                  - )~c~b:=    (7-, )("!"!"

C~'!"!'!!!!!'",1!"!!

                                                               ;.;-_*-*....             -**s i::;:~;:;:-:-:;:*;;:;:*= *:::;- --.i."~('i~
                                                                           ***...1-1*~;:;:;                                              ,]* (i.:::b)=(7_)(_E _;-==-1.....

1s~i:ii~c*-~ (-b~)-(~

                                                                                                                                                                                                       '\""

7).._*_** ._..*t;(~?.":.~;;;

)~ )7(;,~.:(~C,1,,.,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     )1::;--

I - I (b)(7) (C) DalC$ l(b)(7)(C) From I T l(b)(7)(C) o

                                                                                                                                     ~

b)(7)(C) toyer , l f h H /\(r \ J (b)(7)(C) I (b )(7)(C) l(b )(7)(C)

                                          * **-            ials l.iccnsc Number

• lie'

  '-*::::'.:::;(b     ;Ei)iiii (7ilii;)(~Ci:2! ) mn.         L~   -l!!:!.~~iif::-
                                                             /S1    rcc.1Addrcul ...                      ------.71'"-l(b)(?)(C)        !'!'~ ~=,----rl          I                    "l(b)(7) I s,:,.;;;:, i'ii"!';ii':-i,-                ZIP'; :__;r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ~,     c'              ..

(b)(7)(C) I I 1;:_ 1/ h )f rHr \ I 1 1 (b)(7) Fron, l(b)(7)(C) I To l(b)(7)(C)  ;)(7)c"C) *(b)(?)(C) L (C) IT illcu nd Dulles I J(b)(7)(C) b)(7)(C) Dale (b )(7)(C) I b)(7)(C) r.n ,n!nvN At!J rcH ( !ilrtcl Atldr~"i I# ( AAA (b)(7)(C) I i (b)(7)(C) b)(7) (C) l)alCJ f~m l(b)(7)(C) I *To j(b)(?)(C) I (b )(?)(C) l (b)(?)(C) (b)(?)(C) I Titles and 0 111fos bH7l(Cl I J (b )(7)(C) L ___ _ iL..-l!;R~,ed=l';:loa

        . _:;:l(~i b~ )( 7~
                                  ~ct~i~,1,,,M;"!'a:";':
                         ')(~*Cm)~!!!!!!!m!!~I m~1r:rh':- ,a,)111\f~r=Fi  , ~rfcr1-:d:-

1cn~ *,~1$, ~Lic~:cns

                                                                            ~
                                                                             ~ ,c'."':::

N~ .um~,

                                                                                        ~.:_:
                                                                                              ~~ --
                                                                                                 *   =~

drleu~l f)R~1=rt i;(~b~)'"(~?~~

                                                                                                                                                 " )""""

(C

                                                                                                                                                           - - - --.--=------
                                                                                                                                                         ; )~~~~;~1:::::'        1(

S1'.6; a1e~ ,mml~b)~(

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -t"iibffl1<.,...7l..,.

LJ=~,::b:'.)(-:::7.):(C

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        <C _..

)_ _____.~

)~L- I l~~ r) ~=l(b)(7)(C) I To l(b)(?)(C) I 'h \(7 ){(; \ " b)(7)(C) I ~ I Tilfcs 1111d DuliC$ / I l(b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C) II nus License Numocr Da~ ~ I l(b)(7)(C) I b)(7)(C\ I l~ ;;:;::;-~:::;;:::.:~~~ii-l:==:;---i r;,v ..---==--n~;;:;:;;;:;-~ IS1a1](~)(7) I-,- ~(b)(7)(C) ~

j(b_)(_7_ )(C _) _ _ _ _ _ _ __,.l_ -..... (b_)(_ 7 )_ (C_) _ __,. I

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~ j Il l  l
                                                                                                                                                                                               ~

(b )(7)(C) , I (b)(7)(C) 1 (b)(7)(C) (b)(7) (C) (b)(7)(C)

                          ! . ~ ( *,"'k (b)(7)(C)           (b)(?)(C) 2 .-d~n~   t"-~ _Jo-{Z, tr-,,.M,L,J

b. Indicate the facilities and 0pera1igits \vhett training \\'.llS~ived and refer lO Part 3.a. when aris~'Cring the following:

   ~ Laboratories using .radiochemicak                             D (l)            0 (2)            D (3)            Of4) d" ~cted area laboratories                                      D (1)            C:112)          13'(3)            ai4)

C' Glove boxes O (I) Cl (2) B'(J) 0 (4) C3"'Yield operati0fl$ . B'(l) B"(2) 8'"(3} a (4) O'&vuonmcntal applications ~ 8'{i) 13'(2) 13"(3) 0 (4) CY"otrn:r(plc:uc~~>~~~~-,

• t;l .<*> B"(2) £313> m-(4)

(.- (.,.Jf-,,.,_..a. _, ~ ..... 'P~) . . .. .

c. .Radioactive materials previously med. Identify~ radi<>isotopes in appropriate box and refer to Part 3.a. on preceding f)ilge: * * * *

d. Ocecnl)e the pvcc:dun=s sjmilar to dlOSe propoKd in which you hM: .bad-experiencic. Indic:ate months or years fur each and n,fcr to Part 3.a. OIi pteeeding page.

        .s;_,,.,,.~e.c.L..--, .,. ,;:-,.A, ... ~ r:,,,.,H. .., -;.:. . -i;; ~-,4 .., ,.....,_ .-t-
                                                         .                                                           /o X,.-.r s,,.

4. Cedificale:

The illfutimtion you ue med to provide on Chis bm is mqueslal by the Stam of Calif'omia. Dcpanrne:nt of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch. This~ is n:qu.ired by Scclion 1798.17 of Ibo lnfonmtioa Ptacticcs Ailt of t9n (Code ofCivil Proclcdure, Section 17'98-1798.76) aad th, FaJcral Privacy A£t ID bo p;mdtd wbeoeveran . - y requests personal or confidential information from any individual. It is maodatory that you furnish *t)Je information ttJqucsted on this form. Failwc 10 ~ *11:ie teqUCl(od infommicn may result in 111 ioacx:ur:ate detemination or statemen1S and/or disapproval of~ application. I hereby cerfil'y that all information contmed in this ~ltmmt is troe and~ l i

                                                                                                                                .I Date RH 20SO A Cl 1/99)

D l.ahoratori~s using rndiochcmicals D (s) 0 (~\ 0 (7J D m> 13- Rcstriclcd o.rcn lahora\oncs Id'&> g, (c,) r;r'r1, Cir' (8J Er'Glove boxes 0 /.s-) B' (G,) 0 ('8] C- field operations ,:;y{3") 8'~) 9'($) O-E11\'ironmcn1al applicacinns El"~.s'> (3"'(~ 13' ta:.

    ~Other (pie use describe) ._fb-)-(7-)(_C_) - - - - - " ~ e--(n                                    0 (~                                      (3'(8)
 ,,,.,..i_1t-J>>~\.         .

h. l11,h.:u1c iii,: lm:1h11cs nnd t)pi:raii,111s "*hcn.: tr.1111111g \\'US n:cct\*cd :mil rdi:r lu P~n J.u. whc11.111S\\'l'l'i1t~ 1hc l\>11,mw!!-:

D LaborJiorics 11si11c rndioi:ho:miculs 0 (1,) o* (,o/ 0 1//J O r1zJ 13""'Rcstrictcd nrcn lahor.110,*ics 13" {(J) 9' (lo) O r11) g/<JZ} Cd'"' Glove bol,cs ff (91 0 (ro)

    ~,.;.,,,.,,,,,,,, , , ,;~*r 0 (11)               0   (/Z) er" Field operations                                                         ,ry/'})              lia'rM               e-'1M                9"(/7}

0 en- e'1M ~(t,) 0 0~} Other (plca.,e describe) (b)(7)(C) om 0 /Jtl) (,_.+,.,..,*\.) B'"tM 0~

h. f11dico1e lhi: focil11ics ,111d 11pc1*:11iuns \I lh:1*c 1ru1111ng was rc..-<:1wd :111tl refer 10 l1ur1 3.:i. wh.:11 :111s"*cnni; tho* 1illl,1wu1g:

     ~ _j..abor-Jtorics 1,.s111g rmlind,cmic:ils                                   O 011 a-- Rcs1rictc<l al'C:I labonitorics                                           13' 61)

C3'Glove boxes 9"" fo> i;;}"J:ieltl operatio11s g- {,J]

     ~nvimnmcnt~I opplico1,*oll'                                                  &'lrs}
     ~h,:r ([lh.':!S{ tit:SCribc)L~-b)-(7_)_(C    _ ) _ _ _ _ ___,~ (91'i)')

From: l(b)(7)(C) J Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 20 1 12:18 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Fwd: Tetra Tech Actions w/ Bert Bowers:1Placement on Administrative Leave Mr. Urban, Information below is provided FYI per Mrs. Daly's direction; please note that my assigned contact with the Department of Labor - OSHA section has been advised as has Senator Lindsey Graham's office. Regards, Bert Bowers Radiation Safety Officer ...,.,,,~~.::,.,=,i::r...i..i..;,, fnc From: CDaly@dir.ca.gov To:j(o)(7)(C) I Sent: 8737201 i 8:31 :22 AM. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: RE: Tetra Tech Actions w/ Bert Bowers: Placement on Administrative Leave Be sure to tell NRCI From:~(l)(C) Sent:ednesday, August o3, 2011 6:03 AM To: Daty, Catherlne@DIR

Subject:

Tetra Tech Actions w/ Bert Bowers: Placement on Administrative Leave Catherine, FYI, Tetra Tech (as initially indicated below) has advised of their decision td place me on administrative leave.II believe without doubt these actions continue to be part of their systematic effort of r~ taliation against me for simply attempting to conduct a vested job responsibility: address/ correct identified safety concerns of a radiological basis at the Hunters Point Shipyard. In this regard, I will contin ue to update you as events continue to unfold. Yours truly, 1

Bert Bowers Radiation Safety Officer, Tetra Tech EC, Inc 864 483-1789 (Direct)

    /////IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllI/IIIllIIll/!III/IIIIIIIIIIIllI!IIIIIIIIIIIIII!II/III/IIfIIIIIIIII!IllIIllIIIIllIIIIllI/III/II/I/IIIIII/Ill j(b)(7)(C)

F rorn To:l(b)(7)(C)  ! Se11t: 7/28/2011 8:21 :25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: RE: Unsuccessful attempt to submit Tetra Tech time sheet Bert, Give me a call a~(b)(l)(C) !when you get a chance. Need to talk to you about administrative leave, and the "Training and Experience,, form for our CA Agreement State license. Thanks, (b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C) l(b-)(?-)(-C)- ---.I Fa)(* 757 461 414B I Cell Diree1 ... (b)(l)(C) (b)(7)(C) Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oaks. Suite 309, 570v Lake Wright Drive Norfolk. VA 235021 www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE This message including any atlachrnents, m3y Include confidential and/or Inside Information. Any distribution or use of this cc,mmunrcation by anyone other then the intended recipient rs strictly prohibited and may be unlawhJI. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by replying lo this message and t11en delete :1 from your system

  ,t/;       Think Green . Not every email needs to be printed.

2

FromJ(b)(l)(C) To: tmur h laborlaw ers.com CC (b)(7)(C) Sent: 8/1/2011 6:29:22 AM. Pacificl)aylight Time Subj: Fwd: August 17, 2011 Mediation with Mr. Grey Mr. Murphy, b (7) C In consideration of resulting demands, the opportunity for regular internet access has, at best, remained limited. Appreciating likewise the examples of various mediation scenarios, and with indications that your facility has functional features for needs presently envisioned, your suggestion will be shared with my attorney during tomorrow's next scheduled teleconference (he too is traveling and is scheduled to be back from vacation and In his San Francisco office on August 2, 2011). Pending the conclusion of our aforementioned teleconference, a follow up will be attempted with you regarding your suggestion. In these regards, many thanks for your offer and again, my apologies for the delay in a more timely response. A follow up response will be forthcoming. Regards, Elbert Bowers Radiation Safety Officer Tetra Tech EC, Inc r )(l)(C) From: tmurphy@laborlawyers com 6~l(b)(7)(C) I Sent: 7/26/2011 2:34:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: August 17, 20111 Mediation with Mr. Grey

 ~. Bowers, I am counsel for,-1.u..u""-L..i..w,1..,1.,1,C in this matter and will be representing the company at the August 17, 2011 mediation. (b)(7)(C)                    sked that I respond to your latest email regarding where the mediation l would take plac .

Mediations norm.ally require multiple rooms for a joint session and then for the mediator to shuttle back and forth. We have plenty of room in our office in San Francisco at One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2340 to accommodate all the parties who will be in attendance. Please let me know if you would like to use our offices. Your side would of course have a private room, access to telephones and any office services lhal you might need throughout the day. l

I look forward to working with everyone to try to effectuate a resolution of your claim. Regards, Tim Murphy Fisher & Phillips, LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2340 San Francisco, CA 94611 (415) 490-9011 FromJtb)(?)(C) To: tlm6 cornell.edu CC: (b)(?)(C) Sen : ac1 1c Daylight Time Subj: Re: Date for Mediation Traci, If August 17, 2011 works for~ [Ji*11 pencil in that date as well. Many thanks, Bert Bowers r )(7)(C) From: tlm6:cornell. edu To:!(b)(7)(C) Sent: 77207 11 7:00:20 AM. Pacific Daylight I 1me Subj: RE: List of Mediators You have both selected .__(b)(?)(C) __, as the mediator for this case. I wiJJ contact him today and find out his availability. Since this case w 1 e mediated in California~ a space does need to be l ocated to hold the mediation at. Thanks, Traci 4

Traci L. Morse .... I !ADR Program Manager Sclleinnum .lnstitute on Conflict Resolution lLR School Cornell U nive.rsity 450 Research Building lthaca, NY 14853-3901 607-255-9298 ph. 607-255-0574 fax t !m6@.c.:o me lI. edu www. i Ir .cornel I.cd u/conflictres Advancing the World of Work b orn: (b)(?)(C) To: tlm6@cornell.edu (b)(?)(C) Sent: 7/20/2011 6:24:*- -.................................................,m

                                                                          ...e Subj: RE: List of Mediators Ms. Morse, As discussed , Tetra Tcch's preference as to the Mediators are in the following order:

First -(Grey 5

Third - Pou Fouith - Eagleson Thank you for your assistance. (b)(7)(C) (b)(?)(C) I. _b_i_re_c1:::l (b=)(l=)(=C=

                       ) ==-II         73 630.8526 I Cell l(b)(l)(C)

F_a_x -9... I (b)(?)(C) I.~ f\ Please note new E-Mail address. no Tetra Tecti EC I Legal 1000 TM American Road I Morris Plains, NJ 07950 I www.tteci.com PLEASE NOTE. This message. incluo1ng any attachments. rnay include confidential and/or inside 1nforrnation. Any distribution or use of this 1:01111minlcallon by anyone oth&r tlum the Intended recipient ls strtctly prohibited aod may L>e unlawtul II yo11 are Ml the Intended recipient. ~lease no11ty the sender by replying to this message and then delete It from your system. FromJ(b)(7)(C) I To: patel.sewall.k@dol.gov Sent: 7/15/2011 3:49:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Fwd: List of Mediators (re: Bowers & Tetra Tech EC, Inc - Hunters Point) FYI.... Tetra Tech responded I agreed to meaiate (5 weeks after the initial request). Regards, Bert Bowers aoo 326-5146 E!:9m 1(b)(7)(C)

         ,...._~__________._""                     I
   ~ ; !(b)(7)(C)

CC: tlm6@cornell.edu r'- Sent: 7/15/201 1 3:42:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Re: List of Mediators ( (b)(?)(C) 6

In reference o the subject line above, information obtained from the resumes fo Mr. Robert A Grey and Mr.

• Charles Pou reflects some prior degree of NRC based affiliation. In that regard and in order of recommended preference, the followihg order is respectfully submitted for your review I concurrence:

(l 1st preference: Mr. Robert Grey --J

 !2nd Preference: Mr. Charles Pou 3rd Preference: Mr. Michael Eagleson 4th Preference: Mr. Richard K. MahrleJ As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed. Unless advised otherwise, I look forward to your response by Friday, July 22, 2011.

Regards, {Bert Bowers I F ~ , Radiation Safety Officer, Tetra Tech EC, Inc 1"'""' In a message dated 7/13/2011 12:26:33 P.M. Pacific DaylightTime, t1m6@cornelt.edu writes: This wm confirm your agreement to mediate the ~ly ADR case between Elbert Bowers and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. The mediation date and location are to be determined. As of now, the mediation will be conducted in California. Enclosed are web sites for four accomplished members from our Roster (see below). You are encouraged to contact each other at the earliest possible time to discuss the qualifications of the proposed neutrals and then advise me of your preferences. I will endeavor to appoint a mediator and confirm the date as soon as possible. As stated in the Agreement to Mediate, the NRC will pay all mediator fees and travel expenses. The parties are responsible for any costs associated with meeting rooms. Feel free to contact me via phone or email. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Traci

)Michael Eagleson\

7

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/contlictRes/Roster01Neutrals/AllNeutrals.html?action=detai1&id= 344 Richard Mahrle http://www.ilr.comell.edu/conflictRes/RosterOfNeutrals/AIINeutrals.html?action=detail&id= 211 Robert Grey http://www.iIr.come] I. edu/conflictRes/RosterOfNeutrals/AllNeutrals.html?action=detail&id= 3260 Charles Pou htt p://www.ilr.cornell .edu/confl ictRes/RosterO:INeutrals/ AIJNeutrals.html?action=detail&id= 1068 Traci L. Morse ADR Program Manager Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution H ,R School Cornell University 450 Research Building: l!haca, NY 14853-390 l 607-255-9298 ph. 607-255-0574 fax tlm6@corne1J.edu 8

ww,v.ilr.comell.edu/conOictres Advancing the World <>.(Work = 9

From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11 :37 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard; Ghasemian, Shahram

Subject:

RE: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns:/Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO! Not a problem. They did select a mediator on 7/20. We have a tentative mediation date of August 17. Still waiting for the licensee to confirm th at date. From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:49 AM To: Ghasemian, Shahram , , nm Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC SENSmVE ALLEG INFO! Shahram Sorry to be a pest - any further word on this ADR case since 7/112/2011? Thanks SLJ From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:27 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns ~Bowers j md Tetra Tech, EC SENSmvE ALLEG INFO! We received the company's signed agreement to mediate form today. The parties will now start the process of selecting a mediator. sg From: Urban, Richard Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 7:46 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Ghasemian, Shahram

Subject:

FW: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns. Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC SENsmVE ALLEG INFO!

Sharon, For the fife ...

From :!(b)(7)(C) Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:09 PM To: pael.sewali.k@dol.gov Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Fwd: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns: Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC .... FYI l

Fr~ ~ ..........................................__, 7 To e Sen ; . . acific Daylight Time Subj: RE: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns:1Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC Hi Bert, As of right now, f still have not had a return phone call from Tetra Tech. At this point, I probably will not hear from them unt il Monday. I wlll call them again first thing Monday morning.

Thanks, Traci Traci L. Morse ADR Program Manager Scheinma11 Institute on Conjlict Res<Jlutio11 ILR School Cornell University 450 Research Building Ithaca, NY 14853-3901 607-255-9298 ph.

607-255-0574 fax tlm6@.comel1.edu www.iIrcurnell.edu/conllictres Adwmcing the World cf Work From: ri(?)(C) Sent: nday, July 08, 2011 2:28 PM 2

To: Traci L. Morse

Subject:

Fwd: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns: Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC Tracy.1 In reference to the subject line above, many thanks for your phone call... and the continued promptness and professionalism in providing feedback from your position. In line with our most recent discussion yesterday, I'll await word today should Tetra Tech, IEC provide it's formal response. In the interim, I remain completely surprised and somewhat taken aback at Tetra Tech, EC's perceived choice to date in pursuing an appearant path of silence. Nevertheless, if by close of business today Tetra Tech, EC's failure to respond continues and subsequently there's nothing to report, I will attempt to follow up with you on Monday, July 11, 2011 . Thanks again for your help in this critically Important matter.

Regards, Bert Bowers D

Direct) Mobile) Erom:!(b)(7)(C) To: tlm6@cornell.edu Sent: 7/7/2011 11 :28:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time_ pubj: Fwd: Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns. Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC Traci, In reviewing my notes as related to the subject line above, it's apparent that tomorrow will mark five weeks since forwarding a signed "Agreement to Mediate". The referenced document was initiated specific to NRC license based concerns and issues as they exist with my present employer Tetra Tech, EC. 3

In 'that regard - and since we last communicated on June 17, 2011, did any formal "response of record" result as a professional courtesy from Tetra Tech advising of their Intent specific to this option? Otherwise, has there continued to be no word from Tetra Tech, EC since we last communicated? Last, in similar experiences involving mediation alternatives, is the length of this type of time frame typical? Many thanks in advance for you time dedicated to this very important need. Regards, Bert Bowers r*' From:!(b)(7)(C) To: tlm6@cornell.edu Sent: 6/17/201111 :35:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj'. Agreement to Mediate NRC Concerns: Bowers and Tetra Tech, EC HI Traci -

 ~n looking at my calendar, today marks two weeks since I forwarded you a signed agreement to mediate.... i.e., NRC license based issues as they presently exist with my employer Tetra Tech, EC. In that regard, has there been a response from Tetra
 ,Tech advising of their intent?

Many thanks in advance for you time dedicated to this need. All the best, Bert Bowers 4

   /IIII/I/IJll/l///l/!l/llll/ll/ll/l/l/l/llllllll/lll///ll/llllll/ll/l!llllllllllfl/ll//l/l/llllllll From: tlm6 cornell.edu To (b)(7)(C)

Sen : . . acific Daylight Time Subj: RE: Agreement to Mediate Thank you for sending it back so quickly. I will contact Tetra Tech next week. Thanks, Traci Traci L. Morse

  !\DR Program Manager
  .~ci,ei11mn11 Institute 011 Co11.flicl Resolution
  !LR School Corne ll University 450 Research Building lthaca, NY 14853-390 I 607-255-9298 ph.

to?-255-0574 fax A' lm6@cornel I.edu www.ilr.comell.edu/conflictres Ad1'a1'/c:ing the l*Vol'!d c?f Work From:._! (b_)(7l_(c_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____, Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 3:09 PM roffraci L. Morse su6.rect: Re: A~ment to Mediate I-ii Traci, It was good getting to talk with you earlier today. In reference to that conversation, attached is a signed document indicating my willingness to attempt a 5

mediation of concerns involving my employer Tetra Tech EC, Inc. I will await yout; 1

• response specific to Tetra Tech's position.

In the interim, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed. Regards, 1 Bert Bowers (b)(7)(C)

     =

= 6

JUN 3 0 2011 Mr. Bert Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated Dear Mr. Bowers'. This letter pertains to nine concerns that you raised to the NRC in your electronic mail messages to Mr. Rick Munoz of our Region IV office on January 31 and February 1, 2011, regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated. You expressed concerns related to health physics practices and alleged discrimination at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project. In addition to the information you provided us on those dates, you provided additional information to us in various telephone discussions with Region I staff, electronic mail messages, and a large binder of information that you mailed to us on April 26, 2011. Based on that information, we have revised your concerns as described in Enclosure 1. We have addressed and responded to eight of your nine concerns as noted in Enclosure 1. We note that you have signed an agreement to mediate via Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR) with Tetra Tech regarding your discrimination concern (Concern 1). The NRC will continue to monitor your discrimination concern. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me or one of my associates toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely, Or1~1DA1 Signed IJI Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 1: You asserted that you experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters ~ * ~ ~ ~ - -.w,,at you were repeatedly berated by one of the Tetra Tech ._ (b_)(-;:::: 7=)(C= )= ==-===:::::;""" the last instance occurring in the presence of the Tetra Tech b 7 c "'"-u-n-n g_ a_1_e .-4*supervisory staff meeting. You also stated that th (b)(7)(C) told you that your safety concerns seemed to be based on the fact that your name was 1s e on the license and that he could arrange to have it removed; later upon advising him of your obligation to

1) resolve the Issues at hand or 2) begin steps to inform the NRC, he ordered you to pack up your office and to get off the project site immediately.

Introduction for Concerns 2 - 9 The NRC performed an inspection at Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Hunters Point Shipyard, from March 29 - 31, 2011. The results of this inspection are documented in Inspection Report 03038199/2011002, which was issued on April 29, 2011 . The cover letter and inspection report is available for review on the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; (ADAMS); the referenced documents can be found with a Web-based ADAMS search, using the advanced search feature with accession numbers ML111230127 and ML111230163 under document properties. Concern 2: You asserted that a Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) sign appeared intentionally turned down (i.e., not visible) in a "Parcel E" area (also referenced in Concern 3) that required the signage. NRC Assessment The inspector observed many posted areas during the inspection. The inspector did not see any RCA signs that were turned down in areas that required the signage. All areas appeared to be properly posted. NRG Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that signage was properly posted in required areas. Concern 3: You asserted that on multiple occasions a water station was set up inside a "Parcel E" RCA without following proper protocol. 1 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

I

• ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 NRG Assessment As part of the inspector's tour of the work areas at Hunter's Point, several water stations set up in the field were observed. The inspector did not see any water stations inside any RCA areas.

In addition, the inspector reviewed incident reports and found none indicating any incidents in which a water station was improperly set up. The inspector also reviewed the controlling procedure describing how to set up a water station; it was found to be adequate. NRG Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that all water stations were properly set up and none were found in any RCAs. Concern 4: You asserted that vehicles leaving the RCA after normal working hours may not have followed the proper procedures for egress. NRC Assessment The inspector reviewed the procedure for vehicles leaving an RCA and it was found to adequately describe what was required. The inspector also observed several vehicles leaving RCAs. The procedure was followed every time. The inspector also interviewed personnel working the egress points as to their knowledge of the egress procedure. All personnel appeared to understand their responsibilities. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that vehicles were leaving RCAs according to procedure. Concern 5: You asserted that licensed activities were being performed past 4 pm and that there may not have been an Authorized User present to oversee this decommissioning work on January 12, 2011. NRC Assessment The inspector questioned personnel regarding after hours work activities. The inspector was told that this usually involves non-licensed work areas and is not a frequent occurrence. In addition, personnel were aware that an Authorized User is required to be onsite for any work after hours, and in addition, the RSO representative is on hand. 2 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that licensee personnel understood the requirements for licensed work conducted after hours. Concern 6: You asserted that the perimeter fence appeared breached and would not have been able to limit or control access. NRC Assessment The inspector noted that the area is large and borders a residential neighborhood. The RSO representative does, at a minimum, a daily fence integrity check. Breaches that have been observed are repaired that day. The inspector did not observe any breaches in the perimeter fence during the course of the inspection. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC confirmed that there have been breaches in the perimeter fence , but the NRC was unable to identify any improprieties or inadequacies associated with NRG-regulated activities. The licensee appears to act in a timely fashion to assess and repair any breaches in the perimeter fence. Concern 7: You asserted that a survey of a locker was not adequate because the interior was not wipe-tested. NRC Assessment The inspector confirmed that the locker in question was in an office area. It did not contain any radioactive material. It appears the licensee opened the locker to remove NRC license related documents and secure them in another location. No wipe test was required. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that a survey of the locker in question was not required. Concern 8: You asserted that required radiation safety records may be compromised and/or destroyed because the records, which had been kept under lock and key in the site RSO's office as of January 23, 2011 , were accessible due to the locks having been broken and/or removed. 3 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• I ENCL0SURE1 Rl-2011-A-0019 NRC Assessment The inspector was provided all required radiation safety records that that were requested. The inspector determined that the records were secured with the appropriate level of control and access.

NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC concluded that required radiation records were properly stored and controlled. Concern 9: You asserted that the emergency/off-hours contact list contained your telephone number even though you were no longer working at the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard. NRC Assessment The inspector found that the RCA area signs contained outdated emergency and off hours contact information. This was brought to the attention of the licensee at the exit meeting on March 31, 2011. All of the signs were corrected with the correct contact information by April 4, 2011, per an email from the licensee's RSO. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC confirmed that RCA signs contained out dated emergency/off-hours contact information, but we were unable to identify any improprieties or inadequacies associated with NRG-regulated activities. 4 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Joustra! Judith From: Nicholson, John Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:14 AM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFOII!! Attachments: 20110019st2.docx

• No comments on the attachment. It accurately reflects what I found during my inspection and the comments I supplied to the Allegations office at the conclusion of the inspection.

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:05 AM To: Nicholson, John

Subject:

SENSmVE ALLEGATION INFO!! II Judy is supposed to call you about the attached. 1

Urban, Richard From: Nicholson, John Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 11:03 AM To: Urban, Richard; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Rick, Let me pull this up in ADAMS and take a look at it. If I marked the 591 Part 3 correctly as Public & Non-Sensitive I don't know why it would come up non-publically in ADAMS. I'm up at VY on an inspection; I may not get to this until I'm back in the office Wednesday. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 9:34 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Nicholson, John

Subject:

Tetra Tech There are three parts to your report that are in the allegation file. The third part (Form 591 Part 3) is checked both Public and Non-Sensitive. Why does it come up non-publically available in ADAMS? So we can't give the alleger this part? 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:27 PM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: Status of Early ADR Case #ADR-11-022 Cornell sent the company the agreement to mediate with a return date of no later than 6/27. sg From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:13 PM To: Ghasernlan, Shahram Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

Status of Early ADR Case #ADR-11-022 Shahram The status update report you sent out 6/17/2011* indicates you left a voice mail at company on 6/15/2011. In an email dated 6/7/2011 you indicated Cl had signed agreement to mediate on 6/3/2011 . Ernie had a 40 minute conversation with the Cl on 6/1/2011 . The reg ion received this case on 1/31/2011 from Region IV. Region I provided early ADR option1in letter to Cl dated 3/30/2011 . Inspection was completed mid-May to close all 8 technical concerns. Do you have any more information on this case? Thanks ShAron J..,o.w Joh~on Atfegedion. A~~i~tA>>.t 610-337-S374 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:16 PM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: Status of Early ADR Case #ADR-11 -022 I'll check with Cornell and get back with you. sg From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:13 PM To: Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: Urban, Richard; Mcfadden, John; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

Status of Early ADR case #ADR-11-022 Shahram The status update report you sent out 6/17/2011 indicates you left a voice mail at company on 6/15/2011 . In an email dated 6/7/2011 you indicated Cl had signed agreement to mediate on 6/3/2011 . Ernie had a 40 minute conversation with the Cl on 6/1/2011 . The region received this case on 1/31/2011 from Region IV. Region I provided early ADR option in letter to Cl dated 3/30/2011 . Inspection was completed mid-May* to close all 8 technical concerns. Do you have any more information on this case? Thanks 9h&1.ro>> )..Aw Johndon AUegec.tion Addidt&1.nt 610-337-S374 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 1:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon Cc: Ghasemian, Shahram; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech Cl) SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO The alleger in this case signed t he agreement to mediate on 6/3/2011. sg From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:04 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Re: RI-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech CT) SENSffiVE ALLEG INFO Sounds good. I'll have cornell call and ,give him one week deadline. Shahram Ghasemlan Nuclear Regulator)' Commission itb)Q\fC ) I 301.415.3591 w From : Urban, Richard To: Ghasemlan, Shahram; Wilson, Ernest Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John Sent: Thu Jun 02 07:01:42 2011

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech CI) SENSTI1VE ALLEG INFO Hard for me to believe his misunderstandrngs. I heard Sharon explain the processes to him as to how It all worked. Funny, the way Sharon explained is the way our letter describes them . He is stalling. Shahram, If you can have Cornell calf him that would be quicker because I don't believe he Is going to call Cornell anytime soon. This is already 5 months old. I thought our drop dead dates were 3-4 weeks? His number is (b)(7)(C) From : Ghasemian, ::inanram Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:11 PM To: Wilson, Ernest; Urban, Richard Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John

Subject:

Re: Rl-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech CT) Ernie - thanks for the follow uo and update. If he wants cornell, is he going to call cornell or should cornell call him? If he is waiting for a call, could you email me his contact number. Thanks Shahram Ghasemian Nuclear Regulatory Commission l{b)(7)(C) I 301.41 5.3591 w From : Wilson, Ernest To : Urban, Richard Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John; Ghasemian, Shahram

Sent: Wed Jun 01 17:56:42 2011

Subject:

RI-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech CI) Rick, As yo~ requested, I spo;e with the subject from 5:1 5 to 5:40 PM on Wed, June 1, 2 0 1 1 ~ a ~

• come from a meeting at a restaurant with "2 upper level management", i.e. an HR Rep. and a safeti~xpe H aid something abo~t was a first meeting from the Tetra-Tech Employee Hotlirpu;omplain(h_eJ11ade is trying to exhaust all of h~venues before engaging NRC (01) ("that was the way~..JNas taught and brought up in the industry," i. ., hat you try to resolve issues)Dternally. I got the impression thatlfiQ,oughefifil,ad to do all these things before engaging 01. I explained tctblni)he process and that Cornell was an avenue ,tgr(wn}o take although[6~as not obligated ~ o o that route and we (OJ) could st~Mn investigation now (I tol<lb~r:iJl~at leads tend to dry up the lo!!5!e he aits to decide on Ol)LH'e),oughl!leJlad to ~ext o to Cornell to 'stay in process." I explained tc{iiinJ.Jhat 1s hought was wrong and that it was completel his ption and right to choose 01 or to attempffo mediate thru SQJ:netC,t-re_)uthorized me to tell you th his next call on this matter is to Cornell to ,tcY ~ final media!i optiorL_HB,aid there is a possibility that Tetra-Tech will choose not to mediate wit'2f..b_im.J explained t hi~he many scenarios we have had with the employees and employers in the early ADR process. I ~ fu er explained the difference between DOL/OSHA (making a person whole) and the NRC/01 becaus~e}ommented about being limited to 180 days.

Ern 2

Urban, Richard From: Wilson, Ernest Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:09 AM To: Urban, Richard; Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A~0019 (Tetra-Tech Cl) SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO c.,. Sinc8'.hilterally haijust walked out of the meeting with the 2 mgt types when I ca)lE:d him, I thrn~~ill be calling CornJir I asked i{B_ejtill had the letter.from Region I with the number and he said~"')id. We sh~h\ee! From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:02 AM To: Ghasemian, Shahram; Wilson, Ernest .. . Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech CI) SENSmVE ALLEG INFO Hard for me to believ~isunderstandings. I heard Sharon explain ~rocesses toful;Jas to how it all worked. Funny, the way Sharon explained is the way our letter describes themLH~is stalling. Shahram, 1f you can have Cornell call him that would be quicker because I don't believBi~~c~i to call Cornell anvJime SOOD, Tris is already 5 months old. I thought our drop dead dates were 3-4 weekst_t:lis umber is ~ (b)(7)(C) - From: Ghasemian1 Shahram Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:11 PM To: Wilson, Ernest; Urban, Richard Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John

Subject:

Re: RI-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech CI) Ernie - thanks for the follow uo and up.~~e. llhEtY'ants cornelt, ilh~oing to call cornet! or should cornell ca19' 1rf!1,s waiting for a call, could you email m~onTact number. Thank~ Shahram Ghasemian Nuclear Regulatory Commission lrbl<WCl I 301.415.3591 w From: Wilson, Ernest To: Urban, Richard Cc: Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John; Ghasemlan, Shahram Sent: Wed Jun 0117:56:42 2011

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0019 (Tetra-Tech 0) Rick, As you requested, I spoke with the subject from 5: 15 to 5:40 PM on Wed, June 1, 2011(H~ad just come from a meeting at a restaurant with "2 upper level management, i.e. an HR Rep. and a safety expert.ffii)aid something about it was a first meeting from the Tetra-Tech Employee otline complainui}r,ade[HJ is trying to exhaust all of (fii~enues before engaging NRC (01) ("that was the waYi he was tau~and brought up in the industry," i.e., that you try to resolve issues internally. I got the impression tha he hough . ad to do all the).e things before engaging

01. I explained t{Fiii5>the process and that Cornell was an ave~~ hi to take althougtt..h&Jwas not ob~ated to go that route and we (01) could start an investigation now (I tol~hat leads tend to dry up the longe~~waits to 1

decide on Ol)~hough(be)ad to next go to Cornell to "stay in process." I explained t6i~that$ls~p.ugbt, was wrong and that it was completer hrs ption and right to choose 01 or to attempt to mediate thru Comellli::le./ authorized me to tell you th~1s ext call on this matter is to Cornell to try the fin~mediation optior@said there is a possibility that Tetra-Tech will choose not to mediate witttBn,. I explained te@im,_Jne many scenarios we have had with the employees and employers in the early ADR process. I also further explained the difference between DOUOSHA (making a person whole) and the NRC/01 because he commented about being limited to 180 days. Em 2

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:32 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:31 :55 PM To: Wilson, Ernest Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Ghasemian, Shahram; Farrar, Karl

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule Ernie, We are past waiting on this matter. Can you guys officially contact the Cl to determine whethe~e:Js going to go with Cornell or 01. Thanks. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:19 AM To: Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: WIison, Ernest; Farrar, Karl; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019 I'm suretti.~s trying to work out a deal._with the licensee similar to what happened a year ago with a Limerick case. I think 01 should contac~Qy}nd get an answer, i.e., do~ant an investigation or i oing thru the licensee's mediation p~s. From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019 [' Rick - what do you think? sg From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 1:40 PM To: Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019 1

The inspection report is dated 4/29/2011, and is a Form 591 inspection. The licensee apparently wants to review the NRC inspection report, discuss with the Cl and others, and then the Cl will make a determination what he/she wants to do with the discrimination concern. I spoke with the Cl on 5/10/2011, he/she was on the west coast, and he/she not once mentioned he/she had been invited to visit with Tetra Tech to discuss the inspection findings, etc. I THINK we are probably talking another several weeks before any kind of decision is made on either side. You are correct he/she has not called Cornell and won't until Tetra Tech tells him/her to go fly a kite. Talk with you later. SU xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rl-2011-A-0019 - Tetra Tech The Cl left a voice mail on my phone (5/9/2011 @ 5:04 p.m.) regarding circumstances at Tetra Tech. The Cl is currently on the west coast. Apparently the Cl is in some kind of TALKS with Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech has informed the Cl they want to review the NRC inspection report recently conducted before making any kind of decision with regard to his/her discrimination concern. Tetra Tech asked the Cl when he/she would be available to go over the inspection results. Tetra Tech has informed the Cl that his/her last resort would be to contact the "employee hotline" (not sure If licensee sponsored program). The Cl has also informed Tetra Tech about his/her option to participate in the ADR program. The Cl stated that Tetra Tech provided no response to that information. From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Friday, May 13, 201110:34 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019 Thank you. I'm trying to make allegers and licensee make decision quicker because the longer It takes the more impact on 01. So, since the alleger has had this since March 30, approaching 2 months should be enough. So, I wouldn't wait much longer for their review .. . . when do you expect them to be done? From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:06 AM To: Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE:.RI-2011-A-0019 Spoke with Cl again around 1: 10 p.m. - 5/10/2011 Cl is waiting for Tetra Tech to review NRC inspection report (witl1G,_nj)md others) and comment before deciding whether to use ADR, 01 or DOL. We suspect Cl is attempting to settle with the licensee. 2

BTW - this is the only one with any kind of decision to be made in Region I. SLJ From: Ghasemlan, Shahram Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:44 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Ghasemlan, Shahram; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RI-2011-A-0019 Sharon - the alleger in this case has not contacted Cornell yet. I would suggest contacting the person and giving them until May 20 to make a decision. If we don't have a decision by then, we'll turn it over to 01 for investigation. Thanks Shahram Shahram Ghasemian Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.3591 3

Page 1 of 2 G;\ora\alleg\panel\20110019arb2.docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-0019 Branch Chief (AOC): Joustra Site/Facility: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: May 25, 2011 Confidentiality Granted: No Concern(s) Discussed:

1. Review of additional information provided by alleger on 04/26/2011 in 3 ring binder. Security Category: N/A No specific additional concern was identified after reviewing the additional information provided by the alleger. There is a generalized concern about the adequacy of the radiological control program but no new specific examples are provided.

Does alleger object to providing concems to the licensee via an RFI? [N/AJ ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES Chair: Lorson Branch Chief: Joustra SAC: Urban Others: Masnyk-Bailey, McFadden, Nicholson, Dwyer, Seeley 01: D RI Counsel: DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet, If Applicable) NIA - - - RFI _ __ Inspection or Investigation Both DISPOSITION ACTIONS 1 Send status letter to alleger providing enclosure closing all previous concerns 1 through 8 in attached notes reviewed during inspection and conditionally closing the additional generalized non-specific concern. DNMS did provide enclosure to SAC on 05/16/2011 Responsible Person: Jous.tra ECO: 5/31/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed:

2. Based on inspection results do not recommend a chilling effect letter at this time, however if H&I is identified we will need to repanel.

Responsible Person: Joustra ECO: TBO Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: PRIORITY OF QI INVESTIGATION: RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 01/DOUDOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement? When did the potential violation occur?

Page 2 of 2 NOTES: This is the second set of concerns from the same Cl on the same a/legation regarding working conditions at Hunter's point, CA. The first set of concerns was discussed at the ARB held on March 16, 2011. The concerns discussed at that time were:

1. Radiological Controlled Area signs were turned down (i.e., not visible) in areas that required the signage.

2 . A water station was setup inside the RCA without following proper protocol. 3 . Vehicles leaving the RCA after normal working hours may not have followed the proper procedures for egress. 4 . On 1/12/2011, work was being done past 4PM and there may not have been an Authorized User present to oversee this decommissioning work.

5. Cl identified fence breach conditions at the Hunters Point site.

6. Cl informed license RSO about an inadequate survey of a locker (interior was not wipe tested).

7. Cl stated that required radiation safety records may be compromised and/or destroyed because he kept these records under lock and key in his office at the site, but when he returned to the site on 1/23/2011, he noticed that the locks were broken and/or removed and the records were accessible .

8 . After being removed from site, the Cl 's telephone numbers remained on the emergency/off-hours contact list. Generalized concern from additional information provided by alleger on 04/26/2011 as follows: Inadequate end-of-day RAD integrity field checks by supervisors. Tetra Tech states in their written procedures supervisors are to walk around the restricted area(s) at the end of each work day to ensure all barriers and controls (including but not limited to, signs, postings, locks, chains, gates, etc ... ) are established to discourage/deter unauthorized access after routine working hours . The concerned individual (Cl} alleges procedures were not being followed by field supervisors at the end of the day in conducting adequate field checks. There is an ongoing discrimination issue. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:32 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: ARB Rl-2011-A-0019 Attachments: ARB Rl-2011-A-0019.5-23-11 .docx From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 20111:31:56 PM To: McFadden, John; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: ARB Rl-2011-A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule For Wednesday's panel. thanks From: Nicholson, John Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 201110:59 AM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysla; Seeley, Shawn

Subject:

ARB RI-2011-A-0019 For review, Allegations needs final copy today, panel is Wednesday. Note I am WAH tomorrow. John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region 1 Phone: 610.337.5236 Fax: 610.337.5269 Emal: john.nicholson@nrc.gov 1

Urban, Richard From: Nicholson, John Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12: 18 PM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Hammann, Stephen; Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: R1-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO I believe in correspondence from the Cl to Rick1 he states that he was never berated by the!(b)(7)(C) Iduring a staff meeting He stated that this did not happen when we meet w/ him while we were in San Francisco. He was re-assigned to another location. From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:54 AM To: Nicholson, John Cc: Masnyk Balley, Orysia; Hammann, Stephen; Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSffiVE ALLEG INFO Importance: High The allegation disposition form for the Tetra Tech allegation states in Item 4 that Repanel, if necessary (based on inspection findings to determine if chilling effect letter Is needed or if additional Of assistance Is needed); Otherwise provide draft closeout letter to SAC for safety concerns; if possible provide status of discrimination concern. CECO 5/30/11 . Steve attended the original panel for me and according to the disposition sheet you and Orysia were in attendance as well. Is this correct? The also identifies Adverse actions taken by the licensee They are as follows:[the Cl was berated by the (b)(7)(C) during a field supervisory staff meeting, and Cl was removed from his duties at Hunter's Point and re-assigned to another site..., That is Why Rick is raising the Issues of the chilling effect and repanel Were the adverse actions reviewed duri1g the inspection. as committed during the panel held on 3/16/11? Please respond asap. We need to resolve this, ,t is due 5/30. tnanks From: Nfcholson, John sent: Tuesday, May 17, 201112:24 PM To: Joustra, Judith

Subject:

• FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSffiVE ALLEG INFO

??? All I know is that I was tasked w/ heading out to Hunters Point and following up on the listed concerns. What's this about an action to repanel? I assume you will follow up w/ Urban. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:08 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Nicholson, John Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSffiVE ALLEG INFO You guys had an action to repanel, If necessary, based on inspection_ findings to determine if a chilling effect letter is needed or if add'! 01 assistance is needed. What are your conclusions. Thanks. From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 1

From: Nicholson, John Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04:10 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Hammann, Stephen; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

R1-2011 -A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule Follow up to safety concerns, see attached. John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region 1 Phone: 610.337.5236 Fax: 610.337.5269 Emal : john.nicholson @nrc.gov 2

Urban, Richard From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11 :01 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: R1-2011 -A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO I asked to John Nicholson to review the file. I have been out of the office for most of the past 3 weeks. I will check with him to see if he reviewed the material. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:51 AM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Hammann, Stephen; RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Nicholson, John

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSffiVE ALLEG INFO In addition, we need documentation as to who reviewed all the additional information that the alteger had sent in, and whether you did or did not find any new concerns. If you did, we need a supplemental receipt forrn!He\also commented on how you interpreted his concerns in the ack letter. Did you guys determine whetheYWeneed to adju~~afety concerns? I noticed that all the documentation is back in the office so the review must have been done. Thanks. From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:54 AM To: Nicholson, John Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysla; Hammann, Stephen; Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011*A-0019 SENSmVE ALLEG INFO Importance: High The allegation disposition form for the Tetra Tech allegation states in Item 4 that Repanel, if necessary (based on inspection findings to determine if chilling effect letter is needed or if additional 01 assistance is needed); Otherwise provide draft closeout letter to SAC for safety concerns; if possible provide status of discrimination concern. CECO 5/30/11. Steve attended the original panel for me ana according to the disposition sheet you and Orysia were in attendance as well. Is this correct? The form also identifies Advers*e actions taken by the licensee. They are as follows: the Cl was berated by the!(b)(?)(C) Iduring a field supervisory staff meeting, and C~ was removed from his duties at Hunter's Point and re-assigned to another site. That is why Rick is raising the issues of the chilling effect and repanel. Were the adverse actions reviewed during the inspection, as committed during the panel held on 3/16/11? Please respond asap. We need to resolve this, it is due 5/30. thanks From: Nicholson, John Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:24 PM To: Joustra, Judith

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO ??? All I k now is that I was tasked w/ heading out to Hunters Point and following up on the listed concerns. What's this about an action to repanel? I assume you will follow up w/ Urban. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:08 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Nicholson, John Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO 1

You guys had an action to repanel, if necessary, based on inspection findings to determine if a chilling effect letter is needed or if add'I 01 assistance is needed. What are your conclusions. Thanks. From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Matjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl -2011-A-0019 From: Nicholson, John Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04:10 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Hammann, Stephen; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

R1 -2011-A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule Follow up to safety concerns, see attached. John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region 1 Phone: 610.337.5236 Fax: 610.337.5269 Emal: john.nicholson@nrc.gov 2

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, May 19, 201 1 10:53 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: R1-2011 -A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Nicholson, John Sent: Thursday, May 19, 201110:53:16 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Urban, Richard ; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

RE: R1-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule During my inspection of Tetra Tech at both the RSO office in Norfolk, VA and the job site at Hunters Point in San Francisco everyone I spoke with was forthcoming with answers to my questions. I interviewed a cross section of personnel from the site project manager to technicians working out in the filed. All the information and documents that I requested were provided to me. I did not see any evidence of a chilling effect among the personnel I spoke with . From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:08 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Nicholson, John Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITTVE ALLEG INFO You guys had an action to repanef, if necessary, based on inspection findings to determine if a chilling effect letter Is needed or if add'I 01 assistance is needed. What are your conclusions. Thanks. From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 From: Nicholson, John Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04:10 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Hammann, Stephen; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

R1-2011-A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule Follow up to safety concerns, see attached. John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region 1

Phone: 610.337.5236 Fax: 610.337.5269 Emal: john.nicholson @nrc.gov 2

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:51 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: R1-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 19, 201110:50:34 AM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Hammann, Stephen; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Nicholson, John

Subject:

RE: R1-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule In addition, we need documentation as to who reviewed all the additional information that the alleger had Sfe[lt in, and whether you did or did not find any new concerns. If you did, we need a supplemental receipt formU::fe:J also commen~ on how you interpreted his concerns in the ack letter. Did you guys determine whether we need to adju~'fsl;afety concerns? f noticed that all the documentation is back in the office so the review must have been"aone. Thanks. From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:54 AM To: Nicholson, John Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Hammann, Stephen; Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Importance: High The allegation disposition form for the Tetra Tech allegation states in Item 4 that Repanel, if necessary (based on Inspection findings to determine if chilling effect fetter is needed or if additional 01 assistance is needed); Otherwise provide draft closeout letter to SAC for safety concerns; if possible provide status of discrimination concern. CECO 5/30/11. Steve attended the original panel for me and according to the disposition sheet you and Orysia were in attendance as well. Is this correct? T~e form also jdentifies Adverse actions taken by the licensee. They are as follows: the Cl was berated by the x1x c) ]during a field supervisory staff meeting, and Cl was removed from his duties at Hunter's Point and re-assigned to another site. That is why Rick is raising the issues of the chilling effect and repanel. Were the adverse actions reviewed during the inspection, as committed during the panel held on 3/16/11? Please respond asap. We need to resolve this, it is due 5/30. thanks From: Nicholson, John Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:24 PM To: Joustra, Judith

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO ??? All I know is that I was tasked w/ heading out to Hunters Point and following up on the listed concerns. What's this about an action to repanel? I assume you will follow up w/ Urban. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:08 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Nicholson, John l

Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 SENSffiVE ALLEG INFO You guys had an action to repanel, if necessary, based on inspection findings to determine if a chilling effect letter is needed or if add'I 01 assistance is needed. What are your conclusions. Thanks. From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie Subjed: FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 From: Nicholson, John Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04:10 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Hammann, Stephen; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

R1-2011-A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule Follow up to safety concerns, see attached. John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclea r Materials Safety Region 1 Phone: 610.337.5236 Fax: 610.337.5269 Emal: john.nicholson @nrc.gov 2

Johnson Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:08 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: R1-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:08:15 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Nicholson, John Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Wilson, Ernest

Subject:

RE: R1-2011-A-0019 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule

• You guys had an action to repanel, if necessary, based on inspection findings to determine if a chilling effect letter is needed or if add'I 01 assistance is needed. What are your conclusions. Thanks.

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0019 From: Nicholson, John Sent: Monday, May 16, 20112:04:10 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Hammann, Stephen; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

R1 -2011-A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule Follow up to safety concerns, see attached. John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region 1 Phone: 610.337.5236 Fax: 610.337.5269 Emal: john.nicholson@nrc.gov l

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: R1-2011-A-0019 Attachments: Tetra Tech allegation follow up. 05-16-2011.docx From: Nicholson, John Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:04:10 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Hammann, Stephen; Joustra, Judith

Subject:

R1 -2011-A-0019 Auto forwarded by a Rule Follow up to safety concerns, see attached. John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region 1 Phone: 610.337.5236 Fax: 610.337.5269 Emal: john.nicholson@nrc.gov 1

R1-2011-A-0019 Concern 1: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TT), an on-site contractor for the U.S. Navy at the Hunters Point site in San Francisco, California, had turned down Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) signs in areas that required the signage. NRC Assessment The NRC conducted an inspection of TT decommissioning activities at Hunters Point. During the inspector's on site inspection March 29-31 , 2011, many posted areas were observed. The inspector did not see any Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) signs that were turned down in areas that required the signage. All areas appeared to be properly posted. NRG Conclusion This concern was not substantiated. Concern 2: TT set up a water station inside the RCA without following the proper protocol. NRC Assessment During the inspector's tour of the work areas at Hunter's Point several water stations were observed to be set up in the field. No water stations inside any RCA were observed. A review of incident reports did not indicate any incident where a water station was improperly set up. A review of the procedure describing how to set up a water station was adequate. NRC Conclusion This concern was not substantiated. Concern 3: Vehicles leaving the RCA after normal working hours may not have followed the proper procedures for egress. NRC Assessment The procedure for vehicles leaving an RCA was reviewed and was found to adequately describe what was required. Several vehicles were observed leaving RCAs. The procedure was followed every time. Personnel working the egress points were interviewed as to their knowledge of the egress procedure. All personnel appeared to understand their responsibilities. NRC Conclusion This concern was not substantiated.

Concern 4: On January 12, 2011 , work was being performed past 4:00 PM and there may not have been an Authorized User (AU) present to oversee the decommissioning work. NRG Assesment Personnel were asked about after hours work activities. Usually this involves non-licensed work areas and is not a frequent occurrence. An AU is required to be onsite for any after hours work. In addition the RSO representative is also on hand . NRC Conclusion This concern was not substantiated. Concern 5: The perimeter fence appeared to be breached and would not have been able to limit or control access. NRC Assessment The area is large and borders a residential neighborhood. The RSO representative does at a minimum a daily fence integrity check. Breaches have been observed and are repaired that day. No breaches in the perimeter fence were observed during the course of the inspection. NRG Conclusion This concern was substantiated but the licensee appears to act in a timely fashion to assess any breaches and repair them in a timely fashion. No violation. Concern 6: There was an inadequate survey of a locker in an office of the RSO representative. NRC Assessment The locker in question was in an office area. It did not contain any radioactive material. It appears the licensee opened the locker to remove the NRC license related documents and secure them in another location. No wipe test was required. NRG Conclusion This concern was not substantiated. Concern 7: Radiation safety records required by NRG regulations may have been compromised or destroyed. On January 23, 2011, the lock to these records was broken and the records were accessible.

NRC Assessment The inspector was provided all the appropriate records that were requested. The records were secured with the appropriate level of control and access. NRC Conclusion This concern was not substantiated. Concern 8: The emergency and off-hour contact numbers on the RCA signs were not correct and were for an employee no longer at the site. NRC Assessment The RCA area signs contained outdated emergency and off hours contact information. This was brought to the attention of the licensee at the exit meeting on Thursday and all signs were corrected with the correct contact information by the following Monday as per an email from the licensee RSO. NRC Conclusion This concern was substantiated, but the licensee responded in a timely fashion to correct the signs. No violation.

Johnson, Sharon From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 2:20 PM To: Wilson, Ernest; Joustra, Judith Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0019 - Tetra Tech Spoke with Cl again around 1:10 p.m. Cl is waiting for Tetra Tech to review NRC inspection report (wltrum}nd others) and comment before deciding whether to use ADR, 01 or DOL. Sh.:..ro-n )..o.w Jc>hn~c>n Al(e9&1.tion ~~i~t.:..nt 610-337*$374

Johnson, Sharon From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:07 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

RE: ADR Offer Question - Sent to You 4/27/2011 No one from Tetra Tech has contacted Cornell. sg From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:13 AM To: Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

ADR Offer Question - Sent to You 4/27/2011 Importance: High Shahram Can you tell me if the Cl for Rl-2011-A-0019 would contact Cornell upon their (b)(7)(C) etra Tech has contacted Cornell? He/she informed me they I have been talking with him/her and it sounds to me like he/she might be in negotiations with the licensee. l guess we are supposed to wait to see what happens between him/her and the licensee. I thought it would be nice to know if he/she contacted Cornell at all. Thanks Sh.Aron l,.o.w Joh~on, Alte~atiol'J .,Ati)6iMAltt 610*'337"..5174

Johnson, Sharon From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:46 AM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Wilson, Ernest; Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

Telephone Call from Cl - Tetra Tech Attachments: Cover Page Blue - Sensitive Allegation Material.doc; TetraTechCall.docx Importance: High Attached Sht:tr<>n )Aw John:Sc>n AUeg,:,.fion AMfat&1.nt 610*337-S374 1

Rl-2011 -A-0019 - Tetra Tech The Cl left a voice mail on my phone (5/9/2011 @ 5:04 p.m.) regarding circumstances at Tetra Tech. The Cl is currently on the west coast. Apparently the Cl is in some kind of TALKS with Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech has informed the Cl they want to review the NRC inspection report recently conducted before making any kind of decision with regard to his/her discrimination concern. Tetra Tech asked the CJ when he/she would be available to go over the inspection results. Tetra Tech has informed the Cl that his/her last resort would be to contact the "employee hotline" (not sure if licensee sponsored program). The Cl has also informed Tetra Tech about his/her option to participate in the ADR program. The Cl stated that Tetra Tech provided no response to that information. Sharon Johnson 5/10/2011 9:20 a.m.

Johnson, Sharon From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Friday, May 06, 201112:18 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0019 -Tetra Tech John was out of the office the entire week. He will be back in the office next week. From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Friday, May 06, 201111:11 AM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019

• Tetra Tech Ms Judy Please do not forget this review that needs to be done. I probably should have put it on the schedule for 5/11/2011 - BUT!

Thanks SLJ From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 20111:35 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0019 - Tetra Tech I will ask John Nicholson to come up and review when he returns to the office. He assisted Orysia on the inspection at Hunters Point. From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:26 PM To: Joustra, Judith Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0019 - Tetra Tech Importance: High Ms. Judy The Cl at Tetra Tech has sent us (via Fed Express) literally a 3" binder full of information plus about 1" more of personal (PII type resumes') information for your review. I have the information up here as it is WAY TOO much to copy plus contains PII. Let me know your wishes. Thanks Sht.1.l'on J..t.1.w John~on .Alleg'4tion .A~~i~tt.1.nt 610-337-S374 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12*50 PM To: Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: Joustra, Judith; Wilson, Ernest; Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

ADR Alleger

• Tetra Tech
• Rl-2011-A-0019 Shahram I *ust finished s eakin with the Cl - the Cl will be contacting Cornell on Wednesday, 5/4/2011, after returning 6), l X7l(Cl I sent you the letter on 4/27/2011 @ 9:56 a.m.

Shetron !Aw lohn~on A:Ue9Afi<>n A:~~iMC11.nt 610-337-S374 l

Johnson, Sharon From: Ghasemian, Shahram Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:57 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

RE: Region I Offer for ADR Thanks. Not a problem. Better late than never! Shahram From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:56 AM To: Ghasemian, Shahram Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

Region I Offer for ADR Attached Little bit late. Thanks Shc:m>n J,.o.w Joh.n6on A:Ueg~tion N6i6to.nt 610-337-S374 l

Urban, Richard From: l.(b)(7)(C) Sent: "i! Tuesday, April 2S: 2011 9:30 PM~ To: z Urban, Richard c:;

Subject:

Fwd: FW: Your Concerns Attachments: Re: FW: Your Concerns Mr. Urban, Please accept this corres ondence as notice that a FedEx package went out today for delivery to you by 3 PM tomorrow {tracking numbe (b)(7)(C) 1Upon review of the information provided, I look forward to discussing further your thoughts and any recommen a tons pe 1nent to previously stated issues and concerns. All the best, fbXJXC) 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION l 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 April 29, 2011 Docket No. 03038199 License No. 29-31396-01 (b)(?)(C) era ec , nc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 03038199/2011002, TETRA TECH EC, INC. Dear ~(b)(?)(C) This letter forwards NRC Form 591, "Safety Inspection," indicating that one non-cited violation was identified during the above described inspection of your licensed activities. Please retain the form in your files. No acknowledgment of this letter is required. However, should you have any questions, we shall be pleased to discuss them with you. Current NRC regulations are included on the NRC's website at www.nrc.gov; select NRC Library; Document Collectidns; then Regulations. The current Enforcement Polley is included on the NRC's website at www.nrc.gov; select About NRC; How We Regulate; Enforcement; then Enforcement Policy. You may also obtain these documents by contacting the Government Printing Office (GPO) toll-free at 1-866-512-1 BOO. The GPO is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). Please contact me at 610-337-5236 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Original signed by John Nicholson John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

NRC Form 591 cc: l(b)(7)(C)

April 29, 2011 Docket No. 03038199 License No. 29-31396-01 l(b)(?)(C) Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 03038199/2011002, TETRA TECH EC, INC.

Dear Mr. Copp!:

This letter forwards NRC Form 591, "Safety Inspection," indicating that one non-cited violation was ide ntified during the above described Inspection of your licensed activities. Please retain the form in your files. No acknowledgment of this letter Is required. However, should you have any questions, we shall be pleased to discuss them with you. Current NRC regulations are included on the NRC's website at www.nrc.gov; select NRC Library; Document Collec.tlons; then Regulations. The current Enforcement Polley is included on the NRC's website at www.nrc.gov; select About NRC; How We Regulate; Enforcement; then Enforcement Policy. You may also obtain thes_e documents by contacting the Government Printing Office (GPO) toll-free at 1-866-512- 1800. The GPO is open from 7:00 a.m. to* 6:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). Please contact me at 610-337-5236 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Original signed by John Nicholson John Nicholson Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

NRC Form 591 cc* l(b)(?)(C) DOCUMENT NAME: G:\WordDocs\Current\lnsp Letter\L29-31396-01.2011002.doc SUNSI Review Complete: JNicho1son ML111230127 After declaring thie documenl "An Offlolal Agena) Record" lt.YtllJ be released to the PubNc. To receive a co~, of lhla document lndical* In th* box: 'C"

• Coov w/o attach/onel *E* ., COpy w atlllch/cncl 'N'
• No copy OFFICE ONMS/RI JN ONMS/RI I DNMS/RI I I NAME JNicholson /JN/

DATE 04/29/2011 O FFIC IAi RECORD COPY

NRC FORM 591M PART 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (10-2003) 10CFR 2.201 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

1. LICENSEE/LOCATION INSPECTED: 2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE Tetra Tech EC. Inc.

Hunters Point Shipyard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, California Region I, 475 AJlendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415 REPORT Nos 2011-002

3. DOCKET NUMBER(S) 030-38199 LICENSEE:

1 4. LICENSE NUMBER($) 29-31396-01

5. DATE(S)OFINSPECTION 1 03/29 - 31/2011 The lnspec11on was an examination of the activities conducted under your license as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules and regulations and the conditions of your license. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspec1or. The inspection findings are as follows:

D 1. Based on lhe inspection findings, no violations were idenlifled. D 2. Previous violalion(s) closed. RJ 3. The violation(s), speciflcaly desoribed to you by the inspector as non-cited violations, are not being cited because they were self* identified, non-repetitive. and corrective action was or is being taken, and the remaining criteria in the NRC Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, to exercise discretion, were satisfied. G] Non-Cited Violation(s) was/were discussed involving the following requirement(s) and Corrective Action(s): 10 CFR Part 20. 1802, control of material not in storage, states that the licensee shall control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that is in a controlled or unrestricted area and that is not In storage. Contrary to the above, on Thursday March 18, 2010, a radium button source, us*ed for training purposes, was found on the table in an empty conference room. It w~s used for training purposes and was left unsecured when personnel went to lunch. The source was discovered during lunch time and immediately secured in the approved and labeled storage area. An incident report was generated. Radioactive material control requirements were reviewed with the employee. An inventory of button and instrument ch eck sources was checked. Sources are no longer used for the trainino session. D 4. During this inspection certain of your activities, as described below and/or attached, were in violation of NRC requirements and are being cited. This form is a NOTICE OF VIOLATION, which may be subjec1 to posting in accordance with 10 CFR 19.11 Licensee's Statement of Corrective Actions for Item 4, above. I hereby state that, within 30 days, the actions described by me lo Iha inspector will be taken to correct the violations identified. This statement of corrective actions Is made in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 (corrective steps already taken, corrective steps which will be taken, date when full compliance will be achieved). I understand that no further written response to NRC v.ill be required, unless specifically requested. Title Printed Name Slgrniture Dato LICENSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE NRCINSPECTOR John Nicholson IRA/ 04/29/2011 BRANCH CHIEF Judith A. Joustra IRA/ 04/29/2011 591M PART 1 (RI Rev. 10//2010) G:\Reference\Word 2007 blank forms\Blank 591M-Part1.doc SUNSI Review Completed By: I RA / John Nic ho lson [ZJ Publlc [ZJ Non-Sensitive This document becomes an NRC Official A&ency Record once it is signed by the Branch Chier

r Initial J ..J I Announced I Unannounced ..J IRoutine I Special I J Increased Controls NRC FORM 591M PART 3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (10-2003) 10 CFR 2.201 DocfcetFllelnforrnaoon SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

1. LICENSEE 2. NRCIREGIONAL OFFICE Tetra T ech EC, Inc.

1000 The American Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Region I, 475 Allendale Road. REPORT NO(S). 2011-002 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415

3. DOCKET NUMBER/$) 4 . LICENSE NUMBER/Sl 5. DATE/S) OF INSPECTION 030-38199 29-31396-01 03/29 - 31/2011

6. INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 7. INSPECTION FOCUS AREAS 8. INSPECTOR 87124 03.01 to 03.02 John Nicholson SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION INFORMATION

1. PROGRAM 2. PRIORITY 3. LICENSEE CONTACT 4. TELEPHONE NUMBER 03219 3 l(b)(7)(C)

I l(b)(7)(C) I D Main Office Inspection Next Inspection Date: 03/2014 D Field Office [I] Temporary Job Site Inspection Hunter's Point Shipyard, San Francisco, PROGRAM SCOPE Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (IT) changed the location of their corporate office from Washington to New Jersey. This generated a new license and therefore an initial inspection within one year of the issuance of the new license even though TI is a long time NRC licensee. This inspection was conducted at a temporary job site in order to follow-up on the initial corporate office inspection eartier this year. IT is one of several contractors involved in Iha remediation of the Hunter's Point Shipyard facility. The primary radionuclides of concern are Ra-226, Sr-90, and Cs-137. The majority of the work involves soil excavation but there is some building demolitlon taking place as well. Soil is removed and moved to the radiological screening yard pads (RSY) where it is worked into six inch deep lifts. The soil is surveyed with sodium iodide dectectors to identify areas greater than approved criteria. Samples are taken and analyzed of areas exceeding established levels by gamma spectrscopy. If the soil saJT]ples exceed release criteria, the soil is removed from the RSY and shipped out as LLRW through Environmental Management Services representatives on site. In addition, the area from which the soil was excavated is surveyed and sampled. Excavations that are found to be below release criteria are filled In wilh clean fill or RSY pad dirt that has been cleared and found to be below release criteria. Chemical contamination of the soil is also an issue and the soil is screened for various chemical contaminants as well. Air sampling is conducted al various locations especially around the RSY. Areas are posted and roped or fenced off and entrance/exiting of radiological control areas Is controlled at access points. TI performs on sile laboratory analysis for all contractor.. on site. The IT organization on site consists of a senior project manager overseeing three main areas, lab operatons, field operations, and radiological screening yard operations. There is an RSO representative on site at all limes acting as a representative of the corporate RSO. The corporate RSO visits the s ite about once a month. NRC required program audits included corporate issues as well as focusing on one of the major decommissioning job sites every year. This is a long tenn decommissioning project. Contracts with the Navy usually are for two year periods. There was one non-cited violation identified during this inspection. During a training session, a very low activity radium button check source was left unsecured in an unrestricted area during the lunch break for a training session on March 18, 2010. The source was discovered later during lunch time that day and placed into the posted and secured source storage location. This violation was self identified by the licensee, non-repetitive, and adequate corrective actions were taken. NRC FORM 591M PART3 (RI Rev.10/2010) G:\Reference\Word 2007 blank forms\Blank 591 M-Part3-NonPubllc NonSensJUl,e.doc SUNSI Review Completed By: ..:.. I :..::...:c.:.. John Nicholson RA I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ GJ Public Supervisory Review Completed By: ....!.. Judith A. Joustra

                                                /!.!RA!:!.!./_ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __                                W       Non-Sensitive This document becomes an NRC Official Agency R ecord once it Is signed by the Supervisor

Urban, Richard l(b)(7)(C) From: Sent: I uesoay, Apt ii 12, 20 I I 10.59 PIVI To: Urban, Richard Cc: Nicholson, John

Subject:

Re: FW: Your Concerns Attachments: 20110019status1emailsent BERTs Review 041211.docx Mr Urban, Thank you for resending the NRC email dated March 30, 2011 and specific to the following subject title:

    "Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech, Inc., at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project" (Rl-2011 *A-0019)

As discussed by phone during our last conversation, the original "send attempt" was apparently a casualty of an AOL spam function as I do not recall having ever received it. Regarding the aforementioned email (and as requested), I have completed a review of the information within - including that as detailed in "Enclosure 1". Accordingly, attached is my markup of the entire document subsequent to the review. Resulting comments, corrections, and clarifications pertinent to the recent events at the Hunters Point site are reflected as well. Understanding that there are time critical steps - beginning with Mr. Munoz and his response to my initial call, up to and including similar steps as defined in your correspondence - I am forwarding this information "as is" in limited depth. Along with this correspondence, it is also my intent to provide within 1O business days additional follow up information which will more precisely capture I connect I supplement the entire basis and nature of the concerns of record. (Since the events of January 13,/ 011, I've been placed by Tetra Tech in an unwarranted and disadvantaged position by being forced t _1) hastily vacate my RSOR role I office at Hunters Point, then relocate immediately to assume a supervisory field role at Alameda where - upon conclusion of the recent NRC visit to both "Bay Area" sites, I was advised the follo~g day that the field role was unavailable as well (i.e., a one day notice as of weeks end on April 1, 20111.JThus, the majority of what is needed for the stated follow up effort is packed in boxes staged here in the security of my locked garage.)1 In between now and my follow up response (and as always), feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed. Regards, Elbert "Bert Bowers I~ (b)(7)(C)

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REOIONI 475ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 March 30, 2011 Mr Elbert Bowers Rl-2011-A--0019 !(b)(7)(C) Subject Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech, Inc., at. the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project Dear Mr. Bowers* (b)(5)

(b)l5) (b)l5) (b)l5) (b)l5) (b)l5) Urban, Richard From: l(b)(7)(C) J Sent: Friday, Apnl 08, 2011 1:31 PM To: R4ALLEGATION Resource Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Re: Concerns you raised to the USNRC Nick, It was a pleasure speaking with you likewise. In parallel, many thanks for resending earlier NRC information dated March 2, 2011 w/ enclosures. This correspondence is intended to confirm the I am in receipt of today's communication as such. Also, as ou recommended for Mr. Urban's use, to follow is my "temporary" USPS mailing address while here in (b)(7)(C) (should use of my preferred "temporary" mailing address revert instead to my permanent (b)(7)(C) location, I'll advise accordingly): ,r (l)(C)  : As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed and thanks agaih for your timely help. Regards, Bert Bowers Tetra Tech, Radiation Safety Officer 1 Phone:

Urban, Richard From: R4ALLEGATION Resource Sent: Friday, April 08, 201112:57 PM To:  !{b)(7)(C) Cc: Urban, Richard; R4ALLEGATION Resource

Subject:

Concerns you raised to the USNRC Attachments: 11021 Letter-Acknowledgement and Closure.pdf; DOL-OSHA WhistleBlower Rights.pdf; NUREG 0240-Reporting Safety Concerns.pdf Ben.~ I enjoyed speaking with you this morning. Please find attached to this email our original letter that we attempted to send to you on Wednesday, March 2. I understand that you still prefer electronic communication (i.e. email). I recommend that you also provide your physical mailing address to Mr. Urban in case he needs to contact you in writing in the future. If/when you receive tl')is email, please send me a quick response so that we know it has reached you. Please don't hesitate to call or write if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Nick Taylor Senior Allegations Coordinator USNRC Region IV Toll Free: (800) 695-7403 Office: (817) 276-6520 Fax: (817) 276-6525 Email: r4allegation@nrc.gov 1

Urban. Richard l(b)(7)(C) To:

Subject:

tour concerns Attachments: 20110019status 1emailsent.docx Please refer to the attached letter. Richard J . Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator Region I US NRC 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 March 30, 2011 Mr. Elbert Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech, Inc., at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project

Dear Mr. Bowers:

~

This letter refers to your electronic mail messages dated January 31 and February 1, 2011 , to Mr. Rick Munoz in the NRC's Region IV Office in which you expressed concerns related to health physics practices and alleged discrimination at Tetra Tech, Inc., at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project. The NRC Region IV Office recently sent you a letter dated March 2, 2011, which informed you that Region I had jurisdiction over the license for Tetra Tech and would be responding to your concerns. Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concerns. We have initiated actions to examine your concerns. If the descriptions of your concerns as documented in the enclosure are not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure that they are appropriately described prior to the completion of our review. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer. Please be aware that your technical concerns will be evaluated separately from your discrimination concern. In evaluating your technical concerns, the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is important to note, particularly if you raised these concerns internally, that individuals can and sometimes do surmise the identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of the nature of the information or because of other factors outside our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm nor deny the individual's assumption. The NRC staff has reviewed your complaint of discrimination and has determined that an evaluation of Concern 1, as described in Enclosure 1, is warranted. The NRC will consider enforcement action against NIRC-regulated facilities that are found to have discriminated against individuals for raising safety concerns. However, please understand that the NRC cannot require that a personal remedy be provided to you, such as back pay or reinstatement. Means by which you can pursue a personal remedy are described later in this letter. If you wish, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) can investigate your discrimination concern. During an investigation, 01 gathers testimonial and documentary evidence related to your discrimination concern. Since performing such an investigation without identifying you would be extremely difficult, please be aware that your name will be disclosed during the course of an NRC investigation into your discrimination concern. If, based on the results of the 01

Mr. Elbert Bowers 2 Rl-2011-A-0019 investigation, the NRC determines that your discrimination concern is substantiated, we will consider enforcement action against the licensee, as appropriate. If you would like 01 to initiate an investigation regarding your complaint of discrimination, please call me via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 within 10 days of receipt of this letter. As an alternative to an investigation of your discrimination complaint by 01, you can participate in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (AOR) program, which offers mediation for handling a complaint of discrimination . Mediation is a voluntary process where two parties (you and your employer) use an unbiased, neutral individual, or mediator, in an attempt to resolve and settle your complaint of discrimination with your employer. If such an agreement is reached , the NRC will close your discrimination complaint upon settlement and will not investigate your claim of discrimination. If a settlement is not reached with your employer, 01 may initiate an investigation into your complaint of discrimination. As mentioned above, the NRC's ADR program is voluntary, and any participant may end the mediation at any time. More information on this program is included in a brochure, "Pre-Investigation ADR Program," which is available on our website at http://www. nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr. html. The NRC has asked Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution (ICR) to aid you and your employer in resolving your discrimination concern through ADR. If you choose to participate in the NRC's ADR program, you must contact ICR at 1-877-733-9415 (toll-free). We request that you make a decision regarding your interest in attempting mediation via the ADR program within 10 days of the date on which you receive this letter. You may contact ICR if you wish to discuss ADR in general, the NRC's ADR program, and any other information in which you are interested related to resolving your complaint using ADR. If you and your employer wish to participate in the ADR program, ICR will assist you in the selection of a mediator who would meet with you and your employer in an attempt to settle your complaint. If you select a mediator through ICR, there will be no charge to you or your employer for the mediator's services. If you participate in the ADR program, please complete the program evaluation form (supplied by ICR) at the completion of the process so that we can evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The NRC notes that employers are encouraged to develop similar dispute resolution processes internal to their company for use in conjunction with their own employee concerns programs. If you utilize your employer's dispute resolution program to settle a discrimination concern, your employer may voluntarily report the settlement to the NRC. If the NRC is notified of an internal settlement before an NRC 011investigation is initiated, the NRC will request a copy of such a settlement agreement (when completed, if negotiations are ongoing) from the employer and review it to determine if it contains any restrictive agreements in violation of NRC employee protection regulations. If no such restrictive agreements exist, the NRC will close the discrimination complaint and will not perform an investigation. Additionally, as already noted in the letter to you dated March 2, 201 1, please be advised that while participation in the NRC's ADR program may result in negotiation of the issues that form the basis of your discrimination complaint with your employer under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the timeliness requirements (180 days) for filing a claim of discrimination with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) are in no way altered by the NRC's ADR program. In this aspect, we note that DOL has the authority to order personal remedies in these matters, and that an individual has a right to file a complaint with DOL if the individual believes that they have been discriminated against for raising safety concerns. For this reason,

Mr. Elbert Bower!> 3 Rl-2011-A-0019 the filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL should be considered at the same time when you are considering use of the ADR program . While there is a likelihood that DOL may choose to await the completion of your ADR mediation, given the prospect of a mutually agreeable settlement, timely filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL assures that DOL will review your discrimination complaint in the event that ADR is unsuccessful. In order to protect your right to file a discrimination complaint with DOL under 29 CFR Part 24, "Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes," you must file a written complaint with DOL within 180 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory action or the date on which you received any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse personnel action (e.g., layoff or suspension), whichever occurred first. Any such complaint can be filed with DOL Regional Offices for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) . Your complaint must describe the safety issue or issues that you raised, the resulting adverse personnel action taken against you, and the causal relationship between them. If you choose to file a complaint, it should be filed with DOL at the location previously identified in the letter dated March 2, 2011 . Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we have completed our review. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely, original signed by: Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As stated

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 1: You asserted that you experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. You stated that you were berated by the !{b)(7)(C) Iduring a field supervisory staff meeting. You also stated that the !(b)(?)(C) hold you that your safety concerns seemed to be based on the fact that your name was listed on the license and that he could arrange to have it removed; later he ordered you to pack up your office and to get off the project site. Concern 2: You asserted that Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) signs were turned down (i.e., not visible) in areas that required the signage. Concern 3: You asserted that a water station was set up inside the RCA without following proper protocol. Concern 4: You asserted that vehicles leaving the RCA after normal working hours may not have followed the proper procedures for egress. Concern 6: You asserted that licensed activities were being performed past 4 pm and that there may not have been an Authorized User present to oversee this decommissioning work on January 12, 2011 . Concern 6: You asserted that the perimeter fence appeared breached and would not have been able to limit or control access. Concern 7: You asserted that a survey of a locker was not adequate because the interior was not wipe-tested. Concern 8: You asserted that required radiation safety records may be compromised and/or destroyed because the records, which had been kept under lock and key in the site RSO's office as of January 23, 2011 , were accessible due to the locks having been broken and/or removed. 1

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 9: You asserted that the emergency/off-hours contact list contained your telephone number even though you were no longer working at the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard. 2

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 March 30, 2011 Mr. Elbert Bowers Rl-2011-A-0019 !(b )(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech, Inc., at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project

Dear Mr. Bowers:

1 This letter refers to your electronic mail messages dated January 31 and February 1, 2011 , to Mr. Rick Munoz in the NRC's Region IV Office in which you expressed concerns related to health physics practices and alleged discrimination at Tetra Tech, Inc., at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project. Tlhe NRC Region IV Office recently sent you a letter dated March 2, 2011 , which informed you that Region I had jurisdiction over the license for Tetra Tech and would be responding to your concerns. Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concerns. We have initiated actions to examine your concerns. If the descriptions of your concerns as documented in the enclosure are not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure that they are appropriately described prior to the completion of our review. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer. Please be aware that your technical concerns will be evaluated separately from your discrimination concern . In evaluating your technical concerns, the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is important to note, particularly if you raised these concerns internally, that individuals can and sometimes do surmise the identity of a person who provides information to the NRG because of the nature of the Information or because of other factors outside our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm nor deny the individual's assumption. The NRC staff has reviewed your complaint of discriminatiion and has determined that an evaluation of Concern 1, as described in Enclosure 1, is warranted. The NRC will consider enforcement action against NRG-regulated facilities that are found to have discriminated against individuals for raising safety concerns. However, please understand that the NRC cannot require that a personal remedy be provided to you, such as back pay or reinstatement. Means by which you can pursue a personal remedy are described later in this letter. If you wish, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) can investigate your discrimination concern. During an investigation, 01 gathers testimonial and documentary evidence related to your discrimination concern. Since performing such an investigation without identifying you would be extremely difficult, please be aware that your name will be disclosed during the course of an NRC investigation into your discrimination concern. If, based on the results of the 01 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Elbert Bowers 2 Rl-2011-A-0019 investigation, the NRC determines that your discrimination concern is substantiated, we will consider enforcement action against the licensee, as appropriate. If you would like 01 to initiate an investigation regarding your complaint of discrimination, please call me via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 within 10 days of receipt of this letter. As an alternative to an investigation of your discrimination complaint by 01, you can participate in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program, which offers mediation fer handling a complaint of discrimination. Mediation is a voluntary process where two parties (you and your employer) use an unbiased, neutral individual, or mediator, in an attempt to resolve and settle your complaint of discrimination with your employer. If such an agreement is reached , the NRC will close your discrimination complaint upon settlement and will not investigate your claim of discrimination. If a settlement is not reached with your employer, 01 may initiate an investigation into your complaint of discrimination. As mentioned above, the NRC's ADR program is voluntary, and any participant may end the mediation at any time. More information on this program is included in a brochure, MPre-lnvestigation ADR Program," which is available on our website at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. The NRC has asked Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution (ICR) to aid you and your employer in resolving your discrimination concern through ADR. If you choose to participate in the NRC's ADR program, you must contact ICR at 1-877-733-9415 (toll-free). We request that you make a decision regarding your interest in attempting mediation via the ADR program within 10 days of the date on which you receive this letter. You may contact ICR if you wish to discuss ADR in general, the NRC's ADR program, and any other information in which you are interested related to resolving your complaint using ADR. If you and your employer wish to participate in the ADR program, ICR will assist you in the selection of a mediator who would meet with you and your employer in an attempt to settle your complaint. If you select a mediator through ICR, there will be no charge to you or your employer for the mediator's services. If you participate in the ADR program, please complete the program evaluation form (supplied by ICR) at the completion of the process so that we can evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The NRC notes that employers are encouraged to develop similar dispute resolution processes internal to their company for use in conjunction with their own employee concerns programs. If you utilize your employer's dispute resolution program to settle a discrimination concern, your employer may voluntarily report the settlement to the NRC. If the NRC is notified of an internal settlement before an NRC Of investigation is initiated, the NRC will request a copy of such a settlement agreement (when completed, if negotiations are ongoing) from the employer and review it to determine if it contains any restrictive agreements in violation of NRC employee protection regulations. If no such restrictive agreements exist, the NRC will close the discrimination complaint and will not perform an investigation. Additionally, as already noted in the letter to you dated March 2, 2011 , please be advised that while participation in the NRC's ADR program may result in negotiation of the issues that form the basis of your d iscrimination complaint with your employer under Section 21 1 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the timeliness requirements (180 days) for filing a claim of discrimination with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) are in no way altered by the NRC's ADR program. In this aspect, we note that DOL has the authority to order personal remedies in these matters, and that an individual has a right to file a complaint with DOL if the individual believes that they have been discriminated against for raising safety concerns. For this reason, OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Elbert Bowers l 3 Rl-2011-A-0019 complaint with DOL within 180 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory action or the date on which you received any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse personnel action (e.g., layoff or suspension), whichever occurred first. Any such complaint can be filed with DOL Regional Offices for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Your complaint must describe the safety issue or issues that you raised, the resulting adverse personnel action taken against you, and the causal relationship between them. If you choose to file a complaint, it should be filed with DOL at the location previously identified in the letter dated March 2, 2011 . Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we have completed our review. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. Sincerely,

                                              ~/ ~

Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As stated OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Elbert Bowers 4 Rl-2011-A-0019 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0019 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110019status1email.docx To receive a co of this document, indicate in the box: "C" "' Co without attachment/enclosure "E" = Cop with attachment/enclosure "N" = No co OFFICE DNMS:DB Rl:RC NAME J Joustra ~ r.'L K Farrar DATE 3/ ,t,..,z,.,/2011 3/~'2/2011

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 1: You asserted that you experienced a hostile work environment and discrimination after raising radiological safety concerns and addressing the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. You stated that you were berated by the (b (7)(C) uring a field supervisory staff meeting. You also stated that the (b)(7)(C) told you that your safety concerns seemed to be based on the fact that your name was 1ste on the license and that he could arrange to have it removed; later he ordered you to pack up your office and to get off the project site. Concern 2: You asserted that Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) signs were turned down (i.e., not visible) in areas that required the signage. Concern 3: You asserted that a water station was set up inside the RCA without following proper protocol. Concern 4: You asserted that vehicles leaving the RCA after normal working hours may not have followed the proper procedures for egress. Concern 5: You asserted that licensed activities were being performed past 4 pm and that there may not have been an Authorized User present to oversee this decommissioning work on January 12, 2011. Concern 6: You asserted that the perimeter fence appeared breached and would not have been able to limit or control access. Concern 7: You asserted that a survey of a locker was not adequate because the interior was not wipe-tested. Concern 8: You asserted that required radiation safety records may be compromised and/or destroyed because the records, which had been kept under lock and key in the site RSO's office as of January 23, 2011 , were accessible due to the locks having been broken and/or removed. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 Concern 9: You asserted that the emergency/off-hours contact list contained your telephone number even though you were no longer working at the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard. OFFICIAL RECOFID COPY

McFadden, John From: Modes, Kathy Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:57 PM To: McFadden, John Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; Nicholson, John; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Roberts, Mark

Subject:

RE: Sensitive Allegation Info-Do Not Disclose-Rl-2011-A-0019 Tetra Tech We are outcome driven. So let me ask the following questions: The perimeter fence breach is a listed concern. Our regulatory purview lies with the radioactive material So if the copper cable was contaminated, then that would fall in our jurisdiction. Right now the inspectors need to first pull the thread to ascertain if there was. a breach in that there was no access control. If the answer is yes, then ask the question - was anything radioactive taken or could have been taken? This remind~ me of the time I conducted an inspection in Camden, NJ and my first question was tell me what was stolen last night and start first with the radioactive material. Oh what memories! Now regarding the lack of sufficient time to train - is there an outcome? Was there a time requirement - i.e., 8 hour mandatory training? The inspectors will ascertain if a negative outcome resulted from inadequate training. So bottom line - I think we addressed the radiation safety concerns that are within our jurisdiction and that the inspectors will do their best to be able to answer all of the concerns. I am cc'ing Orysia and John (the inspectors) so that they have this information. From: McFadden, John Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:23 AM To: Modes, Kathy Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John

Subject:

Sensitive Allegation Info-Do Not Disclose-Rl-2011-A-0019 Tetra Tech Please let me know if the following should be added to the list of concerns in the enclosure of the status letter. You asserted that the perimeter fence appeared breached on occasion and would not have been able to limit or control acce*ss and ttiat in fact vandals had been *found on*site stealing copper cable in the impacted shore line area (RCA). . . - - . - You asserted that you, as thEt ;:;1te RSu, were not given enough time to adeqµately train wqrk.ers. 1

Johnson, Sllaron From: McFadden, John Sent: Monday, March 21 , 2011 7:51 AM To: Urban, Richard Cc: John~on, Sharon; McFadden, John

Subject:

Fl/I(: Enclosures for alleg Attachments: alleg-enclosure one 0019.docx; alleg-enclosure one 0018.docx From: Modes, Kathy 5ent: Friday, March 18, 2011 9:15 AM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; McFadden, John Cc~ Hi;immann, Stephen

Subject:

Enclosures for alleg HoW do tt:iese read? Are you okay with both? Ke<th.y MOCUW Senior Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch USNRC - Region I - DNMS (P) 610.337.5251 (F) 610.337.5269 1

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110019arb1 .docx ALLEGATION.REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-0019 Branch Chief (AOC): Joustra Site/Facility: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: March 16, 2011 Confldentjality Granted: No Concern(s) Discussed: DISCRIMINATION CONCERN: The concerned individual (Cl) e*xperienced a "hostile work environment" when raising safety concerns and addressing subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Examples~l(b)(?)(C) Thq Istated to the Cl that his safety concerns seem to be based on the fact that his name is on the license, the !(b)(7)(C) !informed the Cl that he can arrange to have the Cl's name removed.

• The l(b)(7)(C) !Informed the Cl to pack his office and leave the site.

SAFETY CONCERNS:

1. Radiological Controlled Area signs were turned down (i.e., not visible) in areas that required the signage.

2. A water station was setup inside the RCA without following proper protocol.

3. Vehicles leaving the RCA after normal working hours may not have followed the proper procedures for egress.

4. On 1/12/2011 , work was being done past 4PM and there may not have been an Authorized User present to oversee this decommissioning work.

5. Cl Identified conditions at the Hunters Point site.

6. Cl informed (b)(7)(C) about an inadequate survey of a locker (Interior was not wipe tested).

7. Cl stated tha require raaiation safety records may be compromised and/or destroyed because he kept these records under lock and key in his office at the site, but when he returned to the site on 1/23/2011, he noticed that the locks were broken and/or removed and the records were accessible.

8, After being removed from site, the Cl's telephone numbers remained on the emergency/off-hours contact list.

• Adverse Actions:
• The Cl was berated by the !(b)(7)(C) buring a field supervisory staff meeting
• The Cl was removed from his duties at Hunter's Point and re-assigned to another site.

Does alleger object to providing concems to the licensee via an RFI? N/A ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES C~ on Acting Branch Chief: Hammann SAC: Urban 01~ RI Counsel: Farrar Others: Masnyk-Bailey, McFadden, Nicholson DISPOSITION ACTIONS

1. Regional Counsel has detennined that a prima facie case exists.

Responsible Person: Farrar ECO: Closure Documentation: Completed: 3/16/2011

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110019arb1 .docx

2. Send status letter to alleger providing enclosure. Provide ADR and DOL rights.

Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 3/23/201 1 Closure Documentation: Completed:

3. DNMS to conduct inspection at Hunter's Point to address the eight (8) safety concerns (last week of March 2011) .

Responsible Person: Joustra/Orysia Masnyk-Bailey ECD: 4/29/201 1 Closure Documentation: Completed:

4. Repanel, if necessary (based on inspection findings to determine if chilling effect letter is needed or if add'I 01 assistance is needed) ; Otherwise provide draft closeout letter to SAC for safety concerns ; if possible provide status of discrimination concern.

Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 5/30/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: Discrimination for raising safety concerns - may result in chilling environment PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: High RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 0/IDOUDOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement? 10 CFR 30.10 When did the potential violation occur? January 2011 timeframe NOTES: DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel , 01, Responsible Persons

Urban, Richard From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:31 AM To: Urba,o., RiQ_Qard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Shaw and Tetra Tech Attachments: -* R1-2011-A":0019ARB0isposition.docx; R1-2011 :A-001 SARBDisposition.docx; RE: Action Required: 1 PII Associated w/Allegation Files on Computer Drives - EDATS Rl-2011 -0054 From: Modes, Kathy Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:30:55 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysla

Subject:

Shaw and Tetra Tech Auto forwarded by a Rule Here are the two ARB forms for tomorrow. I will be deleting them from my P drive.

Thanks, K~M~

Senior Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch USNRC - Region I - DNMS (P) 610.337.5251 (F) 610.337.5269 1

Johnson, Sharon From: McFadden, John Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 12:45 PM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John

Subject:

FW: **SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL** TETRA TECH ALLEGATION (RIV-201 1-A-0021} Attachments: ARB Minutes 02-16-2011.pdf; ARB Minutes 02-28-2011.pdf; SCAN3451_000.pdf; SCAN3452 _000.pdf; SCAN3453_000.pdf; SCAN3454_000.pdf; SCAN3455_000.pdf; SCAN3456_ 000.pdf; SCAN3457_000.pdf; SCAN3458_000.pdf; SCAN3459_000.pdf; SCAN3460_000.pdf; SCAN3461_000.pdf; SCAN3462_000.pdf; SCAN3463_000.pdf; SCAN3464_000.pdf; 11021 Letter-Acknowledgement and Closure.pdf; 11021 email ack-closure.pdf From: R4ALLEGATION Resource Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 12:03 PM To: McFadden, John; Urban, Richard Cc: Joustra, Judith; Taylor, Nick

Subject:

**SENSmVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL** TETRA TECH ALLEGATION (RIV-2011-A-0021)

Rick/Jack: Please find attached, the Allegation Review Board Records, Receipt Documentation, several pages of background information provided to the inspector and the acknowledgement letter sent to the alleger. I will send you the Shaw Environmental case in a separate email. '

Thanks, Judith

0.Qcket/Licens~ No;" 030364414/46-27767-01

                                                                             <As .assigr,ed,by .th$ ARe)'
                                                                                 -            -         . :_. .:* ...j".

Bt~lvtd Da1e 30 Days 70 Days 90 Days j20 Dalli 1/31/2011 3/2/2011 4/11/2011 511/2011 5/31/2011 Purpose of this ARB: Initial ARB Basis for a Subsequent ARB: Does the Cl OBJECT to the NRC requesting information from the licensee to support our evaluation? X No NIA If any of the following inhibiting factors apply, this allegation shall not be submitted to the licensee or Investigation or review. Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the identity of the alleger or X confidential source. X The licensee could compromise an investigation or Inspection because of knowledge gained from the disa.,ssions. The allegation is made against the licensee's management or those parties who would nonnaUy receive and address the X allegation. The basis of the allegation is information received from a Federal or State agency that does not approve of the Information X being released. The licensee's allegation trend, quality of response(s), problem identification and resolution, and/or cycle review results are X such that the NRC should Incle endentl evaluate the concern s). he NRC evaluation would be more timely and effiaent - there is an ongoing or upcoming inspection which could evaluate the concern or a similar/same concern is alread bei evaluated b the NRC. Significant public/Commission interest warrants independent assessment of concem(s). JWeaver LHanson JThompson --=-=--------=--t(b,)(ll(CJ Chairman Approval: Date: z,. tf (11

Concern: CAconcern is one or two sentences.} ~ U~.f;' ~ *

• If * * *~

[ The Tetra Tech EC, RSQ)representative at the Hunter's Polnit decommissioning project, experienced a "hostile work environment" when raising safety concerns and addressing subsequent need for improved and timel communications related to radiolo ical controls in the field. Concern Background, Supporting Information, & Comments The~ ite RSOJfeels there Is a poor radiol~gic safety culture il'l term.' of rnanagement communication and management support associated wit~ ite RSO) authority. ThJ site RSO!ctescribed the construction management's progressively e roding recognition/backing of its NRC license and acknowledgement of the authority/level of respect associated with the R$0 and RSO representatives and authorized users. The site RSO felt threatened when the!(b)(7)(C} ~tated; "your safety concerns seem to be based on e fact that your name is on the llcense, I can arrange to have it removed.* The site RSO has since been re-assigned to the Alameda decommissioning project. ' The Cl has submitted a total of seventeen (17) e-mails to RIV pertaining to his concerns and response initiated by site and corporate management. I The1site RS01has been removed from the site and management has been going through his files,! According to the Cl, NRC required records have been com romlsed and are bein destro ed. ' r Regulatory Requirement ;:~*f!lb~l'.tl~~..., :' :. q : :: ~;:* "'. _ <- _.,** ~ ~~~~~ "'-.-. *. . :~h:':~:~*.. :;::t.:;,_,~~-,;,-* *:~ t Potentiall

• 10 CFR Part 20 and /or rocedural violations Describe the concern's safety .significance. m~1~-~::,*

                                                                    'ti*
                                                                    ,J .... ;_-   ~ .--."" ..... . -
                                                                                                     -,0-::-,-:,~*,-_;-;*.**.-..

lii"l:1,-,,,1 -4,, *,,l!:J'r

                                                                                                     -i.

j. r,,,. , , . *--

                                                                                                            -~J,t"*'"--   ...
                                                                                                                                     .. ~'-. .* :-'-
                                                                                                                                                     - ~- -  - - . - -:

Potentiall Hi h Check each uestion as a licable to this concern. X Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of Impropriety or inadequacy? Is there a potential deficiency? X Is the Impropriety or Inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities or policy (e.g. SCWE)? X Is the validity of the issue unknown? Jtjlj;of ftl.~above statements are checked, the issue is an allegation.

                                         *Technical Staff Recommendatlon(s)

Recommended Action Assigned Branch Planned Date Date

  *~Pl!E: S(Ui"'lt
        '    ,    ' ..         . NOV, Rfl q.uestlQns/requests, and/or an Inspection plan as a separate.. documeriL Draft'                                                       '                                                 '   .' ,     . *.
   **i r :f..c:,~ ~~-.A~'3 ciecls"iog .to R'fl, any INHIBITING FACTOR($) that are overruled from the fil'$rpage mu,t h,~e a just,f!cation documented In the ARB Declslon(s).                         Document INHIBITING FACTOR($) that not                                       *
   ,      **11c~~1,..to the c~mcern or 11re not notit~ on first a e. First a e reviewed? Yes:                                            f\Ao:

• NIA:

Accepted ARB Date ARB Decisions Assl ned to Planned Date ACES to contact Region I Allegation concerning jurisdiction and ACES 02116111 ACES to send acknowled ement letter to alle er.

Page _ _ of _ ALLEGATION RECEJPT. FORM Allegation Number: RJV""20 -A-Facllity/Outslde Org Name: Tetra Tech EC. Inc.

                                    ~--------------

Received By: Rick Munoz Receipt Date: 02/02/201 1 CONCERN Concern~ (A concern ta one or two sentences.-} IThe Tetra Tech EC, RSO /epresentatlve at the at Hunter's Point decommissioning project, experienced a "hostile work envlronmenr when raising safety concerns and addres~ng subsequent need fbr improved and Umely cornmunlcations related to radiological controls in the field. T.hefslte RSO feels there is a poor radiologic safety culture in terms of management communication and management supporf associated witl\. s-ite RSO authority. The site RSOJjescribed the construction management's progressively eroding recognition I backlng of Its NRC license and acknowl dgement of the authority / level of respect associated with the RSO and RSO representatives and authorized users. The site RSO felt threatened when theJ(b)(?)(C) lstated; *your safety concems seem to be based on the fact that your name is on the license, I can rtange to nave 1t removed. The site RSO has since been re-assigned to the Alameda decommissionin ro'ect. l Concern Detalfs and Comments; groun material, supporting lnfonnaUon, etc. Narrattve concern deacriptlon. What occurred? When did It occur? Where did It occur (location)? How/why did It occur? After normal working hours and after dark, work crews (Shaw Environmental) were discovered in two vehlcles exiting a fenced off area of an Impacted area (RCA). The RSO was not present to determine whether appropriate egress protocols were followed . After this occurred, the l (b)(7)(C) Inew out to the site and berated th~s ite RSO~during the field supervisory staff meeting before the morning tailgate briefing. Another example Is when, on two occasions, a water station was set-up inside a RCA without safety office approval, contrary to procedure. The RCA signs were deliberately turned down by someone. The alleger submitted a copy of his memorandum to the corporate RSO dated January 181 2011 1 detailing the summary of events as they unfolded January 12-13, 2011. (b)(?)(C) 1 I (b)(?)(C) contracto(} What records, documents, or other evidence should the NRC review? Procedures, What'ls the potentlal ufety Impact? Is thl* an ongoing concern? Is It an Immediate safety or security concern? If the concern is an immediate and/or ongoing concem, the lasue must be called ln promptly to your Brench Chief. Unknown Wu the ooncem brought to management':a atttntJon? Was ft entered Into the Corrective Action* Program (CAP#)? What .actions have been taken? If not. why not? Yes It is unknown at 1his time whether management has Initiated any action. What requirement/regulation governs thfs concem? 10 CFR part 20 requirements, and site specific procedural requirements Reglllatlons prohibit NRC licensees, cxmtractors, & subcontractors from discriminating against, harassing or Intimidating (H&I) Individuals who engage in protected activities (alleging violations of regulatory requirements, refusing to engage in practices made unlawful by statutes, etc.). X YES No Does the concern involve discrimination or H&I? If "No,* proceed to Contact Info. X YES No Was the individual advised of the OOL process? What was the protected activity? When did it occur? January 13, 2011 Who In management/supervision was aware of the protected activity? When did they become aware? o were the made aware? The (b)(?)(C) was contacted by telephone and memorandum dated January 18, 2011

Page _ _ of _ _ ALLEGATION RECEfPT FORM Allegation Number: RIV-20__-A-_ _ CONCERN Facility/Outside Org Name: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. ReceIved By: Riek Munoz --------- Receipt Date: 02/02/2011 What adverse actions have been taken {tem,inalion. demotion not being selected for position)? When did it occur? The lndlvldual has been removed from his duties at Hunter's Point and re-assigned (temporarily) to Alameda naval shipyard. What was management's reason for the adverse action? unknown Why does the individual believe the actions were taken as a result of engaging in a protected aclivity? -ro add additional concerns. attach addltlonar oopies of the concern page to the Receipt package. The~b)(7)(C) lls not given enough time to adequately train workers. Van als on-site were found stealing copper cable in the impacted area shore line A total of seventeen (17) e-mails, some with attachments including photographs were submitted to NRC.

ARB Date.:

• 0212012011 NMSBA (As assigned by the ARB)

Recelyed Date 30 Days .zo Dan .. ..... 9Q Qays . "' 120 Days 1/31/2011 3/2/2011 4/11/2011 5/1/2011 5/31/2011 Purpose of this ARB: Follow-up ARB to discuss jurisdiction Basis for a Subsequent ARB: Does the Cl OBJECT to the NRC requesting information from the licensee to support our evaluation? X No NIA If any of the following Inhibiting factors apply, this allegation shall not be submitted to the llcensee for Investigation or review.

• X Information cannot be released In sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the Identity of the alleger or confidential source.

X The licensee could compromise an investigation or Inspection because of knowledge gained from the discussions. X The allegation is made against the licensee's management or those parties who would normally receive and address the alle ation. The basis of the allegation is Information received from a Federal or State agency that does not approve of the information X beln released. The licensee's allegation trend, quality of response(s), problem identification and resolution, and/or cycle review results are X such that the NRC should lnde endentl evaluate the concem(s). The NRC evaluation would be more timely and efficient - there is an ongoing or upcoming inspection which could evaluate the concern or a similar/same concern Is already beln evaluated by the NRC. Significant public/Commission Interest warrants independent assessment of concern(s). JWhitten KFuller RBrowder JWeaver JThompson RUrban (via phone) JJoustra (via phone) LMJarriel (via phone) RJohnson (via phone) OMasnyk-Bailey (via hone) lb~=C=ha=-=i=rm=a-n=A=p=p=ro=v=a=I:===llr _X _C)_ _ _ _j=======db~=O=at....e=:=f,,.;/=~~)_,,......,_ _=-==='i

9oncern: (A concern ts one or two sentences.) ,x

  \ The Tetra Tech EC, RSO representative at the Hunter's Point decommissioning project, experienced a
   "'hostile work environment* when raising safety concerns and addressing subsequent neecf for Improved and timel communications rel'ated to radiolo ical controls in the field.

Concern B~ckground, Supporting Information, & Comment'! ThsSite ~.:>\!JIC:::ets tnere is 8 poor radiologic S..!!,l81Y CUiture in terms OT I I Pae ...~ * * *Cl I( communication and man gement support associated with site RSO authority. The site RSO described the construction management's progressively eroding recognition/backing of Its NRC license and acknowledgement of the authorlty/Jevel of respect associated with the RSO and RSO representatives and authorized users. The site RSO felt threatened when the l(b)(7)(C) t stated; "your safety concerns seem to be based on the fact that your name is on the license, I can arrange to have It removed." The site RSO has since been re-assigned to the Alameda decommissioning project. The Cl has submitted a total of seventeen (17) e-mails to RIV pertaining to his concerns and response initiated by site and corporate management. The site RSO has been removed from the site and management has been going through his files. Accordin to the Cl, NRC required records have been com romlsed and are bein destro ed. Regulatory Requirement * (filf.ln !~lowl., ~,:..~:SJ.I~:::. ~.-11 f *If. 1J;U~1:~:~~N ~I' * *k _ * ** ~~~ *** ~. Potential! , 10 CFR Part 20 and /or rocedural violations Describe the concern's safety significance. Potential! HI h Check each uestion as a licable to this concern. X Is It a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or Inadequacy? Is there a potential deficiency? X Is the Impropriety or Inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities or policy (e.g. SCWE)? X Is the validity of the Issue unknown? It ,all ~f t~e .~bove statements are checked, the issue is an allegatkln.

                                       *Technical Staff Recommendation(&)

Date Recommended Action Assigned Branch Planned Date

  .*    '.if~~ a." ;.AiR_Bd~cie_lon to R.FI, any INHIBITING ~ACTOR(S) that are overruled from the*first page mu9' MVt.~J1Jst,tl~ltl'(lh documente~ In th, AR*B Decis.1on(s). Document INHIBITING FACTOR($) that not

• a ...llcab1e' to the concern or a~e not noted on first a e. First a e reviewed? Yes: ~o: NIA:

Accepted ARB Date ARB Decision

• All*I ned to Planned Date ACES to contact Region I Allegation concerning jurisdiction and.

02/16/11 ACES ACES to send acknowled ement letter to alle er. ACES to forward allegation to Region I, since Tetra Tech is a 02/28/11 ACES Re ion I licensee. ACES to send acknowled ement letter.

Munoz, Rick From:  !(b )(?)(C) Sent: Monday, January 31, 201 1 2:56 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

NRC Notification: TtEC - Hunters Pt Incident Involving Proj PM & RSO Rep

 . .~~ac..hm~~~~.:.               HP,S TtEC,_ PMB~q13 §yrnm.~rv.<?f !:"'.~.l'.l.,s 01142011 forw~rQ.QQOX Rick, requested lnformatlonJ~ltached 1s a   Ef I've relocated from Ala,meda to ~Y !(b)(?)(C)

Manager* as well as my ~lrect report, (b)(7)(C) J n order to work in privacy while preparing an*d forwarding the s t ~n already provided to the Tetra Tech Human Resources

                                                                ,(A signed copy is also avallable *and can be faxed to you upon request.)

After sending this your way, I'll begin retrieving, rorwarding examples of related safety concerns as associated with recent "license Impacting" events. As always, feel free to contact me if additional Information or feedback Is needed. Regards, Bert Bowers/ Radiation Safety O tative, Tetra Tech EC ""'\ Direct: 415 314-8727 / Alternate Cb>nxc> I Mobile: (b)(?)(C) Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 2 venue, San Francisco, 4124 (When a.t m (b)(?)(C) can be reached at: (b)(?)(C)

• Tetra Tech (b)(?)(C)

  ** Tetra Tech ECifb}C])(Cl

!(b)(?)(C) I 1

MEMORANDUM

                                                                                                      )&

To:l(b)(?)(C) ITetra Tech1 1L. (b-)(-?)-(C_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ from: Bert Bowers, Tetra Tech, Radiation Safety Officer Representative - Hunters Point Date: January 18, 2011 Sub*ect: Hunters Poln Shi ard HPS Tetra Tech EC TtEC Events Leadin u to Janua 13 2011 (b)(7)(C) Vacate HPS Project (b)(7)(C) In reference to the subject line above

• and as requested during our discussions earlier on Monday, January 1ik, to follow Is a detailed summary of events as they unfolded January 12'h - 131h, As always, feel free to contact me If additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, ll Bert B~b~;~:iadlatlon Safety O"[~~epresenlve l(b)(7)(C) Direc ~lternate: Main: 415.671.1990 / Mobile: 1.....----------..... Page 1 of 7

Wednesday, January 12, 2011: HPS

• N160S hrs: After ending a phone conversation wlth!(b)(?)(C) IMACTEC regarding a MOU modification need, I proceed to the afternoon management debrief which is already in progress; the debrief is being conducted bYi!(b)(?)(C) !when my turn, I br.ief group on my day's accomplishments including the phone call just completed withtMACTEC regarding the MOU 1

draft (and an electronic markup from MACTEC just received JI~~~ !advises that he'll stop by later to discuss the MOU.

• N 1615 hrs: The afternoon management debrief adjourns; I return to my office and pull up the MOU draft just in from MACTEC; comparison review begins to my draft markup which Is also in progress. - - - - - - - -....

  *     - 1620 h~ (b)(?)(C)          ~nd ~~~f)    ~nter my office; both grab something from my~

I

       !Non Res as Is norma_!; am still working on the MOU draft comparison and cross reference;          IT§)

and I procee~ to discuss MOU document status as related to upcoming pier demolition work at HPS under~ACTEC's}JRc license, etcm {stens~f f lnd I appear to be "on the same page" regarding the MOU assignment.

        ~       teers the conversation to the topic of work hours; drops an excel spreadsheet on desk; i~~s that RSOR function Is reduced S hours to a weekly schedule equivalent of five 9 hour days; notice then provided to begin attending 6:30 AM dally meetings as "Basewide rep" with fleld staff management/ supervision to plan daily activities. Somewhat surprised, I sit back In cbal( while taking a deep breath.
       ~      Jnakes statement to the effect that "this Isn't aimed at you" but Is the result of "tighter budget demands" and a "greater limit on resources as compared to past contracts; stated that
       " Navy is trying to make Sasewide go away.
       + Understanding ls acknowledged of the contract restrictions, candidly shared personal disappointment and sense that action did have appearance as being aimed at RSOR role.

Expressed curiosity as to why RSOR input/feedback was not solicited before arriving at d~l'o!1' 1 described RSOR start*of-year "work load" as filled to capacity; current NRC llcense based work being conducted from home on "personal time"; brought up question specific to RAD Integrity field checks - how "end-of-shift" site drive through would continue If on 9 hr days/ attending meeting at 0630 hrs; as alternate solution, suggested e><tended break at mid-day to allow for overlapping afternoon timeframe for Integrity checks after fleld staff leaves for dayK§Ilprovides assurance that stated concerns/ questions will be addressed - however, plans should be to attend AM meeting beginning the following day across from our offices. Request acknowledged;

      ~     ,hen provides assurance that working for free isn't expected. I respond that " It's not about the hours", but instead, how to work around schedule "issues" to ensure continued "license driven" obligations are not compromised; shared likely need to distribute some of the more basic RSOR responsibilities to the RAD field sups as "Authorized Users" on license.
*     - 1645 hrs (b)(?)(C) ~,cit; begin closing up office ln advance of "end-of-day" site drive through .
*     ""1650 hrs: Begin "end-of-day" site drive through; limited drive due to dusk setting in/ length of earlier discussion with!(b)(?)(C)   I Page 2 of 7

    *      ""1720 hrs: Proceeding out from Parcel E "non-impacted" roadway onto regular asphalt throughway toward Bldg 400; completely dark/ headlights on; observe headlights of two unidentified vehlcles in Parcel E RSY4 sector beyond the "Triangle Area"; impossible to determine if: in RCA barricaded area/ site staff or Shaw or trespassers/ locked Inside upon
      .... afrival fo gate. Vehicles obseivea contiiiulng "fa*advance toward"        gate whi:fre*both *eventually stop. I complete a "U-turn" and slowly approach gate for a closer look. TtEC project pick-up truck's/ field laborers confirmed. Gate Is being opened after which both trucks exit. Upon approach I roll window down and ask "is everybody out"? Field laborer locking gate replies "they better be 'cause we're going home". I ask "why are you guys still here"? The field laborer replies "we don't get OT that often, you gotta go for it when it's there". I wish all a good evening as the crew departs.
   *      ""1720 hrs: I proceed to the TtEC management trailers to confirm an "Authorized User "on TtEC's NRC license is present (i.e., any of the RAO Sup's); all have left for t he day. I then check to see ifl!(b)(?)(C)      !!;5 still in; upon arrival at his office he has changed into!Non Respo and Is                I preparing to leave. I provide a brief on laborers observed In and around Impacted portions of the field and the fact that all " Authorized Users" had departed for the day~                    does not share any knowledge or awareness of what is being reported. I re-emphasize the Importance of an end-of-day site drive throughM.sknowledged my concern and suggested I "cover It with all the supervisors In the mornln1l.IB:_J hen brought up w,eekly work schedules discussed earlier In my office; suggested that - assuming I planned at least 3 weeks off over the course of 2011, I should be covered for 50 hour work weeks after all. I offered to average up to one week off each quarter If necessary to stay w ithin budget whlc@               cknowledged. We both proceed to leave for the day.
  *      - 1740 hrs: I drive back out along Building 400 and the RSY4 area and all appears secured; I then exit the site and head home.

Thursday. January 13, 2011: HPS

  *      ""0615 hrs: I arrive on site; proceed to open up the office; computer is booted up, then I proceed to conference room across from office!(b)(7)(C)                              ~ ndli.;.(b..;.).;..

(7..;.)(..;. C.;..

                                                                                                                            ) _ ___..

are seated in the room. Small talk ensues while we wait - I assume, for others to arrive.

  *     ... 0635 hrs : !~~~(?)     !Jpops his head through the conference room door saying r@KJ?lr acknoj~)~r him after which he asks why I' m not at the meeting. I state " I'm here". Then while asking (        {vhere is everybody", I look up at the conference room clock and note that itfs 0635 hrs.~       ryplles that everyone's meeting in the small conference room~up front. At this point I say "oh" whlje jumping up to follow him there. Once out the door)~                )s observed walking toward~        ap d me; he is told I was in the other conference room.lr§Ilpolitely states - as~

already did - that "the meeting 1is up front instead". We' re all three up front by now and to my surprise, the meeting is already starting to adjourn. (At this moment, the thought occurs to Page 3 of7

discuss with ~ hat I'm being asked to adjust my schedule in order to attend a 5 minute meeting/ address Basewide plans for an assigned staff quota of one - and sacrificing "end-of-shift" RAD Integrity drive thru's which have repeatedly proven to be value addedl !(b)(7) 1 I I

      !(b)(?)(C is exiting from the meeting room an~                1informs him that I was in, just at the wrong conference room - no sense of an issue is observed; I spoH(b)(?)(C)              !:ancj !(b)(?)(C)     land inform both that I need to speak with them before attending the AM safety tailgate at Building 400- they hold up. l then wait fo~(b)(?)(C)           Ito finish a conversation he's having with someone else after which he too is aske*d to step aside for a discussion with the rest of us. Then the RAD sup's begin to gather with me just down the hallway from the others adjourning the earlier meeting. However, because there's so much noise, i ask the team to just stop off In my office l(lstead. As we're proceeding that way, I observe tha~             and J(b)!are following in the same direction (i.e., toward the same end of the management trailers) - I assume to their offices opposite mine. By the time the last RAD supervisor enters my office, Ws N0637 hrs. (The41h RAD supervisorJ(b)(7)(C)          !~as called off[!:§] wlth the!Non Res    !.) Knowing that time is limited as everyone needs to be at Building 400 for the morning tailgate, my plan is to convey the basic expectation that's resulte'd from the prior evenings observations. In doing so, plans are to also ask that the same expectation be conveyed to the RAD field techs attending the tailgate (a more detailed follow up would then occur personally with each supervisor over the course of the day).

The basic expectation is the urgency and importance associated with timely RAD supervisor and RSOR communication. More specifically - and as based on past events and recent lessons learned from similar circumstances, reporting to the RSOR any activity In or near impacted areas that extend beyond regular hours (i.e., thus allowing for assessment of need for/ confirming presence of "authorized user, etc).

• I first ask for everyone's attent ion; then began to share the previous evenings observations; I attempt to quickly stress:

      + field activities ongoing after dark;
       + locations associated with the sightings are defined by the HPS Historical Radiological Assessment (HRA) manual as " impacted" and Involve temporary "non-impacted" roadways;
      + Areas along the roadway are bounded on each side by postings defining "radiologically controlled areas. I then began to emphasize that all sup's need to communicate to the RSPR prior to leaving site at day's end If field hands are still actively working in or around impacted areas. At this point j(b)(7)(C)        j stops me in mid-sentence w ith a question; the ensuing Interface
     / sequence of events then transpire:

7 l(b_)_( _l(_c_) _ ......l words to the effect of): "Bert, where are you talking about"? IBert Bowers (words to the effect of): "I'm referring to Parcel E near the 'Triangle Area' and the

     'RSY4 pads'; there were field laborers still in the area; it was after dark, I could see headlights Inside what I thought was a locked area; I didn't know who it was and no 'authorized user' was I

to be found ... we need to have someone present because ..}' (I am then cut off with a question from!(b)(7)(C) Page 4 of7

j(b)(7)(C) ~words to the effect of): "No we don't that was the utility corridor crew and all that's been cleared ... Bert*sowers (wordslo the effect of): "Yes we do..." l(b)(l)(C) ~words to the effect of): "Let's look at..." [Can1t understand the rest as l(b)(7)

  .                      .                                                                               JC)

Interrupts with an outburst)

 ._!(b_)_(7_)(_C_) _ __.! (words to the effect of): "That's f_lng bulls_t; that's a bunch of crap... "

l(b_)_(7_)(_C_) _ _!almost instantaneously appears in the doorway and asks; "What's going on" l(b)(7)(C) I(words to the effect of): "He's saying the utility corridor crew...." [Can' t understand the rest as ~ let's go with another outburst]

!(b)(7)(C)                     !words to the effect of): "This is crazy f_lng bulls_t...11 [Can' t remember anything else from his outburst as I'm now eye~to-eye wlt@                 y hands are folded outward expecting him to direct!(b)(7 Ito tone It down]

l(b)(l)(C) l,(still looklng at me with words to the effect of): "They're right... RASO has cleared and released the area ..... [I can' t remember the rest of wha~ as saying as total disbelief has now set ln, I'm now simply rubbing my face with both hands and wondering wh~ asn't directed (b) and the others to leave; and pulled our conversation off-line to get all the facts/ Involved (b)(7)(C) If necessary. Instead, the reality of an escalating verbal attack Is setting In to the point it resembles a "feeding frenzy"; I'm enduring ~ unexpected "Judge and Jury position and yet another Interruption/ outburst from~ who Is now standing outside my I I office door behind !(b)(7)(C) and !(b)( have exited-likely just outside in the hallway)]

  !(b)(?)(C)                  !standing directly behlnd~        nd pointing at me over his shoulder with words to the effect of): "Let m e tell you something.... don't you ever...... " (Can't remember anything else from outburst except thad(b)(7 ! continued to shout profanities - mostl the "F" and "BS" words; as wit~                 earller verbal attack, I'm again eye-to~eye w t (b)(?)(C)         as he allow~ o continue with his assault; I remember seein                     )(7) tarting to wal away from my office door as his rants now continued from in the hallway; I now pushed my desk chair away from my deskm              as also left my doorway.... I hear his voice in the hallway but have no clue as to what he's saying; trying to pull myself together, I realize that the original disbelief has now turned to shock ..... I' m now only focused on leaning over and breathing slowly while simply trying to calm down. I then hearm                oice from my doorway and I look up to make eye contact.

!(b)(?)(C) l(stlll looking at me with words to*the effect of): "You know, it seems your bi~t concern has to do witEur name being on the license..... I can arrange to have It removed . .:_i Page 5 of7

I D ,en exits from my doorway after which I begin to focus solely on what he had Just said. Specifically, I realized:

    + A hostile worl< env*ironment had r'esulted.
    + A serious threat had been leveled toward the project RSOR.
    + The threat as perceived, and however uncharacterlstlc ~                  eeked of Intimidation as categorized within the whistleblower variety.
    + In the "heat of the moment", this was also coming from someone I consider to be a !(b)(7)(C             I (b)(7)(C)
    + We're both (b)(7)(C) dl~ctions result from a less obvious and underlying situation (within the last week and a ha1~ hared with me that he was no longer on ,~~~(?) using a         !

new ~ ln Its place.

   + Having to make difficult prior decisions Involving construction and RAD Pro management, decisions aren't alway*s pleasing to the field RAD supervisors, why didn' tID>llow established "Loss Control protocol so as to protect the level of respect Identified with the RSOR title.
    + The earlier events as related to the true spirit and Intended application ofTetra Tech's NRC Issued license (as cultivated unique to Hunters Point applications over the last 8+ years

[beginning with the NWE license) and most importantly as monitored subject to the e)(pectatlons of NRC Inspectors Ricardo Munoz and Anthony Gaines) has now reached a defining moment, the realization becomes even clearer of my present obligation to Initiate steps In the NRC notification process. (e.g., NRC will first determine If all avenues of remedy provided through the employer have first been exhausted. I determine that subsequent steps In attempting resolution of the current Issue to begin In the following order: l) (b)(7)(C) 2) 3) 4)

5) NRC J

   ... 0642 hrs: I cut across the conference room towardr office~(b)(?)(C)                               ~ nd (b)(?)(C)                re still In the room; nothing Is said as I pass through. As I approach rr§E]

office ... (b)(7)(C) s Inside talking to him... I wait a~ oor to[b)(7)) o finish. After a brief moment, (b)(7 xits and I enter..~ walking around... then moves toward his coat rack and bends down to get something near a bookshelf. A brief conversation unfolds as follows: Eert Bowe;;_}inable to establish eye contact; words to the effect of):J~~, now I'm obligated to notify the NRC"?

                                                                                         ~ you realize that l(b)(?)(C)          J now raising up and turning toward his desk but still not looking at me; words to t    he effect of):'You shouldn't have let that situation disintegrate to that level..... Just go ahead Page 6 of 7

and do what you think you need to do.... call the NRC or whoever, but while you're at it you can also pack up the s_t in your office and get the h_l off my project." Bert Bowers (words to the effect of}:~ . are you serious? l(b)(?)(C) I(now looking at me from in front of his desk; words to the effect of): " You heard me, pack your s_ t up and get the h_ l off the site". Bert Bowers ,(words to the effect of): "OK..... [I backtrack across the conference room where

  ~       7)(C)                   land (b)(?)(C)        ]  re still seated ... saying nothing and just staring at me as I walk by... I direct the following comment their way as I exit: "I'm not believing this.. .
     ... 0642 hrs: Once In my office, I conclude th'a t In my gm year at HPS1 I'm In my 111 hostile environment directed at me; and the immediate need is to leave the site as directed and contact l{filg){C)          ;;;J}sAP. I quickly shut down and stor_e my computer; pull a box containing unused dosimetry from my cabinet/ then place under my desk. I then lock up, grab my backpack and leave the sit e.
    ... ~647 hr$,: I arrive at an offsite overlook of the HPS portion of Parcel Eand I place a call to~
  !(b)l?)(C)     UReception is poor (one dropped call). I advise him of what happened and that I'll call him once at my residence. Upon arrival, I wait fo~(b)(?)(C)                                ~fter which I ca~         ain and provide a detailed briefing under calmer circumstances.

To the best of my knowledge, the aforementioned events are true, accurate, and as they actually occurred. Elbert G. Bowersj Date Page 7 of 7

Munoz, Rick

                         !(b )(7)(C)

From: Sent: Monday, January 31 , 2011 3:34 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

NRC Notification: TtEC Hunters Pt (re: Proj PM & RSO Rep Safety Conccerns) Rick, As discussed earlier, one of my primary concerns associated with the current "RAD culture" at Hunters Point Is

• without mincing words - construction managements progressively eroding recognition / backing of It's NRC Issued materials license and acknowledgment of the authority / level of respect associated with the RSO, RSO Representative(s),

and Authorized User(s). Consequently, the construction management's willingness to allow the referenced role players to perform/ carry out expected license driven responsibilities unimpeded - and without consequence sends the wrong message to those who perform tasks In the field. Absence of such critical and fundamental elements - all essential to an effective RAD Safety Program, result In field culture observations as captured below during a "Start-of-Day" RAD integrity field check: 1 Example#1 Hunters Point Parcel E (Nov 2010): A 8) 1

2

3 Example 2 to follow under separate email. 4

Munoz, Rick From:  !(b)(7)(C) Sent: Monday, January 31. 2011 4:02 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

NRC Notification: TtEC Hunters Pt {re: Proj PM & RSO Rep Safety Conccerns)

Rick, As discussed ear11er and as another follow up to the pnor email, one of my primary concerns associated with the current "RAD culture" at Hunters Point Is - without mincing words

• construction managements progressively eroding recognition I backing of It's NRC issued metenals license and aeknoWledgment of the authority / level of respect associated with the RSO , RSO Representative(s), and Authorized User(s). Consequently, the construction management's willingness to allow the referenced role players to perform I carry out expected license driven responsibilities unimpeded - and without consequence sends the wrong message ultimately to those who perform tasks In the field.

Absence of such critical and fundamental elements* all essential to an effective RAD Safety Program, result in field culture observations as captured below during a "Start-of-Day" RAD integrity field observation made with the License RSO present: Water Station - Example #2 of 2 Hunters Point Parcel E (Jan 2011 ): A} B) 1

Additional supporting examples to follow under separate email. 2

Munoz, Rick l(b)(7)(C) From: Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:16 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

NRC Notification: TtEC - Hunters Pt Incident Involving Proj PM & RSO Rep Rick, As discussed earlier and as another follow up to the prior email, one primary concern associated with the current "RAD culture" at Hunters Point is - without mincing words - construction managements progressively eroding recognition / backing of it's NRC issued materials license and acknowledgment of the authority/ level of respect associated with the RSO, RSO Representatlve(s), and Authorized User(s). Conseq,uently, the construction management's hesitant willingness to allow the r~ferenced role players to perform I carry out expected license driven resp(?nsibifitles unimpeded - and without consequence sends the wrong message ultimately to those who perform tasks in the field. Absence of such critical and fundamental elements - all essential to an effective RAO Safety Program, result in field culture qbservations as captured below during an RAO integrity field observation: Event: Property Boundary Breach at Planned 2010 Installation of New UCSF Facility Entrance Area "as found" during mid-day RAD integrity field check (Const mgnt assigned work; non-impacted area per HRA; locatlon posted toward public as RCA perimeter boundary at property fence) A) B) "End-of-Day" RAD integrity field check; "as found" fence breach conditions looking out from HPS (1 of 3) 1

ing in to HPS (2 of 3) D) "End-of-Day" RAD Integrity field check "as found" fence breach conditions looking out from HPS (3 of 3) 2

E) "End-of-Day" RAD integrity field check "as found" fence breach; RSOR corrective actions - looking out from HPS (1 of 2} F) " End-of-Day" RAD integrity field check "as found" fence breach; RSOR corrective actions - looking In to HPS (2 of 2) 3

                                                         . ** ..            :*I, * .; *\*I,. '1 II 1

Additional supporting examples to follow under separate email. Note: for the prior email's that present "construction management's willingness", all should instead read as "construction management's hesitant willingness" ... my apologies. 4

Munoz, Rick From: Bowers, Bert [Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com} Sent: To: Hr@tc~ ./ao11acv 31 2011 Z* 18 PD<<

Subject:

urvey of Locker Attachments: Picture of Locker.JPG; Locker survey.pelf 1 From~(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:32 AM To: Bowers, Bert J

Subject:

Survey of Locl<er 1 Bert, We have a survey of the locker in your office. See attached. Did you get a chance to work on turning the 4th quarter dosimetry to Landauer over the weekend? Is there anything J can do to assist? Thanks! !(b)(7)(C) Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oak&, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wnghl Drive I Norfolk, VA 23502 I www.telratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message. Including any altachments, may Include confldijnt,al and/01inside information A11y distribution o, use ot \his communication by anyone ulher then the Intended rec/ple11t 1s strictly prohibited ,md may be unlawful ff you are not tha Intended recipient, please nolify the sender by replying to this message and then delete il from your system.

~ Think Groen - Not every email needs to be printed.
=

1

f\tlrr flilfJf: 111P.r ii I Ictilr.;!1 ~ Hrn 111111-' WtH h*;i1p: !I ( ~1lu1 1tt1ly) ;, ( *** ...* t* *' \f u ::.110.~:'._(, 1 f St-111 11111c _ ' S1J1veyo1 (!:")r I ec 11) """l(b,..,.)=(7"""' )(~C)~ *...... f--.,t

                                                                                                                                                           ..       ,*\ *,

Survey t i.;e: Routine (Monthly) Meter info: Mod I 19 or* RG20 # / :S ~<., Cal Due: ,- . ,'.>.">* 11 Bkgd V *,* } I Survey Data: Survey Name: HPS*Mum 1Tr1r2-mmddw

                 .. 1 .. 2           3           4       5        6- , - -- - -7            8          9          10        11          12         13             14     15 p/

y ~/ l( <( (/ V /

                                                                   /
                                                                     ..';;,        I       'I c/             I
                                                                                                                                       ..,/        /            c,/

I

                                                                                                                                                                         </

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 y n iJ"l ,* \./~)

                                                                                   '.:Y     I
                                                                                             '                *,(iJ>
                                                               *~ !.t>                                                                         \ .(:)
                                                                                                                                                   ., .J
                                                                      . 13.;
                                                                                                              ~2;)
                                                                                                                 -.. ~
                                                                                      '>c/                                       (.-:.9)

I /f/ ,... -

                                                                                               '   . :n     !
                                                                                                      *:-1
                             ----                             I . ('D                  (j)              (~?)

1

                                                                                                                              -s,;,.,
                                                                                                                             \..,~
                                                                                                                        'i
                                 ',(ii)       \
                                                                                ,.i    
                                                                                                          *\    .. (3'.J
                                                                                                                            .,°J)      '1 I
                                                                                                                                            , C!)

(i~ (W ~f) (&) Comments: .. k:ml:7> / ~.{ * (J; ,..?V // ,...--r/(1:2 ff'9n1l ** 111-*ulrr J<::, ~,, l&i'p*.~ C

   ,f;lp /11?4+-l \&t,n ~.R_. (_., ,x:.,._,..     <<~' a         I br>%             Pia ~-:.lrn    \/ty , ,J.i     1)<<;   6'1,rc;c lo ,ki. t .

                                                      !3M!,MI COllNTING Ml,\! Yf'i!S n i- POR'r P11ge I of 1 COUNT DATE:                            01/24/H                            ANI\L VSJS PERFORMED BY:              1(b)(7)(C)           I NWTSJ:                                tlPS*l.iGmtTllr2-012411
.NSTR\JMENT 1.0.:                      Protean WPC 9560                   DETECTOR 1.0.:            10!23113 EFt'lelENOIES: *a;"'   -               13.55%-.                         f)DA:

• o: 10.15 (1pm Cal OlJe Da11: 1/5/2012 l}y. 15.G!W,, 11'17 17.00 c,pm SMEARS COLLEClEO BY: lfb){7 \(C \ I SAMPLE COUNT lit,£; 31Altlulll ACTMlY REPORT IN; clpm.llOOCtn' o BACKGROUND: 0.03CPM !Iv 8ACl<GROUNO: 0.63 CPM Rem111k1: P.outlnt Pa1cot C Monl/ltV GROSS COUNTS f\lETCOUNTS NET ACTIVITY a ,v 0 llv a py sm11r11:1 1 0.30 *0.30 2.24
• 1,uo 8mnr #l4 0' 3 *0,03 0.37 *0.22 2.31 8mearl15 1 6 0.30 1.C>1 U4 e.48 8111111114 0 7 -0.09 1.70 *0,22 10.86 Smoa, #17 0 I *0.03 -0,30 *0.22 .,.ee Smeart18 0 1 -0.03 -0.30 *0.22
• 1.88 Bmear t111 0 1 -0.03 -0.30 -0.22
• 1.80 6mtll lf20 0 I -0.03 -0.30 -0.22 *1.86 smea, 1121 8me1t122 0

0 ,1 *0.03

                                                                                            -0.03
                                                                                                          -0.30
                                                                                                          *0,30
                                                                                                                            -0.22
                                                                                                                           -0.22
                                                                                                                                              *1.86
                                                                                                                                             *1 ,011 Smear m                                                                0         2           -0.03          0.04             ,0,22             o.:n Smurf24                                                                0         2           -0.03          0.04             -0,22             0.23 smearl1                                                                0         4           *0.03          0.70            -0.22              4.40 Smearl2                                                                0         2           *0.03          0.04              0 22             0.23 Smear J3                                                               0         2           -0.03          0.04            -022               o.a3 Smeart4                                                                0         3           -0.03          0.37             -022              2.31 Smear*5                                                                0         3           -0.03          0.37              022              2.31 Smear#&                                                                0         2           -0.03          0.04            *022               0.23 Smtart7                                                                0         3           -0.03          0.37            -0.22              2.B1 smoar,a                                                                0         3           .(),00         0.37            -0.22              2.31 Sme1r l9                                                               0         7           -0.03          1.70            .(),22            10.es Smear 110                                                              0         0           *0.03         *0,113           *0,2.2            *3.04 Smear MIi                                                              0         4           -0.03          0.70            *0,22              4.40 Smearlt2                                                               0         2           .().03         0.04            *0.22              0.23 Smear '25                                                              0         3           -0.03          0.37            .0.22 -            2.31 Smear 1128                                                             0          1          *0.03         -0.30            *0.2.2

• I.BO Smaar#27 0 8 -0.03 1.37 *0.22 8.57 8meart28 0 3 *003 0.37 -0.22 2.31 Smearffl 0 0 -0.03 *0.63 -0.22 *3.lil4 Smear#30 0 0 -0,03 -0.83 *0.22 *3.lil4 Aemalks:

Rtvloweclb (b)(7)(C) IOete: / r?. ~_ t I/ RSRS FORM I -

Munoz, Rick From:  !(b)(7)(C) Sent: Monday, January 31 , 20117:31 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

Fwd: FW: Survey of Locker

  ...~.~C,h.ffl&f!tS:             FW: Survey of Lock~r Rick.

FYI.. .. andas provided from11...r_)(_?-)(-C)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed. Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Direct: l(b )(7)(C) 11Alternate:

   !Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com          D Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management J Home:!(b )(?)(C) ! I MobuJ (b)(?)(C)

Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.tetratech.com (b)(?)(C) Thanks for the survey update and status concerning the cabinet. Specific to Landauer, the dosimetry last forwarded to HPS is en route via USPS. Follow up paperwork associated with the prior qµarter's monitoring effo1i continues as well. A targeted stop point for that endeavor will presently coincide with receipt of 4th quarter reports (i.e., those featuring post processing results). I still need a conected copy of Landauer's revised reports which reflect subtraction of "control badge" results from all other "batch badges". Comp1etion of this process remains a need prior to closing out the existing accounts - so as to cross-reference ex isting records and confinn all affected report cycles have been appropriately addressed / update specific to on site records. If you could please forward what you have for periods covered, that would be much appreciated. 1

In lieu of what's gone on with tha1 locker's contents between the 13th and 21'\ I'll also need to coordinate with

      !(b)(7)(  Ia time acceptable to access so as to retrieve dosimetry program binders - assumed to still be there and which are a part of the aforementioned processes. Will address that need with you at a later time.

I I metJ~~~(?) this morning at Alameda.... received a site tour (reason for late reply) and an office location. Will be in touch later on.

     \ Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative 1

Dlnect: j(t)(7)(C) yI Alternate: Bert. Bowers@letratech.com D I Home: 600.376.37191 Mobile (t)(7)(C) Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com From: !(b)(7)(C) Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:32 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

Survey of Locker Bert, We have a survey of the locker in your office. See attached. Did you get a chance to work on turning the 4th quarter dosimetry to Landauer over the weekend? Is there anything 1 can do to assist? Thanks! l(b)(7)(C) I

 !(b )(7)(C)

Direci.l(b)(7)(C) IFax 757 461 4148 I Cell l(b)(7)(C) 2

' r b)(7)(C) Tetra Teoh EC I ESQ Twin Oaks Suite 309. 5700 Lake wnghl Drive I Norfolk VA 235021 www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message. including any attachments may ,nclude confidential andror inside information. Any d1s1nbutlon or use of this commllnlcation by anyone other than the intended recipient rs strictly prohibrt.ed and may be unlawM If you ,He not !tie intended recipient. pleasF. nolify the sender by replying to this message aM then delete ll from your system J, Think Green

• Not every email needs to be printed.

     =

3

Munoz, Rick From: Bowers, Bert [Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com} Sent: To:

                                        ~rn~aj' January 31
                                      !(b 7) C 2011 7:36 PM 1

Subject:

FW. Survey of Locker lfrom: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda January 27, 2011 4:43 PM To: (b)(7)(C) Sub  : urvey of Locker I~~?)I FYI, the date initially arranged for this process is -s days from now ... from a timeliness standpoint, are you OK with that? If so, Just advise and I'll mark my calendar. Also, once a survey is complete and all ls clear Iwhich one would certainly anticipate), will I be able to work from that office whlle performing my duties so as to sort out/ reorganize applicable locker contents, etc and/ or bring what may become necessary to the Alameda office to finish updating dosimetry/ training/ Form 4 logs for eventual return/ turnover while I'm at Alameda? Thanks, Bert From:l(b)(7~C) I Sent:I nurs ay, January 27, 201112:50 PM l To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Survey of Locker HI Bert, Please come by next Wed (2/2/11) at 0900. Thanks l(6R1Yl

~

lrb}{Z)IC} Hunters Point Naval Shipyard D!rect*lrb\/7\/C\ I

 !(b)(7)(C)                       !

PLEASE NOTF* This message, ,nclud,ng 11ny 011achr11mt:;, 111ay m:I\Jde conl,cen11a1 er,o*o, irslde mtormaflon Any e1,s1ribut1on or use ol this commun,catlon by anyone othe1 than the Intended recipient,, strictly prohlb~cd and may be unlawful 11 you ere not me cnlendert ree1p1cm . plAilM notify the sender by replying to 1h19 n1esa119,; anrl then dolel* ll r,Of!'\ your system

   ~ Thin k Green - Not every email needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Toursda January 27, 2011 11:42 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

 \ Cc: i.,.....,........,..,......._  __,

SUbJect: FW: Survey of Locker

 . ,~il(b)(?)(C)

In reference to the subject line above, please advise as to a good time to get t ogether for t he purpose of overseeing the conduct of the locker Interior survey. I look forward to hearing from yo u in tha e ard. I kn how overextended you must be staff wise .... if a window suddenly becomes available, please call me a (b)(?)(C) and I can scoot right over, Thanks, From!(b)(?)(C) I 1 sent: Thursday, January 27, 201111:13 AM To: Bowers, Bert cc: !(b)(7)(C) I

-SUbJect: RE: Survey of Locker Bert, Absolutely! Just get with ~                       directly ..*.

(b)(7)(C) D1rectXs'\17)/C) II Fax: 757,461 4148 I Cell (b)(?)(C) I l<blrZL ) I Tetra Tech EC I ESQ r wln Oaks, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wnght Drive I Notfolk. VA 235021 www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, 111cludi11g any attachments, may tndude conf!denlial and/or lns1je information Any distribution or use of ttus cornmunlcation by anyone other than the Intended recipient ,s s!ric.:ly pro'1lbi1eo dnd mav c,e unlawful II vou are no11nc ,ntended rer.1p1P.nt. plf!~SA notity the sender by replying to this message arc then delete It from your system.

 ~ Think Green

• lllot every email needs to be printed.

r From: Bowers, Bert Sent: ~uc?a:. Janurry 27, 2011 2:03 PM Tod(b)J)(Q_ _ _

Subject:

RE: Survey of Locker Thanks!(b)(?)(C)  ! Am I good to meet up wlth!~~W) !and t he tech when this Is done? l~cb)r) I Is flexible with me here I 2

Thanks, Bert From: l(b )(7)(C) Sent: 'T'hursday, Janua~27~ To: aower,s1 ,Bert; l(b )(_!]i_C)__ 2011 to:53 AM

Subject:

RE: Surv._e_y_o_ o- c"'". -er- -------~- Bert, I had not directed a survey of the Interior of the locker because I understood that you did not want anyone opening the locker without your presence. We'll certainly take care of it. (b)(7)(C) Can eithe~ or ~ perform the swipes of the shelves as requested below? Thanks!

   ~
  ?~j;Jf;\(7\(G)

!~bT~c~ Ii Fax: 75/.t ,4148 j Celi:r..._b_)(-7)_(_c_,__________Il1 Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin O~ks, Suite 309, 5700 lake Wrignt Drive I N orfolll, VA 23502 1www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This inessage, including any attachments. may include confidential and/or inside Jntorma1ion. Any distribution or use of this commtrnioation by anyone other than the intended recipient is slrlctly prohlbhed and may be unlawful. If you are not l he intended recipient. please notify the sen.derby replying to this message and !hen delete 1t from your system.

  ~ Think Green

• Not every email needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert l Sent: Thursda January 27, 20111:38 PM To: (b )(7)(C) Sul>  : urvey of Locker In reference to the subject line above, many thanks for advising of survey completion, as well as the supporting attachments to that effect. After reviewing the survey, no portion of the report addresses the lockers interior {i.e., after the breach). Understanding that before the lock on that unit was forcibly removed, RSOR knowledge of its entire content and status was maintained, in part, with use of a systematic process of scheduled survey checks {as is done with the entire office comple><). In lleu of events leading to a forced entry without RSOR knowledge, documentation which simply identifies completion of a large area swipe assessment of each shelf, followed by a check of collected " swipes with a frisker would suffice in eliminating any concern Involving radiological compromise. {If not mistaken, Susan Andrews and !(b)(7)(C) !lare ANSI quall'fied 3.1 HP Seniors who have performed routine RSOR office surveys In the recent past- and are fully capable of ensuring consistency in how such steps are performed.) I consider this need as e,ctremely Important prior to accessing documentation now needed from Inside that locker - as well as some personal Items I would like to transfer across the way to Alameda. Of primary importance Is the need to sort through the contents within - and as placed under "lock and key" security while hastily attempting to exit the project as 1 directed on the 13 h. Now that calmer circumstances are optimistically beginning to prevafl, this present need really requires urgent attention. Please advise if this can be arranged. 3

Regards, I Bert on Safety Officer Re resentative Direct (b)(?)(C) I Alternate: bX7XCl I Main: 415.671. 1990 I Mobile:l...(b_)_(?_)(_c_) _ _.11Fax: 415.216.274~ Bert. Bowers e ra ech.com . . Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 1www.tetratech.com Note*:* PJease advise -If you know, as to wtio placea tne"RAl> sign "as is" on the locker... thanks. IIB FroJ (b)(7)(C) Sent: Tuesday, Januarv :>.5 . 701 t 9:32 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

Survey of Locker Bert, We have a survey of the locker in your office. See attached. Djd you get a chance to work on t urning t he 4th quarter dosimetry to Landauer over the weekend? Is there anything I can do to assist? Thanks! l~~W) I (b)(?)(C) Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oaks, Suite 309. 5700 Lake Wnghl Drive I Norfolk VA 23&02 I www.tetralech.com PLEASE NOTE This message. including any attachments, may include confidenllal and/or inside info1mat10n Any d1slnbu!lon O( use of this communicat ion by anyone other than the intended recipient 1s strictly prohibited and may be unlawiul If you are no1 the intended recipient. please notify the sender by replying lo !his message and 1hen de ele it from your syslem .

  ~ Think Green . Not every email needs to be printed.
  =

4

Munoz, Rick From:  !(b)(7)(C) Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:41 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

Fwd; FW: Survey of Locker

 .A~~c,h~.eri.~;                  F\fV.:...~.l:'rv~y e>f ~ocker Rick, Information within is FYI. ... personally, I was anxious to move forward with the survey of the office locker so it could be formally cleared, followed by my need to access contents within for dosimetry records. The contents were ransacked when I last saw It opened .... and I still contend that 6 days Is a fairly extended period to address present needs timely.

In this regard, feel free to contact me If addltlonal information or feedback Is needed. Regards, ' Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Directj<b)(7)(C) !IAlternate: Dxxci ome:!(b )(7)(C) !1Mobilel(b)(?)(C) Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunte,rs Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com 1

Munoz, Rick From: Bowers, Bert [Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com] Sent: Monda

• Janua 31 2011 8:24 PM To: b 7 C

Subject:

From: !(b)(?)(C) Sent: Thursday, October 21 2 10 8:36 AM To: Bowers, Bert _ Cc: ......_ ......._ _ _ _ _ _ __

Subject:

Dosimeter cabinet Bert-Yesterday I was forced to have the lock drilled out of the above mentioned cabinet to gain access to the dosimetry there. My apologies .... (b )(7)(C) I( ( ) __a__

..,;.....;...._......,....,,...__._M        415.671.1990 I Fair. 415.571.1995 j Cell...__

ln_:.,. b)- ?-)(_C_____________, Tetra Tech EC f Health Physics 200 Fisher Ave f San Francisco, CA 94124 f www.telratech.C1lm PLEASE NOTE. TI11s message, including any a11achments. may Include conr.ctential and/or inside Information. Any d1s!ribullon or use of this communication by anyone other tha n the intended recipient 1s strictly pronib,teo and m;iy bi, unlawful. If yow are nol tl1e intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying lo tnls message and lhen delete ii from your system J;, Think Green . Not every email needs to be printed.

 =

                                                                                                                           ,o Munoz, Rick From:

l(b)(7)(C) Sent: Monday, January 31, 20118:34 PM To: Munoz, Rick Cc: rickmunoz@nrc.gov

Subject:

Fwd: FW: Dosimeter Cabinet Attachments: FW: Dosimeter Cabinet

 ~ ick, The photo below details a close up of a lock drilled out of RSO office fumit\Jre during my absence from site while on vacation ... upon return, I expressed displeasure at the damage to the furniture, but more so, the compromise of lock &

key dosimetry documents left unsecured. The!(b)(7)(C) !failed to provide necessary level of support and circumstances were forwarded on to license RSO level. No corrective action was ever formally documented. Feel free to contact me to discuss further. Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative (b)(7)(C) I Dlrect: l(b)(?)(C) IAltematef"'° IIHomec l(b)(7)(C) JMobile: l------ Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com l

11 Munoz, Rick l(b)(?)(C) From: Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10*00 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

Hunters Pt RSO Representatives Office Conditions as Found w/ Witness (01 .23.11)

Rick, FYI. ... additional pictures of RSO office with witness present.... and as left after attemptin to reorganize.

Feel free to contact me to discuss If additional information I feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative (b)(?)(C) DJXC) 1

• r )(?)(C)

Direct I Alternate: om-ej(b)(?)(C) Mobile: Bert.B owers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www tetratech.com RSO nameplate beside office entrance reversed... 1

RSO office furniture (piece #1) with "loc~ & key" dosimetry doc's, etc as found in breached condition.. 2

RSO office furniture (piece #1) "as is" inside sliding door cubby (training items / resume binders in dissa ... Breached drawer (top) to RSO office furniture left unlocked/contents uncontrolled .... 3

Breached drawer (bottom) to*RSO office fumiture left unlocked/contents uncontrolled (Dosimetry doc's w, SSN's, DOB's, etc ..... Position of lock (left two breached drawers) to RSO office furniture discovered w/ contents uncontrolled (Dosimetry doc's w, SSN's, DO B's, etc) .....

Broken key (2nd from left) to locks of RSO office furniture described above.... 5

Compromised RSO office furniture (piece #2) with "lock & key" dosimetry & personnel doc's as round w/ new padlocks on each drawer... 6

Close up of drilled out lock to RSO furniture (piece #2)..... 7

Close up of new pad lock attached to bottom drawer of RSO furniture (piece #2).... 8

Close up of key (far right) noo longer useful to RSO office furniture described above (piece #2).... 9

RSO office furniture (piece #3) with "lock & key" source buttons (exempt quantity), documents, personal items, etc as found in breached condition w/ new pad lock attached... 10

Close up of new pad tock attached to RSO office furniture (piece #3) with personal lock removed ... 11

Close up of original, personally owned lock forcibly removed from RSO office furniture (piece #3)... note art of lock internals small s ec ..... RSC office work desk after straightening up (computer monitor previously attached to docking station missing.... docking station inoperable when attempting to operate straight from laptop... 12

Example of RSO office work desk drawers "as found" ... 13

Posting board outside RSO office (angle 2).... 14

Posting board outside RSO office (angle 3) .... 1S

Posting board outside RSO office (angle 4) .... 16

Posting board outside RSO office (angl~ 4).... 17

18 Munoz, Rick

                             !(b)(7)(C)

From: Sent: Monday, January31. 201110:21 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc.gov Ce: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

Fwd: NRC Notification: TtEC Hunters Pt (re: Proj PM & RSO Rep Safety Concern)... Attac hr:n.ent$: .NBC Not.tfi<:atlo.n:.TtE.C Hunters Pt (re: ProJ .PM..& RSO. Re.p Safety Concce.ms)

Rick, As additional follow-up to this original email, please note the following regarding the water station event In November:

"field observations were made whlle performing a "start-of-day" RAD Integrity field check.

• upon discovery, my thoughts as RSC are why none of the HP field sup's have recognized situation while maklng rounds (high traffic area)
• I place a call to the HP QA sup and request his presence.
• upon arrival. I point HP QA sup In direction of water station and he Immediately recognizes the Issue
• HP QA sup Is asked to investigate; determine need for corrective actlon(s) including Increased awareness needed by staff/ sup's etc; specifically addressing \Jnaulhorlzed/intentlonal repositioning of RAD slgnage by non-RAD/HP personnel; unauthorized staging of a water station 1/s RCA boundaries, etc
• HP QA sup acknowledged he would follow up/ Including a commitment to cover in following day's safety tailgate.

As always, feel free to cantact me If addltlonal Information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Direct: l(b )(?)(C) IAlternateDbxixcl Hom, (b)(7)(C) IMobile:!(b)(?)(C)

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech. EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.tetratech.com 1

13 Munoz, Rick

                                    !(b)(7)(C)

From: 0 Sent: Monday, January 31 , 201110:27 PM To: rickmunoz@nrc..gov Cc: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

Fwd: NRC Notification: TtEC Hunters Pt {re: Proj PM & RSO Rep Safety Concerns... Attachments: NRC Notification: TtEC Hunters Pt (re: Proj PM & RSC Rep Safety Conccems) Rick, Ase toJloW:110 to *be °f'glnal email regarding the 2nd water station observation on Monday, January 17th with the (b)(7)(C) !(b)(7)(C) 1please note the following:

~tated that ne would'personally correct the situation himself (based on the assumption that the situation with
  """~+r, ..... ;,..., rn::inagement and some of the HP sup's was too "volatile" for me to pursue.

n:1::i II i;oe: lV contact me if additional information or feedback is needed. Regards, Bert Bowen: I Radiation Safety Or'l"i Represrative I )( )( l Direct: !(b)(7)(C) !Alternate: I Home: (b)(7)(C) I Mobile: l(b)(?)(C) Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com

Munoz, Rick From: l(b )(7)(C) Sent: fllesdav Eebo,aru 01 2Q11 ,,.,, eu To:  !(b)(7)(C)  !

Subject:

liunters Point: Storage Cabinet Survey {Wednesday, February 2, 2011 @ 9 AM) l(b)(7)(C) In reference to the subject line above - and as discussed I agreed upon earner this morning, I pro~ranged to have a witness present with me during tomorrow's survey. After this afternoon's follow up call advising of~ feeling thet such need's weren't necessary or preferred, I plan to honor those wishes as a means of moving forward-with positive, stress free intentions. I look forward to seeing you and everyone else associated with the Hunters Point "gang" at 0900 hrsl Best regards, Bert Bert Bowers/ Radiation Safety Offixfx~r Ponroeontative, TTitra Iecb EC ~ I Direct:!(b)(7)(C) VAltematef _Mobile: Jb)(7)(C) . Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 200 Fisher Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94124 1

/ 15" Munoz, Rick From:  !(b)(?)(C) Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 201111:21 PM To: john@scottJawtirm.net

Subject:

Fwd: Hunters Point Storage Cabinet Survey (Wednesday, February 2, 2011 @ 9 AM) Attachments: Hunters Point: Storage Cabinet Survey (Wednesday, February 2, 2011 @ 9 AM) John, FYI.... and as discussed. (b s Mr (b)(?)(C) assigned to Hunters Point, and the direct report fo (b)(?)(C) e Hunters Point (b)(?)(C) ho ordered me off the project the morning of January 13, 2011 . As always, feel free to contact me If additional Information or feedback is needed. Bert Bert BYiwers t Radiatjon Safety Offi~er Represe~tative, Tetra Tech EC Direct (b)(?)(C) rAlternate:FbX )(C) / Mobile:i(b)(?)(C) I Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. 200 Fisher Avenue, San Francisco. CA 9412

l(b)(?)(C) In reference to the subject line above - and as discussed / agreed upon earlier this morning, I prom ti arranged to have a witness present with me during tomorrow's survey. After this afternoon's follow up call advising of (b)( )( feeling that such need's weren't necessary or preferred, I plan to honor those wishes as a means of moving forwar wt positive, stress free Intentions. I look forward to seeing you and everyone else associated with the Hunters Point "gang" at 0900 hrs! Best regards, IBert Direct: !(b)(?)(C) J Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Re resentalive, Tetra Tech EC Alternate: cx xci Hunters Point NaVal hlpyard, 20 I Mobile !(b)(?)(C) r enue, San Francisco, CA 94124 I

 =

2

Munoz, Rick

                          !(b)(?)(C)

From: _, Sent:: iuesday. February 01 , 2011 11 :23 PM To: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

Fwd: Hunters Point: Storage Cabinet Survey (Wednesday, February 2, 2011 @9 AM) Attachments: Fwd: Hunters Point: Storage Cabinet Su.rvey (Wednesday, Februarv 2, 2011 @ 9 AM)

Rick, FYI (below) as based on legai advise.

Regards, Bert Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative, Tetra Tech EC Direct: !(b)(Z}{C) VAltemate:jlbxixc, I Mobile: (b)(?)(C)

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 200 Fisher Avenue, San ranc1sco, 1

Ii' Munoi1 Rick l(b )(7)(C) From: Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:12 AM To: Munoz, Rick

Subject:

Fwd: Hunters Point Storage Cabinet Survey (Wednesday, February 2, 2011 @ 9 AM) Mr. Munoz, Content following this correspondence is being provided FYI. ... and after sending, it's ~off I go" to Hunters Point In a good faith effort to re-establish / en

• controls and integrity. Also, while generating this email, I was contacted by a (b)(7)(C) stating that as of this morning, a new posting is now on the RSO board identifyin (b)(?)(C) as e represen ve (" a notice which was not posted prior to yesterday (according to the caller) and backdated to reflect an effective date of January 18, 201 1. I'll confirm when I get to the site as to what's actually posted. For the record, I have not been formally notified by a Tetra Tech entity of any such change action. As of last Sunday, January 30, 2011 ,, Tetra Tech RAD field signs continued to display phone numbers assigned to me as a contact option (e.g , at all Tetra Tech RCA boundaries / entrances for "off hours" needs, etc).

As always, feel free to conM me If additional information or feedback is needed. Respectfully, Bert Bowers/ Radiation Safety o,ex,~[)Reoceseptative, Tetra Tech EC 1rnrectlfh)(7)(C) It Altemate: _ J/ Mobile: (b)(?)(C) Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 200 Fisher Avenue, San ranc1sco. 12*

    ~1F!W.r.:::.14                         am

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point: Storage Cabinet Survey (Wednesday, February 2. 2011 @ 9 AM) Ben, Thank you! We look forward to seeing you...... (b)(7)(C) Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oaks, Suite 309. 5700 Lake Wrighl Drive I Norfolk. V A 23502 I www.tetratedl.com PLEASE NOTE: This message. 1nciud ing any attachments, may 1ndude confidential and/or inside information /l,ny distribution or use of tn,s cotnmun ication by anyone other than the intended recipient is stnctly prohibited ;ind n,ay be unlawful If you are not the inlended recipient please notify the send er by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

   ~ Think Green. Not every email needs to be printed.

From ~(b )(7)(C) Sent: Wednesday, February 02., 2011 12:11 AM To~b)(7)(C) I Su Jed: Aunters Point: Storage Cabinet survey (Wednesday, February 2, 2011 @ 9 AM)

l(b)(7)(C) In reference to the subject line above - and as discussed/ agreed upon earlier this morning, I pro~Stl~aranged to have a witness present with me during tomorrow's survey. After this afternoon's follow up call advising oi )( feeling that such need's weren't necessary or preferred, I plan to honor those wishes as a means of moving forwar wit1 positive, stress free intentions. I look forward to seeing you and everyone else associated with the Hunters Point "gang" at 0900 hrs! Best regards, Bert Bert Bowers/ Radiation Safety Offic~r Representative, Tetra Tech EC Direc~(b)(7)(C) ~ Alternate!fbXlX J f Mobile~(b)(7)(C)  ! Hunte s Point NaValhipyard, 200 Fisher Avenue, Sanranclsco, CA 941 24

=

2

From1 RdAf I FGAilON Peso,;ere To:  !(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

RN*2011*A*002.l Date1 Wednesday, March 02, 2011 5:15:00 PM Attachments: 11021 Letter*Admow(edaement and Qosore pdf DOL-QSHA Whist!@Jow,:r; Biobts Qdf NUREG 0240-Reportjng Safety Concem.s.pdf Please see the attachment for NRC Region IV acknowledgement/response to your concerns. Judith Weaver Allegation Coordinator U.S. NRC Region IV 817-860-8145

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AEOION I V 612 £AST LAMAR BLW, SUIT!: 400 ARLINGTON , TEXAS T&D11 *4125 March 2, 2011 Elbert Bowers l(b)(?)(C)

SUBJECT:

CONCERNS YOU RAISED TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) REGARDING TETRA TECH EC, INC. AT THE HUNTER'S POINT DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT REGARDING: ALLEGATION RIV-2011-A-0021 1 OearlMr. Bowers: This letter refers to your electronic mail messages to Mr. Rick Munoz, Health Physics Inspector, on January 31, 2011 , and February 01 , 201 1, In which you expressed concerns related to health physics practices and alleged discrimination at Tetra Tech EC (Hunter's Point Decommissioning Project). The Information was discussed by the NRC Region IV Allegation Review Board ~nd the Allegation Review Board determined to forward your concerns to NRC Region I, since Region I has Jurisdiction over the license for Tetra Tech EC. Your contact for Region I ls: Mr. Richard Urban, Senior Allegation Coordinator 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19403 1-800-432-1156 (Phone) 610-337-5208 (fax) R1allegation@nrc.gov Enclosure 1 with this letter is a brochure entitled, "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC," which contains information that you may find helpful In understanding our process for review of safety concerns. The brochure contains an important discussion of the identity protection provided by the NRC regarding these matters, as well as those circumstances that limit the NRC's ability to protect a concerned individual's Identity. The NRC staff will review your complaint of discrimination to determine if an evaluation of your complaint is warranted. The NRC will consider enforcement action against NRC-regulated facilities that are found to have discriminated against individuals for raising safety concerns. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Elbert Bowers RIV-2011-A-0021 I However, .please understand that the NRC cannot require that a personal remedy be provided to yov (e.g., back pay, reinstatement). Personal remedy must be claimed through the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, office. In order to protect your right to file a discrimination claim with Department of Labor under 29 CFR Part 24, D'epa'rtmeiit of Labor's*, "Procedures.for*Handling *of t>lscrimfriation**compialnts.Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes," you must file a written complaint with the Departm~nt of Labor within 180 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory action or the date you received any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse personnel action, whichever occurred first. Any such discrimination complaint can be flied with the Department of Labor Regional Occupational Health and Safety Administration offices. Your complaint must describe the safety issues you raised, the resulting adverse personnel action taken against you, and the causal relationship between them. Enclosure 2 is an Occupational Health and Safety Administration fact sheet entitled, "Your Rights as.a Whistleblower," which contains information that you may find helpful In understanding the Department of Labor/ Occupational Health and Safety Administration discrimination process. If you choose to file a complaint, it should be filed with: U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration Region 9 90 7th Street, Suite 18100 San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 625-2547 (M1:1ln Public - 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM Pacific) (800) 475-4019 (For Technical Assistance) (800) 475-4020 (For Complaints - Accldents/Fatalities)(BOO) 475-4022 (For Publication Requests) (415) 975-4319 FAX If a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act related to your areas of concern, the Information provided will, to the extent consistent with that act, be purged of names and other potential identifiers. Further, you should be aware you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been formally granted in writing. Thank you for Informing us of your concerns. Allegations are an important source of Information in support of the NRC's safety mission. We take our safety responsibility to the public seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority.

f

 ' Elbert Bowers                                                            RIV-2011-A-0021 l

Should you have any additional questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Nicholas H. Taylor, Senior Allegations Coordinator, on the NRC Safety Hotline at 800-695-7403 Monday-Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central time. Sincerely,

                                        ~      Roy J. Caniano, Director Division of Materials Safety

Enclosures:

1. Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC

2. OSHA Whistleblower Fact Sheet

Telecon record 2011022801 .docx A Region 4-led teleconference call was conducted on 02/28/2011 from 1200 to 1240 hours to discuss jurisdiction for two potential violations Hunters Point Shipyard (TetraTech-HWE, contamination control, etc. and Shaw-contaminated water into bay, etc.). Partial List of Attendees Region 1: J. McFadden, R. Urban, J. Joustra, 0 . Masnyk Bailey, S. Johnson Region 4: J. Walker, R. Browder, et al Headquarters: Robert Johnson, L. Jarriel Decision: R 4 to board both issues and to send acknowledgement correspondences which will inform recipients that R 1 is the office with j urisdiction and will respond to issues and which will provide R 1 contact information. J. McFadden

I p .;i../d- ~1;;,&> N I~+- /.)- -;t'; I-~ 1 :_;. tl _ o_ _ ___,

    ,e f-f } - ~                   r    )(7)(C)                       _d (b)(7)(C)
                                                     ---- - - -- ----***--------~

l(b)(7)(C) I l..__ _ .t---- (b)(?)(C) 1---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*- (b)(7)(C)

_7 - : _ ~ ~ ~----- L-r b)-(7)(-C) _ _ _ ___.I~

T~t<---~~p-;. ~ ~ " ° } - 6

                           ----      8~--

___ _ _ ef)_A

                    - ------- ---- 1~~
                       ----- _---- ~              -
                                       ~~~-
                                         ,£ I

McFadden, John

Subject:

Discussion of jurisdictional boundaries at Hunters Point Naval Station Locatron: RIV ACES Bridg1(b)(7)(C) I Start: Mon 2/28/2011 12:00 PM End: Mon 2/28/2011 1:00 PM Recurrence: (non~) Meeting Status: Accepted Organizer: R4ALLEGATION Resource Required Attendees: Fuller, Karla; Weaver, Judith; Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Erickson, Randy; Browder, Rachel; Brown, Carrie, Jo.hnson, Robert; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Campbell, Vivian; Thompson, James Optional Attendees: Vito, David; Jarrlel, Lisamarie; Caniano, Roy; Cain, Chuck When: Monday, February 28, 201111:00 AM-12:00 PM (GMT~OG:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: RIV ACES Bridgel(b)(7)(C) I Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. Good morning! Region IV has received several recent allegations regarding activity at th~ Hunters Point Naval Station in California. After almost a week of phone calls, it's not clear at all who* has jurisdiction over these issues, or who should follow up on these allegations. We're proposing a call with all the affected parties to get consensus on the jurisdiction question. Attached below are redaqted copies of th.e. allegation receipt forms for these two c.~ses. Please pass any thoughts or questions to.Judtth ~alker who Will be representing the RIV allegations staff on the call. A few things to consider during the call (some of these are things we have heard from the different parties but haven't yet validated): *

 - US Navy master materials license is regulated by Region I
 - One of the contractors involved (Tetra Tech) has a Region I lrc~ri.se, the other (Shaw) has a Region IV license
 - their work js apparently part of a superfund cleanup project (EPA?) and the base is being closed as part of the BRACC process *
 - the state of California has demonstrated an Interest in having jurisdiction Our RIV all8gations bridge number      iSr(    7
                                                  )(CI Thanks!                                   ....__ _ _ __

Nick Taylor Senior Allegations Coordinato.r USNRC Region IV

     ~w o: j(b)(7)(C)216&;2~

(C: '-p 17) 276-6525 E: nick.taylor@nrc.gov 1

110019 Shaw 11021 Receipt fonn .negation REDACTE.. [REDACTED].... 2

McFadden, John From: Joustra, Judith Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 11 :25 AM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Browder, Rachel; R4ALLEGATION Resource; Fuller, Karla; Weaver, Judith; Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Erickson, Randy; Brown, Carrie; Johnson, Robert; Campbell, Vivian; Thompson, James; Cook, Jackie; Whitten, Jack Cc: Vito, David; Jarriel, Lisamarie; Caniano, Roy; Cain, Chuck

Subject:

RE: Discussion of jurisdictional boundaries at Hunters Point Naval Station Monday is not good for me I have back to back meeting. How about sometime Tuesday? From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent : Friday, February 25, 201110:58 AM To: Browder, Rachel; R4ALLEGATION Resource; Fuller, Karla; Weaver, Judith; Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Erickson, Randy; Brown, Carrie; Johnson, Robert; campbell, Vivian; Thompson, James; Cook, Jackie; Whitten, Jack; Joustra, Judith Cc: Vito, David; Jarriel, Usamarle; Ganlano, Roy; Gain, Chuck Subj ect: RE: Discussion of jurisdictional boundaries at Hunters Point Naval Station I a ree with the need for the dfscusfon and the topics but th~Non Responsive * ~ and the Non Respo eed to participate in that. We'd be cutting It close to go till 11:00 and then have to Jump right to the IG call. I suspect that this may take loner than an hour. From: Browder, Rachel Sent: Friday, February 25, 201110:32 AM To: R4ALLEGATION Resource; Fuller, Karla; Weaver, Judith; Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Erickson, Randy; Brown, carrle; Johnson, Robert; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Campbell, Vivian; Thompson, James; Cook, Jacl<.le; Whitten, Jacl<; Joustra, Judith Cc: Vito, David; Jarriel, Lisamarle; Caniano, Roy; Cain, Chuck

Subject:

RE: Discussion of jurisdictional boundaries at Hunters Point Nava,I Station This meeting should be expanded to discuss the two CERCLNNPL sites (Hunter's Point and McClellan AFB) under the Navy and Air Force MML, respectively, The procedure to be developed for handling allegations concerning these two sites should be consistent. Rachel

----*Original Appointment----

From: R4ALLEGATION Resource Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:27 AM To: Fuller, Karla; Weaver, Judith; Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Erickson, Randy; Browder, Rachel; Brown, Carrie; Johnson, Robert; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Campbell, Vivian; Thompson, James Cc: Vito, David; Jarriel, Lisamarle; Ganlano, Roy; Cain, Chuck Subj ect: Discussion of jurisdictional boundaries at Hunters Point Naval Station When: Monday, February 28, 2011 11 :00 AM-12:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where; RIV ACES $ridge l(b)(7)(C) I Good morning! Region IV has received several recent allegations regarding activity at ttle Hunters Point Naval Station in California. After almost a week of phone calls, it's not clear at all who has jurisdiction over these issues, or who should follow up on these allegations. We're proposing a call with all the affected parties to get consensus on the jurisdiction question. Attached below are redacted copies of the allegation receipt forms for these two cases. Please pass any thoughts or questions to Judith Walker who will be representing the RIV allegations staff on the call. A few things to consider during the call (some of these are things we have heard from the different parties but haven't yet validated): 1

 - US Navy master materials license is regulated by Region I
 - One of the contractors involved (Tetra Tech) has a Region I license, the other (Shaw) has a Region IV license
 - their work is apparently part of a superfund cleanup project (EPA?) and the base is being closed as part of the BRACC process
 - the state of California has demonstrated an interest in having jurisdiction Our RIV allegations bridge number lsl(b)(?)(C)

Thanks! _______.... Nick Taylor Senior Allegations Coordinator USNRC Region IV

l<b)(7f{c) i817l 2f-6520.

~ . (817 2 6-6525 E: nick.taylor@nrc.gov

 << File: 110019 Shaw Allegation REDACTED .pdf >> << File: 11021 Receipt form [REDACTED).pdf >>

2

I G:\ORA\ALLEG\RECEIPT\20110019rcv.docx Page 1 of 4 Allegation Receipt Report (Use also for Staff Suspected Wrongdoing - SSW) Date Received: 01/31/2011 , 02/01/2011 , 02/02/201 1 Allegation No. Rl-2011 -A-0019 Received via: Emails (13) on 01 /31 /2011, emails (3) on 02/0 1/2011 , email (1) on 02/02/2011 , and phone {1) on 02/02/2011 Employee Receiving Allegation/SSW: Rick Munoz, Materials HP, RIV Source of information: licensee employee Alleger Name: "Elbert "Burt" Bowers Home Address: " Radiation Safety Officer Representative, Tetra Tech EC l Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Alternate Phone: r 200 Fisher Avenue San Francisco CA 94124 Direct: Mobile Alleger's Employer: etra ec , Inc. Alleger's Position/Title: *Site RSO Representative 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Site RSO 1s licensee employee (contractor} under the RASO-approved decommissioning Ian and remediation ro*ect at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco. CA Personal Emai (b)(7)(C) issues Facility: Tetra Tech EC Inc.at Hunters Point Docket No. or License No.: 030-38199/29-31396-01 Naval Shipyard Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Yes Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated w ith NRC regulated activities? Yes Is the validity of the issue unknown? Yes If NO to any of the above questions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for information, public responsiveness matter, or an OSHA referra,I}. Is there a potential immediate safety significant issue that requires an Ad-Hoc ARB? Paneled by (If so, immediately inform your management and the Allegations Office) RIV on 02/25 & 03/02/2011 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy? Yes If H&l was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights? Yes Did they raise the issue to their management and/or ECP? Yes Do~s the alleger object to having their issue(s) forwarded to the licensee? No Does the alleger object to release of their identity? No Provide alleger's verbatim response to this question: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Was confidentiality requested? No Was confidentiality initially granted? N/A Individual Granting Confidentiality:

G:\ORA\ALLEG\RECEIPT\20110019rcv.docx Page 2 of 4 Allegation/SSW Summary: (Summarize each concern - provide additional detail on next page if necessary) (1) The Tetra Tech Site Radiation Safety Officer (SRS.o flit the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard decommissioning and remediation l)roject experienced a "hostile work environment" and ultimately discrimination after raising safety concerns and identifying the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field on January 13, 2011 in a meeting. (2) There have been a number of radiological safety concerns identified which are indicative of a poor radiologic safety culture in terms of management communication and management support associated with SRSO's authority. Functional Area: Decommissioning Materials Discipline For Each Concern (place concern no(s). in the box provided): [1, 3) Discrimination [2, 4 J Health Physics [1 , 2) Safety Culture [2] Training/qualification [4] Wrongdoing [] Other: - - - - - - - Detailed Description of Allegation/SSW (if necessary): (1) The Tetra Tech' Site Radiation Safety Officer (SRSO) at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard decommissioning and remediation project experienced a "hostile work environment' and ultimately discrimination after raising safety concerns and identifying the subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field on January 13, 2011 in a m~ing. ...

                                                                                                            ,(b-)"""

(?....

                                                                                                                     )("""'

C....

                                                                                                                            ) - - - -...

13, 2011 at roximately ~ 7 houIS.JSite RSQlmet with three RAD Supervisor!:11...._ _ _ _ _ ___, (b)(?)(C) and (b)(?)(C) in thel§jte RS6i.1office to convey the expectation of the urgency and 1mpo ance of time y uperv1sor and RSOR communication of any activity in or near impacted areas that extend beyond regular hours to allow for assessment of the need tac coafirrniaa !be nresencA of an A, ,tbocized User and to convey that the same expectation be conveyed to thJ1...(b_)_ <?....

                                                                              )(_C..,.,
                                                                                   ) -----------.....,...-

interrupt the Site RSO's discussion and proceed to loudly and profanely disagree and state that it was the utility J corridor crew the night before and that situation had been cleared; at that point,J(b)(?)(C) !appeared m the office doorway and said "You know, it seems your bi ifn your name being on the license ..... I can arrange to have it removed.' .......,-- --.-------rn:::v=irnr:;-==;.__--, On January 13, 2011 at appr~mately 0642 hours, the ,te RSO ent to (b)(?)(C) office and asked him if he realized that the@te RSQjvas now obligated to notify the NRC; (b)(?)(C) ~spon ed that the Site RSO should not have allowed the situation which! . t occurred between the I e nd the ~ x ' to have disintegrated t~ such a level and th Site RSo};ou!d just go an.e ad and o what th Site RSO hought s/he need to do and said "call the NRC or w oever, bu! while ou're at I ou can alsc, ack u the s t In our office and et the h I off m ro*ect.' (b) ?)(C) and (b)(?)(C) were present in the conference room just outsid ' (b)(?)(C) o ice when this occurred; at approximately 0647, the Site RSO left the site after quickly shutting own anitoring a computer and moving a box of unused dosimetry from the Site RSO's cabinet and placing it under th Site RS~..,:Ydesk. On January 13, 2011 1 at approximately 0647 hours, ~ e RSO from an offsite overlook o the HPS portion of Parcel E called !(b)(?)(C) I ~ and informed him of the situation in an abbreviated fashion and called 11ater frn..,.., 0 ~ 00 irianr.e to provide a detailed account. After being removed from duties at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, the RSO was temporarny reassigned to the Alameda decommissioning project (Naval Shipyard) after engaging in protected activity on Jahuary 12 and 13, 2011~ After the incident where, after normal working hours and after dark, Shaw Environmental work crews were discovered in two vehicles exiting a fenced off area of an impacted area (RCA and no RAD representative was present to dete~~ne w~er appropriate egress protocols were followed, the (b)(?)(C) flew out to the site and berated thl:'.:_e RS~uring the field supervisory staff meeting before the ate briefing . Note: Cl email dated 02/02/2011 to NRC RIV indicated that Cl is reporting back to Hunters Point to re-establish/ensure on.going RAD program controls and integrity but was informed by a HPS RAD

G:\ORA\ALLEG\RECEIPT\20110019rcv.docx Page 3 of 4 (b )_ (_7)(C_) ""ft as of the morning of 02/02/2011, a new posting on the RSO board identified (b)(?)(C)

       ._         __ .r,m,r, with a backdated effective date of 01 18, 2011 (2)

There have been a number of radiological safety concerns identified which are indicative of a poor radiologic safety culture in terms oµnan ment communication and management support associated witSO's uthority. Construction management has demonstrated progressively eroding recognition/backing of, s NRC license and progressively eroding acknowledgement of the authority/level of respect associated with the SRSO, RSO representatives, and authorized users and hesitant willingness to allow radiation protection personnel to perform/carry out expected license driven responsibilities unimpeded and without consequence; this sends the wrong message to those who porm tasks in the field.

• Examples provided of a poor radiologic safety culture included a reduction in the

[§RSwork schedule, lack of implementation of appropriate egress protocols for egress from impacted areas, water stations set up in impacted area without safety office approval, not enough time for SRSO training of workers, controls inadequate to prevent vandals frnm cto:::itina copper cable on site, and numerous breaches of property fence/RCA P.erimeter bounda . On January 12, 2011 (b)(7)(C) nformed§lte RSOjhat RSOR function's weekly hours were being reduced fr'6m to ; e t t at t rs reduction was specifically aimed at the RSOR f1,1nction and was not an across-the organization reductionfsite RSuestioned how to ensure continued "license-d riven" obligations like "end-of-shift" drive throughlfie site for integrity checks after the field staff has left for the day, under such a new allotment of weekly hours and nine-hour days and new requirement to begin attending the 6:30 am daily meetings. On January 12, 2011 at 1650 hours, Site RSO performed "end-of-shift" drive through the site for integrity checks and at 1720 hours discovered field laborers in two TfEC project pick-up trucks exiting Parcel E RSY4 sector through the gate; Site RSO proceeded to TtEC management trailers and discovered that there was no "Authorized User" on TtEC's NRC li1cense resent i.e., an of the RAD supervisors) and that all had left for the day; Site RSO proceeded foOXXO 'o (b and inforroed him nf e laborers leaving an impacted area while no "A'ut onze ser was on site; roJec: mc> rsuggested that the 50-hour work week may be needed after all. Breaches of the RCA perimeter boundary at property fence were found during RAD integrity field checks. After normal working hours and after dark, Shaw Environmental work crews were discovered in two vehicles exiting a fenced off area of an impacted area (RCA); the RSO was not present to determine whether appropriate egress protocols were followed. On two occasions, a water station was set up inside an RCA without safety office approval which was contrary to procedure; on one occasion in November 2010, the RCA signs were deliberately turned down by someone; a water station was set up on another occasion in Parcel E in January 2011. The@!e RSQjvas not given enougrh time to adequately train workers. Vandals were found on e stealill!I copper cable in the impacted shore line area (RCA). After Jan 13, 2011 r. RSO offic,tFabinet and drawers were breached. Management has been going through theRSO!Jiles; recor s required to be maintained by the NRC license have been compromised/left uncontrolled and are being destroyed. The alleger submitted a copy of a memorandum Sub*ect: Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS), Tetra (TtEC)TechEvents Leading EC up to January 13, 2011 xi xc ) Directive to Radiation 11 / Representative Safet Officer RSOR to Pack OfficeNacate HPS Project) to tlh Cbxixc) land to Tetra Tech ixc) dated January 18, 2011 which detailed e summary o events as they unfolded on January 12-13, Individuals Named

G:\ORA\ALLEG\RECEIPT\20110019rcv.docx Page 4 of 4 XlXC)

 , Contractor 'tb)(JX
                   - --6    ----------.

I Contractor -~ XJXC) L..--------------' XlXC) bX7XC) (b)(7)(C) Tetr::i T orh'ci )(7)(C) The1l(b)(?)(C) I was contacted by telephone and memorandum dated January 18, 2011 . A total of 17 emails, some with attachments including photographs, were submitted by the Cl to NRC RIV; these emails pertained to the concerns which were raised by the Cl and the response initiated by site and corporate management. This allegation (RIV-2011-A-0021) was paneled by RIV on 02/16/11 and 02/28/11 and was transferred to Rl's jurisdiction via the latter panel and acknowledgement/closure letter dated 03/02/11 (no enclosure listing concerns was provided in the latter letter). From Tetra Tech letter dated October 18, 2010 to NRC RI, "The potential radioisotopes of concern are primarily R,a-22s*. Cs-137, and Sr-90; a total of less than 500 millicuries total for Rcr22S and Cs-137 is a realistic conservative estimate for total activity based on previous survey results." Cl email dated 02/02/2011 to NRC RIV indicated that Cl is reporting back to Hunters Point ,:,; to~ re;,..-,..,,,..,....- -... establish/ensure on-going RAD program controls and integrity but was informed b a HPS (b)(7)(C) that as of the morning of 02/02/2011 , a new posting on the RSO board identified (b)(7)(C) si e wxq r XJXCl IWith 8 backdated effective date Of 01 18, 2011

McFadden,John From: R4ALLEGATION Resource Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:09 PM To: McFadden. John

Subject:

                    **SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL**

Attachments: 11021_BEPR.doc; 11021 receipt form.pdf Jack: Just checking my voice mail, here is the receipt form and ARB record (unsigned) for the case at Hunter's Point, concerning Tetra Tech.

Thanks, Judith

                                                ,I
                                                           ~

r~fl* g t;r-d -

Page _ _ of _ _ Employer: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Occupation: Health Physicist Twin Oaks I, Suite 309 5700 Lake Wright Drive Norfolk, VA 23502 Relationship to Facility: Licensee employee (contractor) under the RASO approved decommissioning plan and remediation project at Hunter's Point, San Francisco, California. For *Relationship", select: Licensee Employee; Former Ucensee Employee; Contractor Employee; Former Contractor Employee; Private Citizen; News Media; Special Interest Group; Other Federal Agency; State Agency; Municipal Government; Fed/State/Local Govt Employee; 01 Confidential Source; IG Confidential Source; Other (describe) CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL CORRESPONDENCE METHOD AND TIME TIME 10:00 I am ~ AM or PM Telephone X *email '* : * . *. ~::*. Postal Service Other/Specific Requests/Comments: LICENSEE INFORMATION REQUEST & INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY PROTECTION Explain that if the concerns are discussed with or information is requested from the licensee, that alleger's identity will not be revealed. This contact is necessary for the NRC to conduct our independent evaluation for the concerns. If the concerns are an agreement state Issue or the jurisdiction of another agency, explain that we will transfer the

   .. co.o.c.em lo.Jhe_appmpria.te.agen.cy,-aoci if the alleger agrees, we..wilLpr~aJ!eger's-identlty for-fouow.up..-
 /            YES        X    No     Does the Cl OBJECT to the NRC requesting information from the licensee to support our evaluation?

/ _ YES X

• No Does the individual OBJECT to the release of their identity? Explain that in certain situations (such as discrimination cases), their identity will need to be released in order for the NRC to obtain specific and related Information from the licensee.

ALLEGATION

SUMMARY

Provide a short summary or keywords/topics/subject (for large number of concerns) for the allegation's contents below. This summary is to provide an overview or quick reference in allegation tracking reports: The Tetra Tech EC RSO representative at the at Hunter's Point decommissioning and remediation project experienced a "hostile work en"'.ironment" when raising safety concems and addressing subsequent need for Improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field. The site RSO feels there Is a poor safety culture in terms of management communication nd management support associated with site RSO authority. The site RSO felt threatened when the (b)(7)(C) tated; "your safety concerns seem to be based on the fact that our name is on the license I can removed." RECEIPT METHOD - HOW RECEIVED Cell Telephone! _x_ Inspection _ _ In-Person _ _ Letter Email Fax licensee Other Method/Comments: FACILITY Facility Name: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Location/Address: Twin Oaks I, Suite 309 5700 Lake Wright Drive Docket(s)/license #: 030-38199/29-31396-01 Norfolk, VA_23502 Additional Contact Information: OSHA: 1-800-321-0SHA Regional Offices: http://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html DOL Main Call Center Number: 1-866-4-USA-OOL Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm (http://WWW.dol.gov) Discrimination/Wage - Back Pay Issues: 1-866-487-9243

Paqe 1 0 f 2 Branch Evaluation, Plan, & Recommendation Allegation Number: RIV-2011-A-0021 Facility Name: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. , Docket/License No: 030364414/46-27767-01 Responsible Div: DNMS ,ARB Date: 02/16/2011 Overall Responsibl~ *_ Branch: NMSBA (As assigned by the ARB) Received Date 30 Days 70 Days 90 Days 120 08l£S 2/2/2011 . 3/4/2011 4/ 13/2011 _5/~/2011 6/2/2011 Purpose of this ARB: Initial ARB Basis for a Subsequent ARB: Does the Cl OBJECT to the NRC requesting information Yes No NIA from the licensee to support our evaluatipn? If any of the following inhibiting factors apply, this allegation shall not be submitted to the llcensee for investigation or review. Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the identity of the alleger or X confidential source. X The licensee could compromise an investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the discussions. The allegation is made against the llcensee's management or those parties who would normally receive and address the X allegation. The basis of the allegation is information received from a Federal or State agency that does not approve of the information X being released. The licensee's allegation trend. quality of response(s), problem identification and resolution, and/or cycle review results are X such that the NRC should independently evaluate the concem(s). The NRC evaluation would be more timely and efficient - there is an ongoing or upcoming inspection which could evaluate the concern or a similar/same concern is already being evaluated by the NRC. Significant public/Commission interest warrants independent assessment of concem(s). The alleger has taken the concern(s) to the licensee with unsatisfactory results. ARB PARTICIPANTS Chairman: CCain NTaylor JWhitten KFulier CHolland JWeaver LHanson JThompson i _, I Chairman Approval: Date: Brief Overall Allegation Summary- if more than 3 Concerns, use keywords, topics. subject, etc.: Provide a summary or selected keywords/topj cs/subject for the whole allegation's contents below. ,~**see the BEPR q~~~t9p_~uid.e _ f~r assistan~e. C ~ . The Tetra Tech EC,[BSO representatlv~ at the Hu;er's Poi1nt decommissioning project, experienced a "hostile work environment" when raising safety concerns and addressing subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field .

Page 2 0 f 2 Branch Evaluation, Plan & Recommendation Allegation Number: RIV-2011-A-0021 Concern: 1. Decommissioning 01 Case No.: 4-20XX-OXX

*RX Code or Functional Area:

Materials

*Discipline:                         Health Phvsics                        *01 Priority:
*Security Category:                                                        *01 Priority J-    (o               Basis:

Concern: (A concern is one or two Sf:l:ntences.} .., 1 The Tetra Tech ECf,.RSO representativ,e at the Hunter's Point decommissioning project, experienced a "hostile work environment" when raisings afety concerns and addressing subsequent need for improved and timely communications related to radiological controls in the field. The-2ite RSO*feels there is a poor radiologic safety culture in terms of management communication and management support associated with@.te R~~uthority. Th~e RSO)described the construction management's progressively eroding recognition eking of its NRC license and acknowledgement of the authority/level of respect associated with the RSO and RSO representatives and authorized users.: The site RSO felt threatened when the (b)(7)(C) 1stated; "your safety concerns seem to be based on the fact that your name is on the 11cense, 1 can arrange to have it removed." The site RSO has since been re-assigned to the Alameda decommissioninq projec: # ~ Concern Background, Sum1orting lnforma11on, & Comm~ ~ The Cl has submitted a total of seventeen (17) e-~s to V ertaining to his concerns and response initiated by site and corporate management. The i R as been removed from the site and management has been going through his files. According to the Cl, NRC required records have been compromised and are being destroyed. Regulatory Reguirement (flllJn ~o~) Potentlall v, 10 CFR Part 20 and /or procedural violations Describe the concern's safety significance. I (fill In below - REQUIRED) Potentiall y Hiqh Check each question as applicable to this concern. X Is 1t a declaration, statement. or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? 1s there a potential deficiency? X Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities or policy (e.g. SCWE)? X Is the validity of the issue unknown? If all of the above statements are checked, the issue is an allegation.

                                *Technical Staff Recommendation(s)

Date Recommended Action Assigned B ranch Planned Date NOTE: Submit Draft NOV, RFI questions/requests, and/or an Inspection plan as a seearate document.

• For an, ARB decision to RFI., any INHIBITING FACTOR(S) that are overruled from the first page must have a justification documented In the ARB Declslon(s). Document INHIBITING FACTOR(S) that not applicable to the concern or are not noted on first paAe. First pa Ae reviewed? Yes: No: NIA:

Accepted ARB Date ARB Decision(s) Assianed to Planned Date ACES to contact Region I Allegation concerning jurisdiction and 02/16/11 ACES ACES to send acknowledqement letter to alleqer.

Johnson, Sharon From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:50 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Your Request From: Urban, Richard Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:50:01 AM To: DayidAntonlaw@gmail. com

Subject:

Your Request Auto forwarded by a Rule Per your letter to me dated March 17, 2015, NRC allegation files Rl-2011-A-0113, Rl-2012-A-0022 and Rl-2011-A-0019 are closed. V/R Richard J . Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator Region I, US NRC

• 1

Johnson, Sharon From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:53 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warne!<, Nicole

Subject:

FW: CA Attorney Letter From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:53:12 PM To: Urban, Richard Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

CA Attorney Letter Auto forwarded by a Rule Rick, I put the letter back on your desk for inclusion In the allegation file. l spoke with the attorney over the phone. I made him aware that the investigations had been completed. He seemed to be aware of that. If you could just send him an email to confirm that (he asked for our confirmation in the letter), that should be the end to that. Thanks.

Cheers, Brett Klukan RI Regional Counsel (610)-337-5301 s in communications protected by the attome doctrine.

• In addition, this - Please treat l

David C. Anton Law Office Contacts __ 1717 Redwood Lane, Davis, CA 95616 Tel: (530) 759-8421--, E-Mail{gavid.Antonlaw@gmail.co~ March 17, 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I c/o Mr. Richard Urban 2100 Renaissance Blvd. King of Prussia, PA 19406-2745 I and~b)(?)(C) ) are legal coW1sel for the individuals listed above.Fb)(?)(C) J and I of California court ~ehalf of these * *

• On behalf o Susan Andrews, (b)(?)(C) i have filed litigation in California Superior Court as well as the federal Northern District and Elbert Bowers 'tis hereby requested that the charges filed by eac o ese individuals that are lis e above be aJismissed in its entirety.

If you have any questions, please feel free to write, call *1. Please see that a notice of dismissal

• ed tom o ce, and the . (b)(7)(C) whose address is (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C)

Esq.

l' David C. Anton, Esq. -s.ACAA~1a.~:.C A 957 1717 Redwood Lane Davis,.CA 95616 *1R MAR :;;_,p)~ P),18 l Nuclear Regukt'lry Commission, Region I c/o Mr. Richard Urban 2100 Renaissance Blvd. King of Prussia, PA 19406-2745 1940E.211325 lfn H,1,l~uJI *4r111l'll**1n11,.1q.n11,l,t,JIUl,,11,11.-.b*I David C. Anton, Esq. 1717 Redwood Lane Davis, CA 95616 David Anton 1717 Redwood Lane Davis, CA 95616

Urban, Richard From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:17 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: OSHA findings Attachments: sharpcopier-sf@dol.gov_20140617_143748.pdf From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:58 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: OSHA findings From: R4ALLEGATION Resource Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:58:23 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: R4ALLEGATION Resource

Subject:

FW: OSHA findings Auto forwarded by a Rule I searched our records in Region IV - we only had one allegation for Tetra Tech

• which we referred to you. So I believe this is yours too! Please let me know if I have sent this in error. Thanks Marti From: Wuest, Jennifer - OSHA [7]

Sent: T uesday, June 17, 2014 2:10 PM To: R4ALLEGATION Resource Cc: NRC Allegation

Subject:

OSHA findings Please see attached the findings ~r the follow[ng complaints: TetraTech, Inc. ~(b)(7)(C ) j Tetra Tech, Inc. Andrews/ 9 -3290-17-021 Thank you.

Best, Jennifer Wuest, MBA Program Analyst Enforcement Programs/Whistleblower Protection Program OSHA Region IX 90 71h Street, Suite 18-100

U.S. Department of Labor O<:cupational Safety and Health Administration San Francisco Federal Building 111 90 - 7 Street, Suite 18100 San Francisco, CA 94103 r~* June J3, 2014 David Anton 1717 Rtdwood Ln Dsvi.s, CA 95616-1019 Dearo Re: Tetra 'lcch EC, lnc.,(b)(7)(C) HDd Mr. AntLo-n-: - - - - - - - - On April 23, 2014, tbc Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received q noov a £ lbs* : uclcar Regulatory Commission's (NR(;) Report of Investigation regarding !(b)(7)(C) _lzomplaint of ret.aJiation filed with the NRC on or around February 16, 2012 ngainst Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (Respondent). We have reviewed the NRC's Repon of Jnvcstigntion and investigation C!ISC file, which investigated the same retali11tion issues OSHA investigated under the whistlcblow~>r protection provisions of the Energy ttcorgunization Act, (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §5851. We determined that the NRC's Report of Investigation and investigation case file explained not only the outcome but also the essential findings of fact and conclusions of Jaw on which it wets based. We find that the NRC dealt 1tdequatcly with all factual issues raised in the above-referenced complaint, and that the proceedings wen: fair, regular, and free of procedural infirmities. 'flu: outcome of the proceedings was neither palpably wrong nor repugnant to the purpose and policy of the ERA. Accordingly, we hereby defer to the NRC's decision. Consequently, this complaint is dismissed. Respondent and Complainant have 30 days from the receipt of these findings lo file objections and to request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). If no objections are filed, these Findings will become final and not subject to court review. Objections must be filed in writing with: Chief Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Law Judges U.S. Department of Labor 800 K Street NW, Suite 400 North Washington, D.C. 20001-8002 Telephone: (202) 693-7300

Fax: (202) 693-7365 With copies to: Timothy J. Murphy, Respondent's Attorney Fisher & Phillips LLP On.e Embarcadero Center, Suite 2340 San Francisco, CA 94111 Ken Nishiyama Atha Regional Administrator U.S. Department of Labor-OSHA 90 7ttt Street Suite 18100 San Francisco, California 94103 In addition, please be advised that the U.S. Department of Labor does not represent any party in the hearing; rather, each party presents bis or her own case. The hearing is an adversarial proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge (AU) in which the parties are allowed an opportunity to present their evidence for the record. The AU who conducts the hearing will issue a decision based on the evidence and arguments, presented by the parties. Review of the AI.J's decision may be sought from the Administrative Review Board, to which the Secretary of Labor bas delegated responsibility for issuing final agency decisions under ERA. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge along with a copy of your complaint. The rules and procedures for the handling of ERA cases can be found in Title 29, code of Federal Regu)ations Part 24, and may be obtained at ~~histleblowers.gov. Sincerely,

,r'L-~ J) 'tuv..a6f J~_;,D. Wulff Assistant Regional Administrator, Enforcement Programs cc:     Timothy J. Murphy, Respondent's Attorney Chief Administrative Law Judge, USDOL NRCRegionN NRC Allegation Program

JUN l O 2014 Ms. Susan Y Andrews Rl-2011 -A-0113 r )(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Ms. Andrews:

The NRC Region I Office is closing your allegation file associated with twenty-one concerns that you initially raised to the NRC in October 2011 regarding Tetra Tech EC, a decommissioning contract company that was performing work at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your concerns. Our most recent letter to you dated June 2, 2014, infonned you that we would maintain your allegation file open to monitor Department of Labor decisions regarding your discrimination complaint. We recently became aware that your discrimina~~omplaint against Tetra Tech EC, which' filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on ebruary 8, 2012 (Case No. 9-3290-12-021) 1 was dismissed with prejudice on March 13, 201 , cause you filed the same complaint in ci court; your complaint has now been moved to federal court. At this time, all NRC actions regarding your allegation file have been completed. Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions have been responsive. Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission, and as such, we will continue to take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we will evaluate that infonnation to determine whether further action is warranted. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely, Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPV

Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-0113 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0113 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\20110113clo.docx OFFICE NAME M Ferdas ~Cit. DATE 06/ /2014

UNITED STAT ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD. KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 JUN 1 0 2014 Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-0113 l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Ms. Andrews:

The NRC Region I Office is closing your allegation file associated with twenty-one concerns that you initially raised to the NRC in October 2011 regarding Tetra Tech EC. a decommissioning contract company that was performing work at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your concerns Our most recent letter to you dated June 2, 2014, informed you that we would maintain your allegation file open to monitor Department of Labor decisions regarding your discrimination complaint. We recently became aware that your discrimination om laint a ainst Tetra Tech EC which u filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) o {b)(7) C was dismissed with preJudice on March 13, 201 :.:.~ e:-:ca ~ u-=- se ".:"""'y~

                                                                                  .". o'u,.1
                                                                                        .""'. :r:e:"":d:rt:"r""::e~s"."""a"."""m
                                                                                                                               =e-::c-::

0""'m

                                                                                                                                          .""."""p'."'la

'_,1,...

n-:-t -1n~ ~ - J. court; your complaint has now been moved to federal court. At this time, all NRC actions regarding your allegation file have been completed. Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions have been responsive . Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission. and as such, we will continue to take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. If, however. you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warranted. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1- 800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7.30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.0 Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely,

                                                          ~*L// ~

Richard J Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Johnson, Sharon From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:08 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; M claughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Tetra Tech - SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:07:34 PM To: Clifford, James; Marshall, Jane; Ferdas, Marc Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Klukan, Brett

Subject:

Tetra Tech - SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule After getting an interesting ruling from OOL relative to a power reactor case last week, I pursued what DOL was doing for our 4 Tetra Tech allegation files, which were similar in my mind. OOL had told us over a year ago that they were holding the Tetra Tech cases in abeyance, which sounded like a holding pattern to us. Therefore, we were administratively holding the 4 Tetra Tech allegation files open. However, it appears that all 4 OOL cases have been recently dismissed with prejudice in March 2014. Basically what that means is that OOL has closed their files but the allegers can go back to OOL at a later date with the same claims under certain conditions. Since we have completed all NRC actions relative to their 4 allegation files, my plan is to close them. After coordinating with Brett on this, he did not see a down side to closing the allegation files either. If they ever do go back to DOL with the same complaints, and if DOL were to rule in their favor at that time, new files could be opened at that time to figure out why we did not substantiate and why DOL did. 1

Urban, Richard From: Daly, Catherine@DrR <CDaly@dir.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:16 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech Cases Attachments: ~544 Tetra Tech Abeyance Letters.pdf; 23564 Bowers v Tetra Tech, et al Case Closure Formpdf; 2149g } v Tetra Tech, et al Case Closure Form.pdf; 25544!(b)(7)(C Iv Tetr, Tech, et al Case Closure Fonn.pdf; 25571(b)(7) Form.pdf CC> f Tetra Tech, et al Case Closure Here you go. I just got into IMIS after some password snafus. No w I will close them in the fed database. From: Urban, Richard [m~l\!:9:Ricbard.U_rt}gn.@rm;~ J Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:10 PM To: Daly, catherlne@DIR

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech cases Thanks that was helpful. So my understanding is that their cases are currently closed? If so, is there a letter you could fax or e-mail that I could place into my files. I would like to close their cases if at all possible. Thanks. From: Daly, catherlne@DIR [mallto:CDaly@dir.ca.govJ Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 3:53 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Tetra Tech cases Sigh. The difference lies with our state statute allowing parties t he freedom to take both options (file in court and stay with us). See 98.7(f) attached. Still I closed these cases with proviso parties could return to us if federal court dismissed for failure to exhaust. I will go ahead and update the federal database. We have our own state database plus a huge case backlog so I often neglect to update both. From: Urban, Richard [mailto:Richard.Urban@nrc.gov) Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:39 AM To: Daly, catherine@DIR

Subject:

Tetra Tech cases Ms. Daly, My name is Rick Urban and I am the Sr. Allegation Coordinator for the US NRC Region I Office. I currently have four open allegation files regarding Tetra Tech. My files remain open because the individuals have filed with DOL and your cases are still open. The last we heard from you on these cases was that because these individuals filed law suits, you were holding their cases in abeyance. 1

I was wondering if you could you explain the difference to me regarding a similar set of circumstances I ha, with a file regarding a power reactor in New York. The complainant filed with DOL. and then took his case federal court. DOL subsequently dismissed his complaint on that basis. Thanks in advance for your response. Richard J . Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator US NRC Region I 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Df!PARTMENTOF.INDUSTRJAL RELATIONS Edmund G. Brown Jr, Go,1ant1r DIVISION OP LABOR STJ\ND/\RDS ENFORCE!\fE\.T R.r!11liul io11 Culllpl11inl fn.uesl1'(11/1on Unit 4~5 Golden Catr Ave, 10"* Floor San Frnncist* o, Ct\ 9fl02 Tel: (415) 70..'484] F11x: (415) 7034130 qlalv@dir ca.Y.QY March 13, 2014 By Ernafl (b)(? )(C) (b)(? )(C) (b)(? )(C) David Anton 1717 Redwood Lu. Davis, CA 95616 Re: ~ Bowers, Andrews, ~~~F7) !v 1'etrn Tech L::.,ate Case 2.8443-SFRCI Dea,* Counsel: The Divis ion of Labor Slandards Enforcement ( DLSE) "Dismisses without P1-ejudice" the following

• RC/ Complaints; (1)~ v. retra Tech, eta!., 21491-SFRCI;

(~) Bowers vs. Tetra Tech et al., 23564-SfRCI (3) Andrews vs. Tetra Tech et al., 25544-SFRCI; .. (4)  !~~57) Ivs. Tetra Tech et al., 25773-SFRC Complainant (b) ( )( Bert Rowers, Susan Andrews, and !(b )(7)(C )  !(Complainants") filed in civil c::oul't. Their civil corn plain (b )(7 )(C) now removed to federal court-seeks judkiaJ re lief for aJleged violations of Cali fornia Labo!' Codes sections 1102.5 and 6310. If a cou rt later determines the Complainants named above failed to exhaust administrative remedies, t hey m ay return to the DLSE to reopen Lheir Retaliation Complaints.

AII Coul'lSel Page 2 o f 2 Please sec the enclosed forms. Sincerely, Ctthet-ine S D~ly Catherine S. Daly Deputy Labor Commissioner Retaliation Complaint Unit RCI 4.2- Case Ass'lnment Respondent (rev. I0/2012)

LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Retaliation Unit 455 Golden Gate Avenue 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94 102 (415)703-4841 fax ('415)703-4130 NOTICE - INVESTIGATION CLOSED COMPLAINANT Susan Andrews RESPONDENT Tetra Tech, et al. STATE CASE NO. e.s44-SFRC0 We are closing our investigation of the retaliation complaint made by the complainant shown above. N o further action is contemplated by this office for the following reason(s): The Complainant expressly withdrew the complaint. The Parties agreed to a stipulated settlement of the complaint. The Complainant has abando ned the complaint.

    @     The Complainant filed the same issues in Civil Court ["Dismissed without Prejudice'l STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER Dated: March 13, 2014 D eputy Labor Commissioner RCI 9.1 - Complaint Wtthdriwn, Sealed. or ~ndoned (rev. 10/2012)

JUN 2 2014 Ms Susan V Andrews Rl-2011-A-0113 r (])(C) I

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated Dear Ms. Andrews; This letter provides an update on the status of your allegation file regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated and associated activities at Hunters Point. Our previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your concerns. The NRC is aware,.19at your discrimination complaint, whichifiled with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on~bruary 8, 2012 (Case No. 9-3290-12-021), remains open. Further, it is our understanding that your DOL case is being held in abeyance cause you filed your case in Federal Civil Court and, as a result, DOL cannot continue the investigation nor issue a report until after the Court issues a decision. Therefore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor DOL decisions. We will notify you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process. On May 9 and May 23, 2014, I left two voice messages for you indicating that I would like to speak with you regarding your safety concerns. In response, you left me two voice messages indicating that I should contact your attorney with any further questions. Nevertheless, I am taking this opportunity to inform you that we are aware that you recently notified the news media that you previously brought a number of concerns to the NRC regarding Hunters Point. The article, published on May 19, 2014, discusses your concerns related to radiological controls at Hunters Point, including your statement that you lost your job after reporting such concerns to the NRC. As a result, I want to inform you that the NRC can no longer protect your identity as the source of these concerns. Additionally, we are reviewing the news article for any new concerns not previously addressed by the NRC, and we will follow up with you by separate correspondence if any new issues are identified. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, 6:r{f;! n.tl Stg,~<1 >>y : Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-O113 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0113 DOCUMENT NAME: G :\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110113st6.docx To receive a cop of this document, Indicate In the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "N"= No OFFICE NAME DATE

I / California Labor Code 98.7 - Retaliation Procedures (2014 Version) 98.7. (a) Any person wh o believes that he or she investigation report submitted to the Labor has been discharged o r otherwise discriminated Commissioner or designee shall include the against in violation of a ny Jaw under the statements a nd documents obtained in the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a investigation, and the findings of the complaint with the division within six months investigator concerning whether a violation after the occurrence of the violation. The six- occurred. The Labor Commissioner may hold month pe riod may be extended for good cause. an investigative hearing whenever the Labor The complaint s hall be investigated by a Commissioner determines, after review of the discrimination complaint investigator in investigation repo rt , that a hearing is necessary accordance with t his section. The Labor to fully establish the facts. rn the h earing the Commissioner shall establish procedures for the investigation report shall be made a part of the investigation of discrimination complaints. A record and the complainant and respondent summary of the procedures shall be provided to shall have the opportunity to present further each complainant a nd respondent at the time of evidence. The Labor Commissione r shall issue, initial contact. The Labor Commissioner shall serve, and e nforce any n ecessary s ubpoenas. inform complainants c harging a violation of Section 6310 or 63u, at t he time of initial contact, (c) If the Labor Commissioner de termines a of his or h er right to file a separate, concu rrent V1olation has occurred, he or she sha ll notify the complaint with the United States Department complainant and respondent a nd direct the of Labor within 30 days after the occurrence of respo nde nt to cease and desist from the violation the violation. and take an,, action deemed necessary to remedy the violation, including, where (b) Each complaint of unlawful discharge or appropriate, rehiring or reinstatement, discrinuna tion shall be assigned to a reimbursem ent oflost wages and interest disc:*rimination complaint investigator who shall thereon, payment of reasonable attorney's fees prepare and submit a report to the Labor associated *with a ny hearing held by the Labor Commissioner based on an investigation of the Commissioner in investigating the complaint, complaint. The Labor Commission er may and the posting of notices to employees. designate the chief deputy or assistant Labor Couunissioner or the c hief counsel to receive and If the respondent does not comply with the review the reports. The investigation shall order within 10 working days following include, where appropriate, inte rviews with the notification of the Labor Commissioner's complainant, responde nt, and any witnesses determination, the Labor Commissioner shall who may have information concerning the bring an action promptly in an appropriate court alleged violation, and a review of any against the respondent. If the Labor documents that may be relevant to the Commissioner fails to bring an action in court disposition of the complaint. The identity of a promptly, the complainant may bring an action witness shall remain confidential unless the against the Labor Commissioner in any ide ntification of the witness becomes necessary appropriate court for a writ of mandate to compel to proceed with the investigation or to prosecute the Labor Commissioner to bring an action in court against the respondent. If the an action to enforce a determination. TI1e

2 California Labor Code 98.7 - Retaliation Procedures (2014 Version) complainant prevails in his or her action for a reimbursement of lost wages and interest writ, the court shall award the complainant thereon, and other compensation or equitable court costs and reasonable attorney's fees, relief as is appropriate under the circumstances notwithstanding any othe r Jaw. Regardless of any of the case. When dismissing a complaint, the delay in bringing an action in court, the Labor Labor Commissioner shall advise the Commissioner shall not be divested of complainant of his or her right to bring an jurisdiction. In any action, the court may permit action in an appropriate court if h e or she t he claimant to intervene as a party plaintiff to disagrees with the determination of the Labor the action and shall h ave jurisdictfon, for cause Commissioner, and in the case of an alleged s hown, to restrain the violation and to order all violation of Section 6310 or 6311, to fi le a appropriate relief. Appropriate relief includes, complaint against the state program with the but is not limited to, rehiring or reinstateme nt United States De partme nt of Labor. of the complainant, reimbursement oflost (2) The filing of a timely complaint against the wages and interest thereon, a nd any other compensation or equitable relief as is appropriate state proE,rram with the United States under the circumstances of the case. The Labor Department of Labor shall stay the Labor Commissione r shall petition the court for Commissioner's d ismissal of the division appropriate temporary relief or restraining order complaint until the United States Secretary of unless he or she determines good cause exists I.abor makes a de termination regarding the for not doing so. alleged violation. With in 15 days of receipt of t hat de termination, the Labor Commissioner (d) (1) If the Labor Commissioner determines no shaJI notify the parties whether he or she w ill violation has occurred, he or she shall notify the reopen the complaint flied with Lhe division or complainant and respon dent and shall dismjss wh ether he or she will reaffirm the dismissal. the complaint. The Labor Commissioner may direct the complainant to pay reasonable (e) The Labor Commissioner shall notify the attorney's fees associated with any hearing held complainant and respondent of his or her by the Labor Commissioner if the Labor determination under subdivision (c) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), not la ter than 60 Commissioner finds the complaint was frivolous. unreasonable, groundless, and was days after the filing of the complaint. Determinations by the Labor Commissioner brought in bad faith. The complainant may, after unde r subdivision (c) or (d ) may be appealed by notification of the Labor Commissioner's the complainant or respondent to the Director determination to dismiss a complaint, bring an of Industrial Relations within 10 days fo lJowing action in an appropriate court, which shall have jurisdiction to determine whether a violation notification of the Labor Commissioner's occurred, and if so, to restrain the violation and determination. The appeal shall set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon order all appropriate relief to remedy the violation. which the appealing party considers the Labor Commissioner's determination to be unjust or Appropriate relief includes, but is not limited to, unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the rehiring or reinstateme nt of the complainant, director. The director may consider any issue

3 California labor Code 98. 7 - Retaliation Procedures (2014 Version) relating to the initial determination and may modify, affirm, or reverse the Labor Commissioner's determination. The director's determination shall be the determination of the Labor Commissioner. The director sha ll notify the complainant and respondent of his or her determination within 10 days of receipt of the appeal. (f) The rights and remedies provided by this section do not preclude an employee from pursuing any other rights and remedies under any other law. (g) In the enforcement of this section, there is no requirement that an individuaJ exhaust administrative remedies or procedures.

UNITED STAT ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENA ISSANCE B LVD. KJNG OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 JUN 2 2014 Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-0113 l(b )(7)(C) Subject* Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC. Incorporated

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This letter provides an update on the status of your allegation file regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated and associated activities at Hunters Point. Our previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your concArn~

                         ~~~~~l..!.l.lJJ.UJil..lJ.lo:.l~~-11.&M...&U.w.&L&...a:lir,                       filed with the U.S. Department remains open. Further, it is out understanding tha~'""rMIT"Tl'-.,..,~.-:,;s""nl:
                                                .: ern1n;;;g:;"'l;':eir..r.,..-

n-;ai'Fui"v ya;;;n;:;;c::.e~ e:;:cause you filed your case In Federal Civil Court and, as a result, OOL cannot continue the Investigation nor issue a report until after the Court issues a decision. Therefore, we will maintain your file open as we continue to monitor OOL decisions. We will notify you of our final disposition at the completion of the DOL process. On May 9 and May 23, 2014, I left two voice messages for you indicating that I would like to speak with you regarding your safety concerns. In response. you left me two voice messages Indicating that I should contact your attorney with any further questions. Nevertheless, I am taking this opportunity to Inform you that we are aware that you recently notified the news media that you previously brought a number of concerns to the NRC regarding Hunters Point. The article, published on May 19, 2014, discusses your concerns related to radiological controls at Hunters Point. including your statement that you lost your job after reporting such concerns to the NRC. As a result, I want to inform you that the NRC can no longer protect your Identity as the source of these concerns. Additionally, we are reviewing the news article for any new concerns not previously addressed by the NRC, and we will follow up with you by separate correspondence if any new issues are identified. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m . and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Sincerely,

                                                               -£LY/:?a_.

Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

**~

Johnson, Sharon From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:37 AM To: Haverkamp, Trisha Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

ADAMS INPUT FOR TETRA TECH Attachments: Cover Page Blue - Sensitive Allegation Material.docx; 20110113&201200221ic.docx Attached 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:56 PM To: CDaly@dir.ca.gov Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon Subject Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Ms. Daly: Last we communicated, May 2013, the individuals had filed civil cases and the DOL complaints were being held in abeyance due to this civil filing. Can you inform us of the status of the Tetra Tech cases? Thanks Much Sharon Johnson FEB 2 5 201~ (b)(7)(C)

DEC 6 2013 l'b)(7)(C) Rl-2011 -A-011 3 Rl-2012-A-0022 T etra Tech EC, Incorporated 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Subject:

NRC Office of Investigations Case Nos. 1-2012-019 and 1-2012-037 Dear l(b)(7)(C) I The Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations (01), Initiated two investigations, one on January 19, 2012, and one on April 4, 2012, to evaluate separate discrimination complaints by two contract employees who alleged they were terminated from employment for raising safety concerns while working for Tetra Tech EC, Inc., a contract decommissioning company at the United States Navy's Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Based on testimonial and documentary evidence developed during the Investigations, the NRC found insufficient evidence to conclude that either individual was subjected to discrimination for raising saf ety concerns. Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Also, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). No response to this letter is required. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Marc Ferdas of my staff at (610) 337-5022. Sincerely, James W. Clifford, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

As Stated OFFICIAL RECORD COP¥

r )(?)(C) Rl-201 1* A-0113 2 Rl-2012-A-0022 Distribution: R. Zimmerman, OE R1Allegation Resource J. Clifford, DNMS M Ferdas, DNMS D. Screnci, PAO SUNSI Review Complete: ,::{ ff (Reviewer's Initials) ADAMS DOCUMENT ACCESS ION NUMBER: MLXXXXXXXXX DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\LJCENSEE\20110113&201200221ic.docx After declaring this document An Official Agency Record" it will be released to the Public. To receive a co or this document, Indicate in the box: C" = Co without attschmentlenclosure "E" c Co with sttachmentlenclosure OFFICE DNMS:DB Rl :RC NAME M Ferdas 1/'S f DATE 12/ ~ /2013 ~ /2013

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD. KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19-406-2745 DEC 6 2013 r b)(7)(C) Rl-2011-A-0113 Rl-2012-A-0022 I etra I ecn EC, incorporated 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Subject:

NRC Office of Investigations Case Nos. 1-2012-019 and 1-2012-037 Dea~(b)(7)(C) The Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations (01) , initiated two investigations, one on January 19, 2012, and one on April 4 , 2012, to evaluate separate discrimination complaints by two contract employees who alleged they were terminated from employment for raising safety concerns while working for Tetra Tech EC, Inc., a contract decommissioning company at the United States Navy's Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Based on testimonial and documentary evidence developed during the investigations, the NRC found insufficient evidence to conclude that either individual was subjected to discrimination for raising safety concerns. Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is enclosed for your Information. Also, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS Is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-nn/adam.s.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room) . No response to this letter is required. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Marc Ferdas of my staff at (610) 337-5022. Sincerely, J:!::/1~or Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure:

As Stated

DEC 6 2013 f<l-2011-A-0113 (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This letter provides an update regarding twenty-one concerns that you raised to the NRC regarding Tetra Tech, a decommissioning contract company at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Our previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your technical concerns. Enclosure 1 to this letter describes our review and conclusion regarding your remaining discrimination concern. We note that your discrimination complaint against Tetra Tech that you;

• with the U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Sa~ and Health Administration o February 8, 2012, (USDOUOSHA Case No.9-3290-12-0ai.J is still open. As a result, the will continue to monitor the status of you DOL complaint and will maintain your file open. We will notify you upon completion of our review of your DOL complaint. Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions have been responsive. Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission, and as such, we will continue to take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warranted. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4: 15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P .O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely, cr..,f*. ~ . ,. '

                                                          ** .... -i....1..1.
                                                                              .. r        *
                                                                              '11.l.£ ** ,: l.i,; j Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPV

Ms. Susan V. Andrews L Rl-2011 -A-0113 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0113 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110113st5.docx To receive a co of this document, l ndlc.ate In the box: ~c- = Co "N" :o Noco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2012-A-0022 Concern 21: You asserted that yolll_were laid off on December 16, 2011, for attempts to address and correct observations considered adverse to industry standard radiation safety practices as well as regulatory license compliance, and for participating as a silent witness in a State of California Labor Commission discrimination hearing for another terminated emolovee. Additional Information: We note that in your DOL complaint fried on January 19, 2012 you stated that you were terminated for participating in an NRC investigation and raising nuclear safety issues. Response to Concern 21 : NRC Assessment The Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated an investigation (Case No. 1-2012-019) on January 19, 2012, to determine whether you were subjected to discrimination for raising safety concerns by Tetra Tech, a contract decommissioning company at the United States Navy's Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The 01 report provided the following information based on the collection of testimonial evidence obtained through transcribed interviews with a number of your former co-workers, and documentary evidence that included correspondence from the Department of Navy, which addressed the modification to the contract for base-wide radiological support at the Hunters Point, a record of negotiations for the contract, and an amendment of solicitation/modification of the contract. Several of your co-workers testified under oath that they were unaware that you had raised safety concerns. Of those who were aware, only one individual believed that you were discriminated against for raising safety concerns; however, that individual had no evidence to support his/her belief. Your supervisor acknowledged that you had raised some of your concerns to him, but denied that you were discriminated against for raising the concerns. Further, the supervisor also denied any knowledge of your role in a discrimination hearing for anoth~r terminated employee. Rather, the supervisor claimed that you were laid off because the Navy had reduced its decommissioning expenditures at Hunters Point, which required a reduction in site manpower. The supervisor testified that further reductions had led to additional layoffs, and that even he had been laid off. 01 found that the Navy's reduction of funding/work was a significant piece of evidence to support that you were not laid off for raising safety concerns. Further, following another round of work reduction by the Navy, three others including your supervisor, were laid off as well. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC found insufficient evidence to conclude that you were laid off for raising observations about adverse radiation safety practices and regulatory compliance issues, for participating as a witness in a discrimination hearing for another terminated employee, or for participating in an NRC investigation. 1 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2012-A-0022 Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is attached for your information. 2 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD. K ING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 DEC 6 2013 Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-0113 r )(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated Dear Ms. Andrews~ This letter provides an update regarding twenty-one concerns that you raised to the NRC regarding Tetra Tech. a decommissioning contract company at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Our previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your technical concerns. Enclosure 1 to this letter describes our review and conclusion regarding your remaining discrimination concern. We note that your discrimination complaint against Tetra Tech that you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safe.!¥ and Health Administration on February 8, 2012,

 @JSDOL/OSHA Case No.9-3290-12-021}.ls still open. As a result, the NRC will continue to monitor the status of you DOL complaint and will maintain your file open. We will notify you upon completion of our review of your DOL complaint.

Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions have been responsive . Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission, and as such, we will continue to take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warrante.d. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m . and 4:15 p.m . EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely,

                                                    ~/&L-Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2012-A-0022 Concern 21: You asserted that you were laid off on December 16, 2011 1 for attempts to address and correct observations considered adverse to industry standard radiation safety practices as well as regulatory license compliance, and for participating as a silent witness in a State of California Labor Commission discrimination hearing for another terminated employee. Additional Information: We note that in your DOL complaint filed Of\ January 19, 2012 you stated that you were terminated for participating in an NRc* invesligation and raising nuclear safety issues. Response to Concern 21: NRC Assessment The Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated an investigation (Case No. 1-2012-019) on January 19, 2012: to determine whether you were subjected to discrimination for raising safety concerns by Tetra Tech, a contract decommissioning company at the United States Navy's Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The 01 report provided the following information based on the collection of testimonial evidence obtained through transcribed interviews with a number of your former co-workers, and documentary evidence that included correspondence from the Department of Navy, which addressed the modification to the contract for base-wide radiological support at the Hunters Point, a record of negotiations for the contract, and an amendment of solicitation/modification of the contract. Several of your co-workers testified under oath that they were unaware that you had raised safety concerns. Of those who were aware, only one individual believed that you were discriminated against for raising safety concerns; however, that Individual had no evidence to support his/her belief. Your supervisor acknowledged that you had raised some of your concerns to him, but denied that you were discriminated against for raising the concerns. Further, the S\Jpervisor also denied any knowledge of your role in a discrimination h~arjng for another terminated employee. Rather, the supervisor claimed that you were laid off because the Navy had reduced its decommissioning expenditures at Hunters Point, which required a reduction in site manpower. The supervisor testified that further reductions had led to additional layoffs, and that even he had been laid off. 01 found that the Navy's reduction of funding/work was a significant piece of evidence to support that you were not laid off for raising safety concerns . Further, following another round of work reduction by the Navy, three others including your supervisor, were laid off as well. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC found insufficient evidence to conclude that you were laid off for raising observations about adverse radiation safety practices and regulatory compliance issues, for participating as a witne ss in a discrimination hearing for another terminated employee, or for participating in an NRC investigation.

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2012-A-0022 Please note that final NRC investigation documents, such as the 01 report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is attached for your information. 2

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 4 :49 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marja

Subject:

FW: 3 Week Email for 01 Case Nos 1-2012-019 AND 1-2012-038 - OFFIGAL USE ONL INVESTIGATION INFORMATION From: McLaughlin, Marjorie Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 4:48:50 PM To: R1ENFORCEMENT RESOURCE; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Scott, Catherine; Zimmerman, Roy; Hasan, Nasreen; Hilton, Nick; Day, Kerstun; Coleman, Nicole; Furst, David; Gulla, Gerald; Sreenivas, Leelavathi; Woods, Susanne; Wray, John; Solorio, Dave; Lemoncelli, Mauri; Dean, Bill; Lew, David; Casey, Lauren; Fretz, Robert; Kazi, Abdul; Beckford, Kaydlan; Campbell, Andy; Carpenter. Robert; Marenchin, Thomas; Burgess, Michele; Sun, Robert; Lorson, Raymond; Collins, Daniel; Clifford, James; Ferdas. Marc; Ghasemlan, Shahram; Solorio, Dave; Arrighi, Russell; Wilson, Anthony

Subject:

3 Week Email for 01 Case Nos 1-2012-019 AND 1-2012-038 - OFFICAL USE ONLY* INVESTIGATION INFORMATION Auto forwarded by a Rule OFFICIAL USE ONLY INVESTIGATION INFORMATION Tetra Tech: UNSUBSTANTIATED Discrimination for having raised safety concerns (Case Nos. 1-2012-019 & 1-2012-037; Allegation Nos. Rl-2011-A-0113 & Rl-2012-A-0022) Investigation

Purpose:

The NRC Office of Investigations (01), Region I (RI), initiated investigations on January 19, 2012, and April 4, 2012, to evaluate separate discrimination claims by two concerned individuals (Cl1 and Cl2), involving alleged retaliation for raising safety concerns by Tetra Tech (TT), a contract decommissioning company at the United States Navy's (USN's) Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS). Investigation

Conclusion:

As described below, based upon the evidence developed during the investigation, 01 did not substantiate that either Cl was discriminated against. Disposition Actions: In an Allegation Review Board (ARB) on June 19, 2013, the staff agreed with the 01 conclusions. If no alternative views are received within three weeks of the date of this email, the disposition actions (sending closure letters to the Cls and licensee) will be taken. Allegation: On October 27, 2011 , while interviewing personnel at HPNS in relation to an unrelated discrimination claim (01 Case No. 1-2012-002, which was later unsubstantiated), 01 received an allegation from a Cl (Cl1) involving unspecified workers at HPNS exhibiting poor radworker practices and having little knowledge of radiation protection. A November 9, 2011 , ARB directed that RI would inspect the concerns. Subsequently, on November 21 , 2011 , the California Labor Commission (CLC) forwarded to 0 1 a series of emails between Cl1 and the subject of 01 Case No. 1-2012-002, providing 21 examples of the poor radworker practices at HPNS, such as employees refusing to be monitored for radioactive contamination and soil samples not being appropriately taken. Less than one month later, Cl1 informed 01 that (s)he was being laid off for attempting to 1

correct poor practices at the site and for participating as a witness in a CLC discrimination hearing on behalf o the subject of 01 Case No. 1-2012-002. Following a December 21, 2011, ARB, it was determined that prima facie had been articulated and that 01 should investigate if either party declined Alternative Dispute Resolutior (ADR), which Cl1 did on January 11, 2012. On February 16, 2012, another Cl (Cl2) telephoned the RI allegation hotline and alleged that (s)he had been terminated by TT, Inc. for raising safety concerns about HPNS, including that a co-worker had falsified her resume and had allowed her adult daughter (who does not work for TT) to come onsite and enter a radiologically controlled area and that unqualified laborers had set up air samples. Cl2 stated that on December 16, 2011 , the day after providing such a concern, (s)he was terminated on the basis that the work area to which (s)he was assigned was closing. However, Cl2 believed that work was , in fact, still occurring in that area as of the date of the allegation, and that (s)he had, in fact, been fired for raising the above-listed concerns. A February 29, 2012, ARB determined that prima facie had been articulated. On March 28, 2012, Cl2 informed RI that (s)he wanted to engage in an ADR mediation session with TT, but the following day, Cl2 changed his/her mind. 01 subsequently opened its investigation. Investigation Details: 0 1 interviewed a number of Cl 1's and Cl2's former HPNS co-workers. Several were unaware that either Individual had raised safety concerns. Of those who were aware, the only individual who believed either Cl was discriminated against was the subject of 01 Case No. 1-2012-002, who had been laid off a year before Cl1 and Cl2 and could provide no evidence to support this claim. The supervisor for both Cl1 and Cl2 acknowledged that the individuals raised some of their concerns to him, but denied that either individual was discriminated against (the supervisor also denied any knowledge of Cl 1's role in a discrimination hearing for the subject of 01 Case No. 1-2012-002). Rather, the supervisor claimed that both were laid off because the USN had reduced its decommissioning expenditures at HPNS, which required a reduction in site manpower. The supervisor testified that further reductions had led to additional layoffs, and that even he {the supervisor) had been laid off. 01 concluded that, with the exception of their individual testimonies, 01 found insufficient evidence to support any part of either Cl's discrimination claims. Note that an NRC inspection at HPNS, completed on January 30, 2012, failed to corroborate any of the safety concerns raised by either CI. OFFICIAL USE ONLY - INVESTIGATION INFORMATION Ma1jorie McLaughlin Senior Enforcement Specialist US NRC Region I Phone: 610-337-5240 Fax: 610-337-5209 2

JUL i 2013 Ms S11sao v Aadcews l'b)(7)(C) I Rl-201 1-A-0113 Subj ect: Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This letter provides an update regarding a number of concerns that you raised t o the NRC about the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Our previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your technical concerns. Your remaining discrimination concern is still under review by the NRC. When we complete our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and final resolution. Also, we understand that your discrimination complaint that you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is continuing. We will be monitoring any DOL decisions regarding your complaint. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80~77. Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely, 0rtatM1 11anec11, : Richard J . Urban Senior A llegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Oi+IC~t R~flD fXJP\'

Ms. Susan V. Andrews 2 Rl-2011-A-0113 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0113 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\201101 13st4.docx To receive a copy of this document, Indicate In the box; *c* = Copy without attacnmenuenclosure "E" = Copy with attachmeol/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE NAME DATE

                                                 *UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 JUL    l 2013 Ms. Susan V. Andrews l(b )(7)(C)                   I                                                         Rl-2011 -A-0113

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Dea~ Ms. Andrews:. This letter provides an update regarding a number of concerns that you raised to the NRC about the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Our previous letters to you addressed and responded to all of your technical concerns. Your remaining discrimination concern is still under review by the NRC. When we complete our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and final resolution. Also, we uoderstand that your discrimination complaint that you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is continuing. We will be monitoring any DOL decisions regarding your complaint. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can bei of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222. between 7:30 a.rn. and 4:15 p.m. EST Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely,

                                                    ~

• l l/:U_

Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

G:\ora\alleg\panel\ 11-0113&12-0022arb5.docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation Nos.: Rl-2011-A-0113 and Rl-2012-A-0022 Branch Chief (AOC): Roberts Site/Facility: Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: Wednesday June 19, 2013 Confidentiality Granted: No Concern Discussed: Discrimination Discuss unsubstantiated 01 Reports 1-2012-019 (Discrimination) and 1-2012-037 (Discrimination) DNMS has reviewed the 01 Investigation Reports for Case Nos. 1-2012-019 and 1-2012-037 and agrees with Ol's conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that two contract employees at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in California were subjected to discrimination by management for raising safety concerns No additional concerns were identified in the reports. Does alleger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? NIA ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES 6)i 1)icj Chair: Lorson Branch Chief: M Roberts Others: Masnyk Bailey, Holody SAC: Urban 01: r

                                                                              ---            RI Counsel:

DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet. If Applicable) RFI Inspection Investigation NIA DISPOSITION ACTIONS 1 . Panel in agreement with 01 conclusion. Responsible Person: ALL ECO: 6/19/2013 Closure Documentation: Completed:

2. Generate a 3-week OE email Responsible Person: McLaughlin ECO: 7/03/2013 Closuro Documentation: closeout letter Completed:

3. The other concerns were already closed in previous correspondence. Send closeout letters to Cls informing Cls of the results of the 01 investigations and closure of this matter.

And send letter to licensee informing them of the results of the 01 report. Responsible Person: SAC ECO: TBD Closure Documentation: closeout letter Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: Dispositioned in previous correspondence to Cl PRIORITY OF OJ INVESTIGATION: See previous RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: N/A ENFORCEMENT: N/A NOTES: DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURC~ Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 4:56 PM To: . Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadqen, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Attachments: TetraTech.docx From: Roberts, Mark Sent: ;Tuesday, June 18, 2013 4 :56:18 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

FW: WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Auto forwarded by a Rule Okay per me, acting for Ferdas. Do you want separate forms? Mark Get back to-me early if needed. From: Masnyk Balley, Orysia Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 4:48 PM To: Roberts, Mark

Subject:

WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION The last one I did like this for TVA combined two cases in one. I can separate if you like. 1

Johnson Sharon From: Roberts, Mark Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8 :49 AM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: T etra Tech 0113 and 12-0022 Thanks, We'll call Orysia when we get to them. M From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:15 AM To: Roberts, Mark; Masnyk Balley, Orysla Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Tetra Tech 0113 and 12-0022 I am putting these BACK on the schedule. Marc Ferdas had removed from schedule as of yesterday afternoon. ShAron ~w John.6on AUego.tio>> Addidto.nt 610-337-S374 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Ferich, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:29 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0113 and Rl-2012-A-022 Inspection soon - these were Don Rich's cases - supposed to have the NOVs in the final case file . From:Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:00 PM To: Ferich, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0113 and RI-2012-A-022 Jeff Both of these were H&I issues and t he 01 reports have been issued 6/12/2013. We are supposed to be discussing 01 reports tomorrow at ARB. Am I missing someth ing? SU From: Ferich, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:55 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RI-2011-A-0113 and Rl-2012-A-022 Hi Sharon: Would you happen to have the NOV's for the above cited allegations, thanks jeff ferich 1

Johnson Sharon From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:29 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: ARB Schedule/Status Meeting for 6/19/2013 We will need some time to review the 01 reports associated with the 2 Tetra Tech cases . Please reschedule tc the next meeting. Mal"c S. Fe,.das Chief, Decommissioning Branch (NRC/Region 1/DNMS) Marc.Ferdas@nrc.gov 0-337-5022 (wj (b)(?)(C) (cl From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:33 AM To: Bearde, Diane; Cotllns, Daniel; Coughlin, Sara; Crisden, Cherte; Dwyer, James; Ferdas, Marc; Ferrch, Jeffrey; Gallaghar, Robert; Gallagher, Diane; Hammann, Stephen; Harris, Brian; Haverkamp, Trisha; Holmes, Marcy; Holody, Daniel; Jackson, Todd; Janda, Donna; Johnson, Sharon; Joustra, Judith; Linde, Amy; Lorson, Raymond; Masnyk Balley, Orysla; McFadden, John; McLaughlin, Maljorie; Modes, Kathy; Mullen, Mark; ODanlell, Cynthia; Orendi, Monica; Richart, Paul; !!m<?A(Cd li Thompson, Thomas; Urban, Richard; Welllng, Blake; WIison, Scott Subj  : R Schedule/Status Meeting for 6/19/2013 Attached Sh&tron )..Aw Joht16on All~ll4tion ,tld~i~tAnf 6,0-337-.>374 1

Johnson, Sharon JI- DI J3 From: Daly, Catherine@DIR [CDaly@dir.ca.govJ Sent: Tuesday, May 21 , 2013 5:45 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Yes. Please let me know if and when the Civil Case ends. Cathy From: Johnson, Sharon [maUto:Sharon.Johnsomrunrc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:20 PM To: Daly, Catherine@DIR

Subject:

Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Ms. Daly In January, 2013, you informed us that these cases were being held in abeyance because the parties chose to file in Civil Court. Is that still the status of these cases? Thanks Much Sh,ll:ron }..Aw John~on AHeeAtion ,A6~i~tAnt 610-337-,374 1

Johnson Sharon From: Daly, Catherine@DIR (CDaly@dir.ca.govJ Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11 :52 AM To : Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard S ubject: RE: Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints N oc a problem. Please let me know if you need further information. By che way, the DOL in SF had one of the investigations. However, I believe it got put in abeyance due to our investigation. Take care, Cathy From: Johnson, Sharon [8] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:42 AM To: Daly, catherlne@DIR Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints Thank you very much. SU From: Daly, catherine@DIR [mailto:CDaly@dir,ca.goyJ Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11 :36 AM To: Johnson, Sharon Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Status of Tetra Tech OOL Complaints These cases are in abeyance because parties chose co file in Civil Co urt with t he same allegations. I cannot continue the invest igations nor issue a report until aker the Court issues a decision. We do not want to risk issuing a different outcome from t he judge. Catherine S Daly Deputy Labor Com missioner Retaliatio n U rut -155 Golden Gate Ave 10th 1-'loor San Francisco, CA 94101. (415) 703-4841 cda!y@dir,ca,gov From: Johnson, Sharon [9] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:33 AM To: Daly, catherlne@DIR Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Status of Tetra Tech DOL Complaints

Ms. Daly: My name is Sharon Johnson and I work for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi~sion In King of Prussia, PA. We have been made aware of 3 DOL WB complaints l(b)(7}(C) Individuals fifing the complaints and by your agency. L.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " " " Ifrom the At this time, I would like to ask the status of these cases. Thank You Very Much Sh-<<ron J-,w lo-hn.:)on ,A:Ue.g<<tion ,A:66i6t"nt 610-337-5374 2

JAN 2 2013 Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-0113 l(b)(7)(CJ

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This letter provides an update since our last letter to you dated July 6, 2012, regarding your concerns that you raised to the NRC about the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. In that letter, we had informed you that we had completed our review regarding your technical concerns, but we were still investigating your discrimination complaint. Your discrimination complaint is still under review by the NRC. Also, we understand that a discrimination complaint that you filed with the US Department of Labor (DOL) is continuing. We will be monitoring any DOL decisions regarding your complaint. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance In this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484 Sincerely, Orf ,~s.n.d Sfgnod ~y : Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPV

Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-011 3 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-O 113 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110113st3.docx To receive a copy of this document, Indicate In the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachmenVenclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE DNMS:DB NAME M Ferdas ~ f DATE 12/ f /2012

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUtTE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 1!M06-2713 JAN 2 2013 Ms. Susan V. Andrewf l(b)(7)(C) I Rl-2011-A-0113 SubJect: Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear Ms Andrews:

This letter provides an update since our last letter to you dated July 6 , 2012, regarding your concerns that you raised to the NRC about the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. In that letter, we had informed you that we had completed our review regarding your technical concerns, but we were still investigating your discrimination complaint. Your discrimination complaint is still under review by the NRC. Also, we understand that a discrimination complaint that you filed with the US Department of Labor (DOL) is continuing. We will be monitoring any DOL decisions regarding your complaint. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:~0 a.m. and 4 :15 p.m. EST Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely,

                                                  ;;2_/_//~

Richard J . Urban Senior AJlegation Coordinator CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

JUL 6 2012 Rl-2011-A-0113 Subject Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Dea~ M~. Andrews~ This letter pertains to concerns that you initially raised to the NRC in October 2011 regarding the health physics program at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. These concerns were acknowledged to you in a letter dated November 17, 2011 , Subsequent to that date, you provided the NRC with additional concerns that were acknowledged to you in a letter dated January 5, 2012 At that time, we had identified 21 concerns and had addressed and responded to four of your concerns (Concerns 4, 8, 19 and 20). On January 17, 2012, you informed me that you had provided clarifications to your concerns to an NRC Inspector during an NRC Inspection in January 2012. Also, the US DepaAA'ent of Labor l~rmed us that vo, , filed a complaint of discrimination against Tetra Tech one_anuary 19, 2012:J--F' On January 1*1, 2012, you Informed the NRC that you wanted our Office of Investigations (01) to investigate your discri i

• concern (Concern 21 ). As a result, you were interviewed by Special Agen (b)(7)(C) on February 10, 2012. A transcript of your interview was reviewed by t e eg1on technical staff. As a result of that review, no new concerns were identified. However, your d1scrimlnat1on concern is still under review by the NRC. When we have completed our review, we will notify you of our findings and conclusion.

Please refer to Enclosure 1, which addresses and responds to your remaining technical concerns. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222 or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484 Sincerely, Orteteat Signed &y : Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Ms. Susan V. Andrews 2 Rl-2011 -A-0113 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0113 DOCUMENT NAME: G :\ORA\ALLEG\STATUS\20110113st2.docx To receive a copy of Ulls document, Indicate In the box: "C" = Copy without attachme_nt/encloaure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE DNMS:DB ,-I Rl :FOD

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Introduction The NRC performed an on-site inspection at a Tetra Tech temporary job site at the Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS) in California, from January 9 to 12, 2012. An exit interview was conducted by telephone on January 30, 2012, with Tetra Tech personnel, and the results of the inspection were discussed. No violations of NRC requirements were identified. The results of the inspection are documented in NRC Inspection Report 03038199/2012001 , which was issued on January 30, 2012. The inspection report is available for review on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; the referenced document can be found with a Web-Based ADAMS Search, using the Advanced Search tab and entering the Accession Number ML120370349 under Document Properties. Additional information and/or clarifications regarding your concerns were provided by you during a meeting on January 9, 2012, at your residence in Cahforn,a with NRC inspectors, and during a subsequent telephone conversation between an NRC Inspector and you on January 24, 2012. This information is summarized ,n the "Add,t,onal Information* paragraph under the restatement of your original concerns. Concern 1: You asserted that there was an occasion when Tetra Tech personnel did not perform surveys and/or frisks when they entered and exrted a radioactively contaminated area. You stated that you saw this occur during the week of October 17, 2011 . Additional Information: You provided two examples where personnel did not rform surveys and/or fri~k~ when they exited an RCA: (b)(7)(C) Concern 16: You asserted that laborers removed a pipe from a radiation controlled area without the pipe being frisked for contamination. Additional Information: You advised that you were told about this concern by another~ A pipe was removed from Area 33 and laid on the ground outside the RCA without bein~eyed. You also asserted that a survey meter was not available at the RCA when this happened. 1 OFEIClAb-RECORf> COPV

ENCL0SURE1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Response to Concerns 1 and 16: NRC Assessment NRC inspectors reviewed Tetra Tech site proc~ and training records, interviewed the l(b)(7)( burrently working at HPS, and observed ~ i n the perfonnance of their duties controlling access and egress at the RCA control points. During interviews, the l'{b)(i)lwere asked whet~y had ever seen anyone exiting the RCA without frisking or being'Trisked. None of the (b could recall ever seeing anyone exit an RCA without frisking or being frisked. In addition, t e inspectors interviewed various laborers at HPS who work within the RCA. They also responded that they had never e ~ r seen anyone exit an RCA without frisking or being frisked. The inspectors noted that t h e ~ were aware of their responsibilities to ensure that all personnel, ~ e n t, and material were frisked at the RCA exit point. The inspectors observed the IWillLJperforming frisks of personnel and materials each time personnel or equipment exited from the RCA. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate your concerns that people and material exiting the RCA were improperly frisked. Concern 2: You asserted that another Tetra Tech j(b)(7 )(C) !who worked at the site, knew very lfttle and did not reallyollow radiation safety principles. Additional Information: You advised that th ......,,,___.... discussed In this concern wa (b)(l)(C) ou also stated (b )(7)(C) thatQ ad falsifie esume. Concern 5: You asserted that radiation safety training for Radiation Technicians (RTs) was lacking or Inadequate. Additional Information: You clarified that this was applicable to most of the RCTs. Response to Concerns 2 and 5: NRC Assessment During the on-site NRC inspection, the inspectors evaluated the training program and qualifications of radiation workers working under the Tetra Tech materials license. NRC inspectors reviewed Tetra Tech's training records and test results, interviewed radiation workers, and observed them in the performance of their duties. The inspectors determined that Tetra Tech was utilizing two types of radiation workers at HPS. Specifically, there were RCTs (i.e., Health Physicists) and support staff (i.e., laborers, drivers, construction workers, etc.), each 2

                                                "()FFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 of which received radiation safety training commensurate with their duties. Tetra Tech also provided site- and task-specific training for the work that each radiation worker would be performing and conducted morning "tailgate" briefings during which radiation protection concerns were discussed. In their license application, Tetra Tech had committed to ensuring that radiation workers were trained in accordance with Appendix H of NUREG-1556, Volume 18, "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Service Provider Licenses," dated November 2000. NRG inspectors verified that the training provided by Tetra Tech met the requirements ~f Appendix Hof NUREG-1556. The inspectors also noted that competency/qualification of RCTs was demonstrated through written tests and practical examinatio*ns. The inspectors reviewed the training records of the individual specified in this concern and found that the individual was trained in accordance with Tetra Tech's commitments and NRC requirements. The inspectors also noted that the RCTs successfully completed the required written tests and practical examinations conducted by Tetra Tech. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate that a specific RCT was not qualified to perform radiation safety activities, and that RCTs lacked or had inadequate radiation safety training. Concern 3: You asserted that *someone* was falsely signing CoC sample forms for "someone else," as evidenced by wrong handwriting and name misspelling Additional Information: You further asserted that the ~ h o usually works the radiological control pornt for RSY4 (an RCA and an area where soil ~~g occurs), told you that the soil sample chain of custody (CoC) forms were brought to the control point with the locatio piing and time of sampling already printed on the CoC. You said that (b)(7)(C) s )( ) wno takes custody of the soil samples after the d by the a rers. e b 7 c old ou that someone, other than (b)(7)(C) had already signed the o forms with (b)(7)(C) ame before he received the o orms. Response to Concern 3 NRC Assessment The inspectors reviewed Tetra Tech's Coe process used for controlling soil samples. The inspectors determined that the locations for soil sampling are selected by RCTs from the RSY Operations Group. The locations are delineated in the soil sampling field using an x/y grid pattern, and then soil sampling bags are prepared by RCTs, with the soil location and date of sampling filled out in advance. A laborer fills the bags under an RCT's oversight. The filled bags are brought to a table near the RCA exit point, where an RCT signs the CoC and performs a dose measurement with an ion chamber prior to releasing the bag. The RCT also records the measurement on the bag. The CoCs are signed at each point where the soil samples are transferred from the soil sampling area, the preparation area, and the sampling laboratory. 3 OFFICIAL RECORD GOP¥

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011 -A-0113 During interviews, the RCTs and laborers involved 1n soil sampling were able to correctly describe the process for controlling soil samples. The inspectors reviewed Coe forms and found them to be properly completed. None of the RCTs interviewed could recall improperly signing a CoC or knew of an instance in which a CoC was improperly signed. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate that CoC forms were improperly signed. Concern 6: You asserted that thd (b)(7)(C) r efused to allow a Radiation Supervisor to discipline a (b)(7)(C) or failure to take a required test. You stated that the l(b)(7)(C) ~ as over ear saying that there will be "no write ups of anyone.* .  ! r:-: (b-:-)(=7~

                                                                                )(C:: -:-)- - - - - - - - ,

Additional Information: You provided the following specifics for this concern. both (b)(7)(C) 1 1. brought a radioactive source that had been foun unng reme ,a ,on o you to place into ffi'e"radioactive materials storage locker in Building 258. You told them that they1-,.,.:,cc~ o~u~ ld!,,ld,..o.._... lt _ _ _ ___, themselves, but they said they did not know how. You then called as ervisorll,l(;,_b ...:)..:. (7-i--)~ (C~)~ - - - - - - ' over to your location to resolve the srtuation. He advised the {b)(7)(C) that he would show (b)(7)(C) them how to place the source into storage, ~ y refused to e s that this supervisor wanted to discipline theL_J but was told by the { b)(7)(C) Orn I atec yo,' wrre told hat there would be "no write ups of anyone.* _ . Response to Co ncer n 6 : NRC Assessment For your information, the NRC does not have regulatory jurisdiction pertaining to disciplinary action against radiation workers unless it results in discnmination. As a result, the inspectors reviewed Tetra Tech's license commitments relative to training, site specific training procedures and records, and interviewed Tetra Tech personnel regarding this matter. This also included reviewing the training records for the individuals referenced above. As discussed in Concern 2 , the NRC inspectors determined that all RCTs were trained in accordance with license and regulatory requirements. NRC Conciuslon Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate your concern in that the (b)(?)(C) were not properly trained. Concern 7: You asserted that laborers are handling potentially contaminated soil without proper training and certification since they are processing soil samples for the lab. You stated that laborers have been observed working without wearing required gloves. You added that, in August 2010, laborers were surveying and sampling soil on the soil pads. 4 OFFICIAL RECORD COP¥

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Response to Concern 7: NRC Assessment The inspectors assessed the training of radiation workers, including laborers, at HPS by reviewing training records and procedures, interviewing Tetra Tech personnel, and observing laborers performing soil sampling. The inspectors determined that laborers were properly trained to obtain soil samples and were familiar with related radiation safety practices. The inspectors noted that RCTs were present and observed laborers collect and prepare soil samples. During interviews, RCTs and laborers were able to properly describe their job responsibilities for the collection and preparation of soil samples, and stated that they were not aware of instances in which the procedure for soil sampling was not followed. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate that field laborers were collecting and preparing soil samples without any RCT oversight or supervision. Concern 9: You asserted that some RTs entered inaccurate information on radioactive waste storage bags because they do not understand their instruments. You stated that there has been confusion about the use of R0-20 meters. Additional Information: You clarified that the storage bags discussed contained soil that had already been analyzed and archived in Building 258. You felt that the confusion about the use of the R0-20 meters was demonstrated by the fact that the dose rate reported on the bags, in some cases, was incorrect. Response to Concern 9: NRC Assessment The inspectors examined soil storage bags from various bins inside of Building 258 and found that they were all marked with the correct dose rate. The NRC also interviewed RCTs who are responsible for marking the dose rate on soil storage bags. During these interviews, RCTs were able to properly describe their job responsibilities, use of survey meters, and recording of survey results. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate that RCTs were entering inaccurate information on soil sample bags because they do not understand their instruments. Concern 10: You asserted that some meters have not been calibrated correctly. 5 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCL0SURE1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Additional Information: You clarified that you were concerned that survey meters were incorrectly source checked before use, not that meters were incorrectly calibrated. Response to Concern 10: NRC Assessment The inspectors observed RCTs selecting and source checking survey meters at the beginning of their shift. The inspectors noted that the RCTs correctly source checked their survey meters, and during interviews, were able to properly discuss radiation instrument usage. The inspectors also noted that the source check data was recorded on survey use logs, which were reviewed and signed by two separate Tetra Tech supervisors. The inspectors reviewed previous source check log entries, and no errors were noted. The procedures regarding radiation instruments were reviewed and discussed with the supervisor responsible for radiation instruments at HPS. During the interviews, the supervisors stated that they were not aware of any problems with the implementation of their radiation instrument procedures. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate that RCTs failed to properly source check their survey meters before use Concern 11 : You asserted that some survey records are corrected, when a mistake is made, by whiting out the mistake, correcting it, and then photo copying the form . Response to Concern 11 : NRC Assessment Inspectors interviewed Tetra Tech personnel and reviewed survey records. During the interviews, Tetra Tech personnel stated that the process for correcting survey records and other official records consists of crossing out the error, initialing the cross out, and then entering the correct information. The inspectors noted that none of the survey records reviewed appeared to be improperly corrected. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate your concern that RCTs were improperly making corrections to survey records. Concern 12: You asserted that source storage locations have not always been posted or secured. You stated that, on at least one occasion, an RT was told to *hide it and lock up and go about your work." 6 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Additional Information: You clarified that you were the RCT discussed here. The specific example that you gave involved a vehicle portal detector, which is manned as needed, and is used to survey trucks before they leave the site. Before it is used, it must be source checked, and either the RCT manning the portal retrieves and replaces the source or the source is brought to the portal by another RCT or supervisor. On this occasion, you asked a supervisor to send someone to retrieve the source so you could go to lunch and were told to

• hide the source" and go.

Response to Concern 12: NRC Assessment The Inspectors reviewed Tetra Tech's procedure for the use of the portal monitor, interviewed RCTs and supervisors, and observed the operation of the vehicle portal monitor. All RCTs interviewed demonstrated a good understanding of the necessity of properly securing the source used to check the vehicle portal monitor and of the process for retrieving and replacing all sources in the storage locker. Tetra Tech's source lockers were evaluated and found to be properly posted and secured. During the interviews, the RCTs stated that they were not aware of any previous incidents of improper posting or securing of sources associated with the vehicle portal detector. Based on a review of records and interviews, the inspectors did not identify any corroborating information to support your concern. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate your concern in that sources are not always returned and secured in approved source storage locations. Concern 13: You asserted that TLDs have not always been located correctly on poles You stated that they may be shielded or not placed at the right height or are not located on the posting pole. Response to Concern 13: NRC Assessment The inspectors reviewed the Tetra Tech procedure for determining public dose at HPS, reviewed TLD records, and interviewed Tetra Tech personnel. The inspectors noted that Tetra Tech determines its public dose at HPS by extrapolating the dose received by radiation workers at the site. At the time of the inspection, Tetra Tech reported that none of the workers had received any dose exposure. Therefore, Tetra Tech had concluded that the public would also not receive an exposure. The inspectors also noted that Tetra Tech places a TLD at each of the four geographical points at the boundaries of the site. The inspectors assessed the placement of the TLDs and determined that they were placed in a manner that would obscure them from plain site in order to prevent potential theft of the devices. The inspectors also concluded that the placement would not impact the ability of the device to detect gamma irradiation, because they were not being shielded. Based on interviews, the inspectors also determined that these four 7 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 environmental TLDs were the only TLDs posted at the site. The inspectors determined that this provided adequate coverage to monitor potential offsite radiation dose. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate your concern that TLDs are improperly posted. Concern 14: You asserted that the wrong individual was named as the authorized user on a posted materials license. Additional Information: You advised that the license in question was posted in the break area in Building 400. Response to Concern 14: NRC Assessment During tours of the site, inspectors reviewed site area postings and determined that the appropriate version of Tetra Tech's material license was posted within HPS. The inspectors specifically evaluated the postings in Building 400 and noted that the current radiation safety officer was listed on the material license posted. The inspectors also noted that for this type of materials license, Authorized Users are not listed. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate that the wrong individual was named as the authorized user on a posted materials license in Building 400. Concern 15: You asserted that a supervisor attempted to alter the radiation work area postings to allow laborers to remove a pipe. Additional Information: You stated that, on this occasion, you were working in Work Zone 33, an RCA, when a labor crew came to remove a pipe from within the RCA. A member of the team was not able to retrieve the pipe by leaning across the RCA boundary rope so one of the La,w.w.'--'-.M.L.l~a:;;,..,, attempted to move the boundary, and you stopped them from doing so. Th (b)(7)(C) !(b1{_7)(C) then came out to Area 33 to check on th~ sta~us a~tbe work and en ere t e RCA without signing in on the RWP. You stated thatl{bB?)(q I RCT crew usually works Area 33 and opined that the laborers were so comforla e a emp 1n to move th boundary that it must be common practice. (b)(7)(C)

                                                                                                    /

8 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 l(b)(7)(C) I rope at an RCA and retrieve a bin. L a t e r a n RCT was making a routine check to

• daries and postings were intact and found the rope in this area down. He and supervisor, w
• a when the contractor came back to get another bin.

vised them tha (b)(7)(C) ad told him that he could take down the wpe. Response to Concern 15: NRC Assessment The inspectors reviewed Tetra Tech's procedures, interviewed RCTs, laborers, and supervisors, and observed work in progress within the RCAs. The bin driver discussed in this concern was not available to be interviewed since there was a new waste management contractor at the site. The Inspectors found that site workers were familiar w ith RCA postings and boundaries and were conversant with the process for moving or removing those boundaries. All personnel interviewed stated that they were not aware of any previous issues Involving the improper movement of an RCA boundary. NRC Conclusion Based on the above, we were unable to substantiate that RCA boundaries were Improperly moved or changed. Concern 17:

    ~~~:.::.,that a Tetra Tech employee bringJ(b)(l)(C) the (b)(7)(C)

Ito work and that as been seen moving potentially contaminated samples, entering and leaving a rad1a 10n con rolled area without frisking, and drinking soda within a radiation controlled area. ~1bWfc~ 7 that the emclnvee intimidates atber emnlnveJ who question this practice by virtue Additional Information: (b){7)(C) You clarified that the RCT discussed here is that the samples moved were the soil samples from RSY4, and that the RCA In question was the CONEX soil preparation building. Response to Concern 17: (b)(7 )(C) NRC Assessment The inspectors interviewed supervisors and RCTs (includin and reviewed Tetra Tech's policy about visitors. The inspectors found that Tetr edures allow visitors to the site and that the (b)(7)(C) discussed above came to the site several times to see i1e:::;J(b)(7)(C) would be interested in wo mg at HPS. The inspectors interviewed RCTs about controls in - place associated with drinking or eating inside of RCAs and all stated that it was not allowed and were not aware of individuals that maY. have been eatin or drinking within the RCA. During 3 interviews w ith the RCT referenced above,rn>fljenied th-*b_(7)(C) Itransported samples. In addition, the RCTs stated that they were~aware of any previous incidents of improper transport of samples, and no one stated they felt intimidated by the individual named above. The concern raised about frisking was addressed under Concern 1 9 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 RJ-2011-A-0113 NRC Conclusion Based on the above, although we verified that a Tetra Tech employee brought (b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C) !to work at HPS, we were unable to substantiate an impropne y or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activities. In addition, we were unable to substantiate that any non-employees moved contaminated samples, entered and exited RCAs without frisking, or were drinking soda within an RCA. Concern 18: You asserted that personnel do not always sign in and out on Radiation Work Permits and sometimes fail to frisk themselves when leaving radiation controlled areas. You stated that Additional Information: disparate discipline is applied for violators. ( b) (7 )(C) (b)(7)(C) and signing out on an riwe f You provided the following examples. an as id supervisors (b) 7 (C) individuals, except thefb)(7)(C) received a da o eft an RCA without frisking fl of these ut were a e to take it so that they had a Hb)(7)(C) I On the other hand (b)(7)(C an RCT who received a day off for not signing out on an RCT had to take that day on (b)(7)(C) Response to Concern 18: NRC Assessment The inspectors reviewed Tetra Tech's procedure on signing in and out on RWPs and Tetra Tech's Deficiency Notice Logbook, toured the facility , and Interviewed personnel. The Inspectors noted that Tetra Tech's procedure for RWPs requires workers to sign in and out on an RWP when accessing an RCA. Non-workers, defined as "persons entering an area covered by a work specific RWP or a general RWO whose sole purpose is only for observation or other tasks, not directly related to the work outlined In the RWP" or "individuals that are escorted Inside an area covered by a Job-specific RWP" are not required to sign in and out on a RWP. The inspectors determined that there were cases where individuals, including the Individuals named in your concern, were required to sign In and out on an RWP and failed to do so. These occurrences were logged in the Deficiency Notice Logbook, and the individuals failing to sign out were subject to discipline. However, for the cases reviewed, it was not a violation of NRC requirements or license conditions to fail to sign out of the RCA Also, as previously stated, the types and disparity of penalties imposed by a licensee for procedural infractions are not issues that are normally under NRC jurisdiction. Based on observations, the inspectors noted that access control to the RCA was done by an RCT who ensures that personnel entering the RCA are authorized to do so and that they are frisked when exiting the RCA. Also, exit frisking was addressed as part of the inspectors' assessment of Concern 1, and as noted for that concern, no evidence of failing to frisk upon exiting an RCA was identifi~d. 10 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011 -A-0113 NRC Conclusion Based on the above, although we verified that some personnel did not sign in and out on an RWP, we were unable to substantiate an impropriety or Inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity. In addition as previously stated, we noted that people exiting the RCA were properly frisked. Concern 21: You asserted that you were laid off on December 16, 2011 1 for attempts to address and correct observations considered adverse to industry standard radiation safety practices as well as regulatory license compliance, and for participating a

• ness in a State of California labor Commission discrimination hearing for anothe (b)(7)(C) employee.

Additional Information: We note that in your DOL complaint filed on January 19, 2012 you stated that you were terminated for participating in an NRC investigation and raising nuclear safety issues. 11 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

f UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION! 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 JUL 6 2012 Ms. Susan V. Andrews Rl-2011-A-0113 500 Grant Street Newell, WV 26050

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This letter pertains to concerns that you initially raised to the NRC in October 2011 regarding the health physics program at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. These concerns were acknowledged to you in a letter dated November 17, 2011 . Subsequent to that date, you provided the NRC with additional concerns that were acknowledged to you in a letter dated January 5, 2012. At that time , we had identified 21 concerns and had addressed and responded to four of your concerns (Concerns 4, 8, 19 and 20). On January 17, 201 2, you informed me that you had provided clarifications to your concerns to an NRC inspector during an NRC inspection In January 2012. Also, the US Demtrtment of Labor inf.oqnprl **s that you filed a complaint of discrimination against Tetra Tec~on January 19, 2012 On January 11, 2012, you informed the NRC that you wanted our Office of Investigations (01) to investigate your discrl in i concern (Concern 2 1). As a result, you were Interviewed by Special Agent (b)(7)(C) on February 10, 2012. A transcript of your Interview was reviewed by Hie eg1on ec nical staff. As a result of that review, no new concerns were identified. However, your discrimination concern is still under review by the NRC When we have completed our review, we will notify you of our findings and conclusion. Please refer to Enclosure 1, which addresses and responds to your remaining technical concerns. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me tort-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222 or contact me in writing at P.O . Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely,

                                                   £LL/~

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb4.docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011 -A-0113 Branch Chief (AOC): Ferdas Site/Facility: Hunters Point - Tetra Tech Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: June 20, 2012 Confidentiality Granted: No Issue discussed: Review of 01 transcript (01 Case No. 1-2012-019) from interview with Cl to determine if any new concerns were Identified. Does alleger object to RFI to the llcensee? N/A ALLEGAT(ON REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES bll l llCl Chair: Rlorson Branch Chief: S Hammann SAC: McFadden 01: .__ _ ____. RI Counsel: K Farrar Others: r DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached Rfl Worksheet} Inspection/Technical Review DISPOSITION ACTION§

1) No new technical concerns were identified. 01 review is still open.

Responsible Person: Ferdas ECO: 06/20/2012 Closure Documentation: ARB Form Completed:

2) Continue 01 investigation 1-2012-019 Responsible Persori i(b)(7)(C) I ECD:TBD Closure Documentation: 01 Report Completed:

SAFETY CONCERN: see previous panel form PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: see previous panel form RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: see previous panel form ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: see previous panel form NOTES: The Cl's original concerns included wrongful termination. 01 conducted an interview with the Cl and DNMS 84 performed a review of the 01 transcript to determine if any new concerns were identified. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:57 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE Attachments: ARBDispostion2012-A-0022.0I.transcript.docx; ARBDispostion2011-A-0113.0l.transcript.docx From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:56:35 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Ferdas, Marc; Roberts, Mark; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

SENS ITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISC LOSE Auto forwarded by a Rule Attached are the ARB forms for 2011-0113 and 2012-0022 for the June 20th panel. Steve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399 1

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:57 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon: Mclaughlin, Marjorit

Subject:

FW: Enclosure for Closeout Letter - 0113 Attachments: Enclosure1-2011-A-0113.docx From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:56:36 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Enclosure for Closeout Letter - 0113 Auto forwarded by a Rule

  ..SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL-DO NOT DISCLOSE 0 See attached for draft enclosure to support closeout of Allegation 2011-A-0113 Ma..-c S . Fe.-da.s Chief, Decommissioning Branch (NRC/ Reglon 1/DNMS)
 .Marc.Ferdai@.o~

610-337-5022 (b)(7)(C)

McFadden, John From: Farrar, Karl Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:44 PM To: McFadden, John

Subject:

RE: SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE - 20110113arb2.docx This was completed. From: McFadden, John Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:35 PM To: Farrar, Karl Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John

Subject:

SENSmVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE - 20110113arb2.docx SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE Karl I do not see any confirmation in the allegation file. Can you confirm that this action was completed? I have attached the subject ARB form which provides context.

Thanks, Jack

4. Refer concerns 17 and 18 to Navy IG. Work with NRC IG.

1

(b)(?)(C) Responsible Person: Farrar'. Closure Documentation: ECO: 12/31/2011 Completed: 2

Johnson Sharon

                                    !(b)(?)(C)

From: Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:55 AM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE. Address Change for er - Rl-2011-A-0113 Sharon: Ms. Andrews may be contacted at the below identified address: r )(7)(C) Her \Phone number is the same. l (b)(?)(C) Special Agent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region-I Field Office 47S Allendale Road Kl11 or Prussia, PA 19406 (b)(?)(C) From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, Febr uary 28, 2012 9:23 AM To: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John; Ferdas, Marc Cc: Johnson, Sharon; !(b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

Address Change for cr - Rl-2011-A-0113 Importance: High FYI (b)(7)(C) l(b )(7)(C)

  ~"'=""=.......,informed me, 2/27/2012, that the Cl called him and informed him that/shelhas moved from______

(b)(?)(C) tNill provide us the new address to send any future correspondence. Thanks Sho.Yo~ )...c:lw John6on

      .A,Uego.tion ,A:S6i6fo.nt 610-337-5'374 1

Johnson Sharon From: McFadden , John Sent: Tuesda February 21, 201211 :13AM To: (b )(7)(C) Cc: Holmes, Marcy; r )(? )(C) Rl-2011-A-0113Ul 1-2012-019 I Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McFadden , John

Subject:

Attachments: ***SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL .... IDENTtFIES AN ALLEGER - DOL Referral; RE :

                             ... SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL 0

• IDENTIFIES AN ALLEGER - DOL Referral; Rl-2011-A-0113 - Tetra Tech Jeff Per our conversation Just now, I have attached the emails which indicate that the Cl has identified another protected activity (i.e. , participating in an NRC investigation) in their DOL complaint.

Jack 1

Johnson Sharon From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:31 AM To: McFadden, John Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0113 -Tetra Tech Importance: High Jack We received a DOL complaint, dated 2/8/2012, by the Cl for Rl-2011-A-0113. The reason stated on the complaint is *terminated for participating in an NRC investigation and raising nuclear safety issues: The reason for discrimination as stated in the initial receipt wast you asserted that you were laid off on December 16, 2011 , for attempts to address and correct observations considered adverse to industry standard radiation safety practices as well as regulatory license complianf and foe oarticioat, ng as a silent witness in a State of California Labor Commission discrimination hearing fo {b)(7)(C) employee." After reviewing the other 21 Issues raised by this Cl, one of which includes discrimination (01 open 1-2012-019), should we just Include this with the discrimination concern In existence and should we make this an new additional issue? 9hAron J,...a.w Joh.noon ,Atte90.tion N;iitito.n.f 610-337-S374 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:18 AM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

FW: .....SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL*"* IDENTIFIES AN ALLEGER - DOL Refer Attachments: tetra tech DOI case 9-3290-12-021 .pdf For the file . From: R4ALLEGATION Resource Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:06 AM To: Urban, Richard; McFadden, John Cc: R4AUEGATION Resource

Subject:

***SENSITTVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL*** IDENTIFIES AN ALLEGER

• DOL Referral Rick / Jack, Region IV received the attached DOL case information related to Tetra Tech, a Region I licensee. We believe this case should go to region I as it may be associated with an existing allegation against Tetra Tech or may warrant opening a new case. Please let me know if Region I accepts this case. RIV received the DOL referral on 2/ 15/12.

Thanks, Peter Jayroe Allegation Coordinator / Enforcement Specialist - RIV 817-200-1174 1

U.S. D epartment of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration San Francisco Federal Building 90 - 7th Street, Suite 18100 San Francisco, CA 94103 February 8, 2012

                                                                    *I Senior Allegations Coordinator Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011 Re: Telra Tech (.Andrews     r ~h:fL90-12-021 Sir or Madam:

Enclosed for your information please find a copy of a complaint of retaliation filed under the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. §5851. An investigation of the retaliation allegation is currently being conducted by this office. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact Regional Supervisory Investigator Joshua B. Paul at (415) 625-2527. Sincel'ely,

     ~~~r~

DOL / OSHA Region IX FEB 1 5 2012 Assistant Regional Administrator, Enforcement Programs REGION IV

Enclosure:

Complaint

Case Activity Worksheet Run Date: 02/10/12 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 26627S3 .90000 rranciaco CA 9t12, 'D'NXTBD STATSS t75 Baat ~oot;.hill Blvd t7NI'BD 8<u.'11f9 REGION IV Note1Thie report contains sensitive information that 111ay not be appropriate for distribution outside OSHA. Local offices should review the information BEFORE it is provided to outside requestor.

NRC FORM 591M PART 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (1()..2011)" 10CFR2_201 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

1. LICENSEE/LOCATION INSPECTED: 2. NRG/REGIONAL OFFICE Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

1000 The American Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 Region I, 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415 REPORT NUMBER(S) 2012-001

3. DOCKET NUMBER(S) 4. LICENSE NUMBER(S) 5. DATE(S) OF INSPECTION 030-38199 1 29-31396-01 10 1/9-12 and 30/2012 LICENSEE:

The Inspection was an examination of the activities conducted under your license as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rulos and regulations and the conditions of your license. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the Inspector. The Inspection findings are as follows: 0 1. Based on the inspection findings, no violations were identified. D 2. Previous viotation(s) closed. D 3. The vlolatlon(s), specifically described to you by the Inspector as non-cited violations, are not being cited because they were self-identified, non-repetitive, and corrective action was or is being taken, and the remaining criteria in the NRC Enforcement Policy, to exercise discretion, were satisfied. Non-cited violation(s) were discussed involving the following requirement(s) and corrective action(s): D 4. During this inspection, certain of your activities, as described below and/or attached, were in violation of NRC requirements and are being cited in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Polley. This form is e NOTICE OF VIOLATION, which may be subject to posting in accordance with 10 CFR 19.11. (Violations and Corrective Actions) Statement of Corrective Actions I hereby state that, within 30 days, the actions described by me to the Inspector will be taken to correct the violations identified. This statement of corrective actions is made in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 (corrective steps already taken, corrective steps which will be taken, date when full compliance will be achieved). I understand that no further written response to NRC will be required, unless specifically requested. Title - Prlntod Namo I Signature Date LICENSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE NRCINSPECTOR Orysia Masnyk Bailey

                                                                                                                   /RAJ                      01/30/2012 BRANCH CHIEF                     Marc S. Ferdas                                                      /RAJ                        01/30/12

• NRC FORM 591M PART 1 (10-2011) (RI Rev. 01/12/2012) G:\WordDocs\Current\lnsp Record\R29-31396-01 2012001 . 591M-Part1-Public.doc SUNSI Review Completed By: I RA/ 0MB 0 Public [ ; ] Non-Sensitive Tlds document becomes an NRC Ofl1clal Agency Record once it Is slgned by the Branch Chief

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 Il'i..VESTIGATION INFORMATION lNVESTIGATlON STATUS RECORD Facility: HUNTERS POINT NAVAL SHIPYARD Case Agent:  !(b)(7)(C) Case Number. 1-2012-019 Date Opened: 01/19/2012 Docket Number(s): 03038199 ECO: 04/2012 Priority: High Case Type: Materials I Waste Status: Fleld Work In Progress Primary Alleg Source: Alleger Allegation Number(s): Rl-2011-A-0113 SubjecVAllegation: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SENIOR HEALTH PHYSICIST FOR HAVING RAISED SAFETY CONCERNS Monthly Statys Report: 01/1912012: On December 11 , 2011 .' Susan ANDREWS, 'a Senior Health Physicist (former), employed by , Aleut Solutions, a su ~contractor to Tetra-Tech, contacted NRC:RIV employee Rick MUNOZ. MUNOZ documentec( ANDREW$ concerns in which she alleged that her employment was terminated due to her raising safety concerns regarding: 1) radiation decontamination surveys soil sample collection and sample preparation not being performed contrary to established procedures and 2) for having participated as a "silent witness" In a discrimination hearing for l another !(b)(7~C) Tetra-Tech emnlo*ee, ANDREWS claims that she last reported her safety concerns on ecember2, 2011 , to_b_Z}(C} her,w)(7)(C) !ANDREWS reported that she was notified on December 9, 2011, at her employment was being terminated d4e to a reduction in force, effectTve December 16, 2011 . These concerns were discussed during a NRC:RI Allegation Review Board (ARB) held OI"\ December 21 , 2011 . The ARB, to Include Regional Counsel determined that ANDREWS had 1 articulated a prima facie c ase of discrimination and that ANDREWS would be offered access tc the NRC's Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) program or to have 01 Investigate. On January 11, 2012, ANDREWS chose to pursue the 01 Investigation option. Potential Vlolatlons include 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate misconduct) and 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee protection). The Statute of Limitations tolls on December 16, 2016. Status: FWP ECD (90 days): 04/2012. Completion Date: Total Staff Hours: 17.0 Issue Date: Months Open: 0.4 DOJ Action(s) : DOJ Referral Date: 01 Violation(s): Harassment and Intimidation_ No Result Statute of Limitations Date: 12/16/2016 02/17/2012 1 :16:16 PM Page #1 OFFICIAL USE ONLl' - 01 IN VESIIGATION INFORMATION

McFadden, John From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:15 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Allegation 2011-A-O 113 Attachments: 20110113st11 .docx From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Thursday, January 26 2012 4:15*12 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Allegation 2011-A-0113 Auto forwarded by a Rule

 ..,.SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL- 00 NOT DISCLOSE**

Please see attached for Information you request concerning additional info we received from the Cl during our Inspection of this allegation. The Cl provided u~ specific details associated w ith several of the concerns. No new Issues appear to be identified. Mo.r-c S. Fe.-dos Chief, Decommiss1onlng Branch (NRC/Reglon 1/0NMS) Marc.Ferdas@nrc goy 610-337-5022 Cw) == r )(7)(C) From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:55 PM To: Ferdas, Marc

Subject:

FW: WARING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Marc - I reviewed the attached document, spec1f1cally, the additional Information comments that have been added and found them to be correct From: Masnyk Bailey, Orys,a Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:51 PM To: Ferdas, Marc Cc: Hammann, Stephen

Subject:

WARING CONTAINS ALI.EGATION INFORMATION I used the enclosure to the Cl from Hunters Point and added her additional input under each point. 1

NOTE TO FILE

• Rl-2011-A-O 11J J Additional information and/or clarification were rov* cerned individual (Cl) during a meeting on January 9, 2012, at the~l's (b)(7)(C) *th Steve Hammann and Orysia Masnyk Bailey in attendance, and ne wl rysia Masnyk Bailey on January 24, 2012. This information is summarized in the "Additional lnformation° paragraph under each concern. using the enclosure that was mailed to the Cl In the acknowledgement letter.

Concern 1: You asserted that there was an occasion when Tetra Tech personnel did not perform surveys and/or frisks when they entered and exited a radioactively contaminated area. You stated that you saw this occur during the week of October 17, 2011 . Additional Information:

         ~' '"'

Concorn 2: You asserted that another Tetra Tech Senior Health Physics Technician, who worked at the site, knew very little and did not realty follow radiation safety principles. Addltlonal Information: (b)(7)(C) The Cl advised that the technician discussed here was ~nd that Q nad falslfl1fd<7)(C) (b)(7)(C) O resume. Concern 3: You asserted that "someone~ was falsely signing Coe sample forms for "someone else", as evidenced by wrong handwriting and name misspelling. Additional Information: The Cl advised that an RCT that usually worksAhe radiological control point for RSY4, an RCA and an area where soil sampling occurs, tol{b~hat the soil sample Chain of Custody (CoC) forms were brought to the contr *

• the lo
• s of sampling and time of sampling 3lready printed on the CoC. (b)(7)(C) ls the (b who takes custody of the soil samples after the ba s are filled by ttie a orers. The (b)(7)(C) told the Cl that someone, other than (b)(7)(C) had already signed the CoC f (b)(7)(C) name.

1

NOTE TO FILE Rl-2011-A-0119 Concern 4: You asserted that there had been an increase in occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point. You stated that staff was told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using cell phones or radios while driving. This safety issue has been referred to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Region IX in San Francisco, California. Concern 5: You asserted that radiation safety training for Radiation Technicians (RTs) was lacking or inadequate. Additional Information: The Cl said that this was applicable to most of the RCTs. Concern 6: d,scfpline a was Addltiona (b)(7)(C} (b)(7)(? )_ Concern 7: You asserted that laborers are handling potentially contaminated soil without proper training and certification since they are processing soil samples for the lab. You stated that laborers have been observed working without wearing required gloves. You added that, In August 2010, laborers were surveying and sampling soil on the soil pads. Additional Information: Nothing added. 2

NOTE TO FILE Rl-2011-A-0119 Concern 8: You asserted that RTs were told to work quickly so as not to slow down remediation work. You stated that Tetra Tech work practices were "construction dominated" with production taking precedence over radiation safety Additional Information: None. Response to Concern 8: The NRC staff reviewed this concern and determined that you did not identify any specific noncompliance with NRC requirements or regulations. Concern 9: You asserted that some RTs entered inaccurate information on radioactive waste storage bags because they do not understand their instruments. You stated that there has been confusion about the use of R0-20 meters. Additional Information: The Cl explained that the storage bags discussed contained soil that had already been analyzed and were archived in Building 258. The confusion about the use of the R0-20 meters was demonstrated by the fact that the dose rate reported on the bag was incorrect. Concern 10: You asserted that some meters have not been calibrated correctly. Additional Information: The Cl clarified that it was not that the meters were incorrectly calibrated but rather incorrectly source checked before use. Concern 11 : You asserted that some survey records are corrected, when a mistake is made, by whiting out the mistake, correcting it, and then photo copying the form. Additional Information: None. 3

NOTE TO FILE Rl-2011-A-0119 Concern 12: You asserted that source storage locations have not always been posted or secured. You stated that, on at least one occasion, an RT was told to Mhide it and lock up and go about your work." Additional Information: The Cl clarified that the RCT discussed here was the Cl. There is a vehicle portal detector that is used to survey trucks before they leave the site. It is manned as needed. Before it is used it must be source checked. Either the RCT manning the portal retrieves and replaces the source or the source is brought to the portal by anQtt,er.....RCT or supervisor~ Jn t.bis concern the Cl asked for someone to retrieve the source s~ she pould go to lunch. She was told to "hide the source" and go. Concern 13: You asserted that TLDs have not always been located correctly on poles. You stated that they may be shielded or not placed at the right height or are not located on the posting pole. Additional Information: None. Concern 14: You asserted that the wrong individual was named as the authorized user on a posted*materials license. Additional Information: The Cl advised that the license was posted the break area in Building 400. Concern 15: You asserted that a supervisor attempted to alter the radiation work area postings to allow laborers to remove a pipe. Additional Information: The Cl advised she1Was working Work Zone 33, an RCA, when a labor crew came to remove a pipe from within the RCA. A member of the team was not able to retrieve the pipe by leaning across the RCA boundary rope so one of the Labor Foremen attempted to move the boundary The Cl stopped them from doing so. Th~(b)(7)(C) !then came out to Area 33 to check on the status of the work and entered the RCA without signing In on the RWP. The Cl 4

NOTE TO FILE (b)(?)(C) I Rl-2011-A-0119 stated thaJ k cT crew usually works Area 33 and opined that the laborers were so comfortable attempting to move the boundary that it must be common practice. The Cl ga)l~ another example of improper posting changes. l(b)(7)(C) I

                                                                                                     ~ofd the!(b)(?)(C)       I J(b)(7)(C)        !from the waste rnaoaaerny_nt contractor to take down the radiation boundary rope at an RCA and retrieve a.bin l(b)(?)(C) ~_, an RCT was making a routine check to see..i,.*~!.-.-.......----~

boundaries and postings were intact and found the rope in this area down. He an __(b,....)(_7_)(_c ...

                                                                                                                           )-----

were in the area when the contractor came to get another bin and advised them that C~)F)(C) (b)(7)(C~------*- .. - ~ad told him to take down the rope. ** Concern 1ti: You asserted that laborers removed a pipe from a radiation controlled area without the pipe being frisked for contamination. Additional Information: The Cl was told about this concem by another RCT. A pipe was removed from Area 33 and laid on the ground outside the RCA without being surveyed. The Cl said that a survey meter was not available at the RCA Concern 17: You asserted that a Tetra Tech employee brings !{b)(?)(C) ho work and that the !(b}(7}(C) I has been seen moving potentially contaminated samples, entering and leaving a radiation controlled area without frisking, and drinking soda within a radiation controlled area. You stated that the employee intimidates other employees who question this practice by virtue ofj(b){?)(C) I Additional Information: The RCT discussed here l~ l<b)(?)(C) IIThe samples are the soil samples from RSY4, and the RCA is the CONEX soil preparation building. Concern 18: You asserted that personnel do not always sign in and out on Radiation Work Permits and sometimes fail to frisk themselves when leaving radiation controlled areas. You stated that disparate discipline is applied for violators_ Additional Information: (b)(?)(C) 5

NOTE TO FILE Rl-2011-A-0119 Concern 19: You asserted that someone told you that there were *a lot of real problems" at Alameda, "not just little HR problems like here." Concern 20: You asserted that employees were falsifying their time sheets. Concerns 19 and 20: These concerns have been referred to the Naval Inspector General. Concern 21: l,.,- You asserted tha!{iou were laid off on December 16, 2011 l for attempts to address and correct observations considered adverse to industry standard radiation safety practices as well as regulatory license compliance, and for participatindJis a silent witness In a State of California Labor Commission discrimination hearing for another t{b)(7)(C) ! employee.... Additional Information: None 6

Urban Richard From: Farrar, Karl Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:00 AM To: Urban, Richard; Ferdas, Marc

Subject:

FW: Allegation R 1-2011-A-0113 R ick, this action was taken. - Karl From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:05 AM To: Farrar, Karl

Subject:

RE: Allegation Rl-2011-A-0113 Were you able to send an email to allegations which documents that the action was taken? Mo.re S. Fe..-das Chief, Decommissioning Branch (NRC/Reglon 1/0NMS) Marc.FerdasglJnrc.gov 6l0-332- SQ22 tw) ,c: l(b)(?)(C) From: Farrar, Karl Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 7:53 AM To: Ferdas, Marc

Subject:

RE: Allegation Rl-2011-A-0113 Yes, I have provided the info to our olg From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:5'4 AM To: Farrar, Karl

Subject:

Allegation Rl-2011* A* Oll3 nsENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.. Karl, Wer e you able to refer concerns 19 & 20 associated w/ the above to the Navy IG? I have a status meeting today and the status sheet has this action as open . The Issues deal w/ problems at Alameda and falsifying time sheets at Hunterspoint. Please let me know the status, thanks Mo.l"'c S. Fel"'do.s Chief, Decommissioning Branch (NRC/Regjon 1/0NM5) Marc. Ferdas@nrc.gov 10-337-5022 w (b)(?)(C) l

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:04 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0113 Hunter's Point SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:02:28 PM To: Urban, Richard; Ferdas, Marc; Hammann, Stephen Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0113 Hunter's Point SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule The CI left a voic;e mall for me. Once l talk to Steve about our response we ca see If I need to call her back. I think we should because a lot o(her l:oncerns can be addressed by explaining what Is and Isn't a requirment at a materials site vice a reactor site. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:14 PM To: Ferdas, Marc; Masnyk Balley, Orysia; Teator, Jeffrey Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0113 Hunter's Point SENSmVE ALLEG INFO I received a call from the Cl today. Sh.a.received our ack letter and was wondering if Orysia had documented the correctionsl sh~ had discussed with Orysia during her inspection last week to her 21 concerns as stated in the ack letter. Since I did not know she y.,as going to call Orysia. Orysia, once you have revised the concerns, please provide an update to the allegations office so we can adjust future correspondence. Thanks. 1

McFadden, John From: Maier. Bill Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:38 PM To: shiraishi.davld@dol.gov Cc: wulff.james@dol.gov; McFadden, John; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Tifft, Doug

Subject:

SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION ENCLOSED - IDENTIFICATION OF AN ALLEGER Attachments: OSHA 12-22-2011 Tetra Tech.docx Mr. Shiraishi, It was nice to speak with you. As we discussed over the telephone, attached is the sheet I read from \lith an lndlvidu concern about management inattention to unsafe work practices at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard. Our inspectors also spoke with the concerned individual and she does not object to sharing her name and contact i nformation with OSHA. Her name and telephone nu Susan Andrews (b)(7 )(C),O(S) Please lmplemen L--:---.--~~~ e appropriate controls to protect her identity from Inadvertent disclosure. Thanks and please feel free to call If you have any questions or need anything additional. Please note my new address and telephone/fax numbers, effective December 16, 2011: 8111 Maier Regional State Liaison Officer USN RC Region 4 1600 East Lamar Boulevard Arlington, TX 76011-4511 Tel: 817-200-1267 Fax: 817-200-1122 e-mail: bi1l 1maier@mc.gov l

APPENDIX A NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS DATA SHEET PART I -ISSUE Name: Tetra Tech EC Inc. License or Docket No.. NRC Licensee/ Hunters Point, San Certificate Holder Facility {if appllcable) 29-31396-01 Franciso, CA Descrlotion of Issue: There has been an increase in occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point. Staff is told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using cell phones or radios while driving. Work was being performed at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave, SanFrancisco, CA 94124. How Issue waa Identified: Concerned individual reported this in an email to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licensee representative informed: NA NA NA Name Title Date Licensee Comments: NA Other oersons Informed: NA Nti NA NA lnsoector's slonature Telephone Number Date Part II - FOLLOW-UP Descrtlltlon of Immediate corrective actions taken If anv: NA NA Nti NA lnsoector's sionature Teleohone Number Date Part Ill - OSHA CONTACT OSHA Informed: YES / NO Date Informed: Office / Person Contacted: _ _ OSHA Office: Date: Telephone No. _ NRC OSHA Uason Officer Issue Date: 02/11/04 A-1 1007, Appendix A

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATIO N RESOURCE Sent: Tuesd ay, January 17, 2012 4:09 PM To: Urban, Richard ; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, S haron; Mcl aughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW; Rl-201 1-A-0113 Hunter's Point SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:08:37..,P......M...___ __ To: Ferdas, Marc; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia:l(b)(?)(C) ~ Hammann, Stephen Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE - *

Subject:

RE Rl-2011-A-0113 Hunter's Point SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule The acknowledged concerns with redline/strikeout or a re.write of the concerns for the file would be good. We don't need to send another letter

• From: Ferdas, Marc Se nt: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:24 PM - - - - - -

To: Urban, Richard; Masnyk Batley, Orysia; l(b)(7)(C) Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE - I* Hammann, Stephen Subje ct: RE: Rl-2011-A-0113 Hunter's Point SENSffiVE AlLEG fNFO We were going to provide those details in our closeout response. Wr! thought it would be better than sen<ling another acknowledgment letter Wou ld you llke a list of those clarifications, can we address In our closeout response, or should we send another letter? Mo...-c S. Fe..-dG\s Chief, Dccomrrmsionins Branch (NRC/Reglon 1/DNMS) Marc.Ferdas@nrc.gov

    ,6.10-337-5022 (w)              O'.'i'(r l(b)(?)(C)                                 _

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2 :14 PM..,,..,...,.....,..,,.,,----...., To: Ferdas, Marc; Masnyk Balley, Orysla; l(b)(?)(C) Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE ...- - - - - - -

Subject:

Rl-2011*A* 0113 Hunter's Polnt SENSITTVE AUFG INFO /',1 I received a callJrorn the C l today. .Sh~r~ceived our ack letter and was wondering if Orysia had documented the correction~ shelhad discussed ,Nith Qrysia during'herJnspection last week to her 21 concerns as stated in the ack letter. 'Since I did not know,1sne {v"8 S going to call Orysia. Orysia, once you have revised the concerns. please provide an update to the allegations office so we can adjust future correspondence. Thanks. 1

Johnson, Sharon From: (b)(7)(C) Sent: n ay, anuary 13, 2012 3:46 PM To: Johnson , Sharon

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-011 3 - Hunters Point Sharon - this will be case 1-2012-019 l (b)(7)(C) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region I 475 Allendale Rd King of Prussia PA 19406 Office (b )(7)(C) Blackberry (b )(7)(C) From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:32 PM To: !(b)(7){C) I cc: Orban, Rlcnaro

Subject:

RI-2011 *A*Ol 13

• Hunters Point

!(b)(7)(C)

Spoke with Cl - they chose 01 to investigate H&I versus ADR. Another chance for 01 to excel!!!! Thanks 9ht.4.l"Ot, j..Aw Jofu,~otl

   ,A((e6t.4.ffon .A:~~i~to.nt 610-337-S374 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Sent: To:

Subject:

                         ~j~v   J=~:~ )3*

Johnson. Sharon

                       !(b)?\c:_* ~ -

2012 3.19 PM Hunters Point Attachments: Cover Page Blue - Sensitive Allegatlon Material.doc; 201101 13rcv.docx; 20110113rcvsupplementrcv.docx; 20110113arb1.docx; 20110113arb2.docx; 20110113arb2corrected.docx; 20110113arb3.docx Importance: High Attached as requested Sh~ron ~w John.11on Allego.tion. A~~i~to.nt 610-3*37-S374 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Urban. Richard Sent: Thursday January 12, 2012 7*09 AM To: Tifft, Doug Cc: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE Rl-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point Thought you had 1t but here Susan Andr (b)(7)(C} From: Tifft, Doug Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:02 PM To: Urban, Richard Cc: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A--0113 - Hunter's Point Will do Let me know the Cl's name and contact ,nfo and I will pass along

  -Doug From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:16 PM To: Tifft, Doug Cc: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point She \aid It would be OK to share her contact info. GET ER DONEi From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 8:23 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point I do not see you cc'd on this! From: Maler, Bill Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:46 PM To: Tifft, Doug Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Hammann, Stephen; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

FW: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point Doug, This is very lacking in details. 1

One lesson I've learned from OSHA is that if the referra l is based on a complaint (as this one is), they need a name and contact info to follow-up with if they decide to do so. Did the individual send the e-mail anonymously? If not, does he/she object to us giving OSHA his/her contact information? Bill From: Tifft, Doug Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9: 59 AM To: Maier, Bill

Subject:

FW: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point OSHA referral attached. Note t hat although the contractor is based out of NJ, the alleged violations occurred at the Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. -Doug From: Hammann, Stephen Se nt: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:13 AM To: Tifft, Doug Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysfa

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point

Doug, I have attached the OSHA form with details of the issues The company information is:

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Contact:

l> ~w Joh~o>> _Al(egt:>1.f'iO)') _A:):)j~ft:>1.t,f 610-'337-S374

JAN 5 2012

• Ms 5nsao V Aodcaws Rl-2011-A-0113 r (7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This letter pertains to two con the NRC during your interview on October 26, 2011 , with Mr (b)(7)(C) Ith the Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations wo concerns were re a ed to the health physics program at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard These concerns were acknowledged to you ,n a letter dated November 17, 2011 . Since that date, you have provided the NRC information regarding additional concerns that you have regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Specifically, we have received: (1) a string of your e-mails from Ms Catherine Daly, Deputy Labor Commissioner, State of California, on November 21 , 2011 : 2 v

• hat you left for me on December 10, 2011 ; (3) an e-mail that you sent to (b)(7)(C) on December 10, 2011 , which included comments regarding our acknow e gmen e er to you dated November 17, 2011 ; and (4) notes regarding your telephone discussion on December 11 . 2011 with Mr R Munoz from the NRC Region IV Office m Texas Based on our review of your additional information, we have 1dent1fled twenty new concerns under NRC regulatory Jurisdiction (Concerns 3 through 22) as described 1n Enclosure 1. We have responded to several of your concerns (i.e . Concerns 4, 8, 20, and 21 }. We have Initiated actions to examine the remaining concerns If the descriptions of these concerns as documented in the enclosure are not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure that they are appropriately described prior to the completion of our review. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer.

In evaluating your concerns, the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is important to note, particularly if you raised these concerns internally, that individuals can and sometimes do surmise the identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of the nature of the information or because of other factors outside our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm nor deny the individual's assumption. In addition, if a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to your concerns, to the extent consistent with that act, the information provided will be purged of names and other potential identifiers. F1,rther, you should be aware that you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been formally granted in writing.

• In our earfier letter to you dated November 17, 2011 , you were provided an NRC brochure entitled "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC." The brochure discusses important information regarding the NRC allegation process, identity protection, and the processing of CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RFCFIPT RS::01 IF~Tr::n

Ms. Susan V. Andrews. . 2 Rl-2011-A-0113 claims of discrimination for raising safety concerns. If you need another copy of the brochure, please contact me via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 or you may view a copy at http://www.nrc.gov/readinq-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0240/. The NRC staff has reviewed your complaint of discrimination and has determined that an evaluation of Concern 22, as described in Enclosure 1, is warranted. The NRC will consider enforcement action against NRC-regulated facilities that are found to have discriminated against individuals for raising safety concerns. However, please understand that the NRC cannot require that a personal remedy be provided to you, such as back pay or reinstatement. Means by which you can pursue a personal remedy are described later in this letter. If you wish, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) can investigate your discrimination concern. During an investigation, 01 gathers testimonial and documentary evidence related to your discrimination concern. Since performing such an investigation without identifying you would be extremely difficult, please be awar~ that your name will be disclosed during the course of an NRC investigation into your discrimination concern. If, based on the results of the 01 investigation, the NRC determines that your discrimination concern is substantiated, we will consider enforcement action against the licensee, as appropriate. If you would like 01 to initiate an investigation regarding your complaint of discrimination, please call me via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 within 10 days of receipt of this letter. As an alternative to an Investigation of your discrimination complaint by 01, you can participate in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program, which offers mediation for handling a complaint of discrimination. Mediation is a voluntary process where two parties, you and your former employer, use an unbiased, neutral individual, or mediator, in an attempt to resolve and settle your complaint of discrimination with your former employer. If such an agreement is reached, the NRC will close your discrimination complaint upon settlement and will not investigate your claim of discrimination. If a settlement is not reached with your former employer, 01 may initiate an investigation into your complaint of discrimination. As mentioned above, the NRC's ADR program is voluntary, and any participant may end the mediation at any time. More information on this program is included in the enclosed brochure, "Pre-Investigation ADR Program," and at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/requlatory/enforcement/adr.html. The NRC has asked Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution {ICR) to aid you and your former employer in resolving your discrimination concern through ADR. If you choose to participate in the NRC's ADR program, you must contact ICR at 1-877-733-9415 (toll-free). We request that you make a decision regarding your interest in attempting mediation via the ADR program within 10 days of the date on which you receive this letter. You may contact ICR if you wish to discuss ADR in general, the NRC's ADR program, and any other information in which you are interested related to resolving your complaint using ADR. If you and your former employer wish to participate in the ADR program, ICR will assist you in the selection of a mediator who would meet with you and your former employer in an attempt to settle your complaint. If you select a mediator through ICR, there will be no charge to you or your former employer for the mediator's services. If you participate in the ADR program, please complete the program evaluation form (supplied by ICR) at the completion of the process so that we can evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The NRC notes that employers are encouraged to develop similar dispute resolution processes internal to their company for use in conjunction with their own employee concerns programs. If you utilize your former employer's dispute resolution program *to settle a discrimination concern,

Ms. Susan V. Andrews. 3 Rl-2011 -A-0113 your former employer may voluntarily report the settlement to the NRC. If the NRC is notified of an internal settlement before an NRC 01 investigation is initiated, the NRC will request a copy of such a settlement agreement (when completed, if negotiations are ongoing) from the former employer and review it to determine if it contains any restrictive agreements in violation of NRC employee protection regulations. If no such restrictive agreements exist, the NRC will close the discrimination complaint and will not perform an investigation. Additionally, please note that while participation in the NRC's ADR program may result in negotiation of the issues that form the basis of your discrimination complaint with your former employer under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 , the timeliness requirements (180 days) for filing a claim of discrimination with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) are in no way altered by the NRC's ADR program. In this aspect, we note that DOL has the authority to order personal remedies in these matters, and the enclosed brochure discusses the right of an individual to file a complaint with DOL if the individual believes that they have been discriminated against for raising safety concerns. For this reason, the filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL should be considered at the same time when you are considering use of the ADR program. While there is a likelihood that DOL may choose to await the completion of your ADR mediation, given the prospect of a mutually agreeable settlement, timely filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL assures that DOL will review your discrimination complaint in the event that ADR is unsuccessful. In order to protect your right to file a discrimination complaint with DOL under 29 CFR Part 24, "Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes" (copy enclosed), you must file a written complaint with DOL within 180 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory action or the date on which you received any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse personnel action (e.g., layoff or suspension), whichever occurred first. Any such complaint can be filed with DOL Regional Offices for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Your complaint must describe the safety issue or issues that you raised, the resulting adverse personnel action taken against you, and the causal relationship between them. If you choose to file a complaint, it should be filed with: US DOUOSHA Region 9 Office 90 7th Street, Suite 18100 San Francisco, California 94103 (415) 625-2547 (Main Public - 8:00 AM - 4 :30 PM Pacific) (415) 625-2534 FAX Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we have completed our review. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222 or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely, oda:!~l s1gna4 17* Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosures:

As Stated

Ms. Susan V. Andrews.. 4 Rl-2011 -A-0113 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011 -A-01 13 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\STAT US\20110113st1.docx To receive a copy of this docume nt, Indicate In the box: *c~c Copy without attachmenuenclosure "E" = Copy with attachmenVenclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE Rl:FOD NAME (b)(?)(C) DATE 1/ /2012

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Concern 1: You asserted that there was an occasion when Tetra Tech personnel did not perform surveys and/or frisks when they entered and exited a radioactively contaminated area. You stated that you saw this occur during the week of October 17, 2011. Concern 2: You asserted that another Tetra Tech Senior Health Physics Technician, who worked at the site, knew very little and did not really follow radiation safety principles. Concern 3: You asserted that "someone" was falsely signing CoC sample forms for "someone else", as evidenced by wrong handwriting and name misspelling. Concern 4 : You asserted that there had been an increase in occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point. You stated that staff was told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using cell phones or radios while driving. Response to Concern 4: The NRC determined that this concern involves a non-radiological worker safety issue that does not fall under NRC jurisdiction. The agency with jurisdiction in this matter is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). ln accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with OSHA, the NRC intends to notify the licensee about this concern and to refer your concern to the following OSHA area office; we also intend to contact you to see if you have any objection to your contact information being provided to OSHA For any further information on this matter, you may contact the OSHA area office where the referral is to be made: Region IX Federal Contact Numbers 90 7th Street, Suite 18100 s*an Francisco, California 94103 (415) 625-2547 (415) 625-2534 FAX Concern 5: You asserted that radiation safety training for Radiation Technicians (RTs) was lacking or inadequate. 1

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011 -A-0113 Concern 6: You asserted that the!(b)(7}(C) I refused to allow a L(b_)_<7_)_(c_)_ _ _ _......L~ discipline a for failure to take a required test. You stated that th (b)(7)(C) was ..o... v.... e .... r ""'e'""a_r..., saying that there will be "no write ups of anyone." Concern 7: You asserted that laborers are handling potentially contaminated soil without proper training and certification since they are processing soil samples for the lab. You stated that laborers have been observed working without wearing required gloves. You added that, in August 2010, laborers were surveying and sampling soil on the soil pads. Concern 8: You asserted that RTs were told to work quickly so as not to slow down remediation work. You stated that Tetra Tech work practices were "construction dominated" with production taking precedence over radiation safety. Response to Concern 8: The NRC staff reviewed this concern and determined that you did not identify any specific noncompliance with NRC requirements or regulations. However, we believe that your concern about production being placed over safety could possibly be viewed as a safety culture matter. For your information, In a Federal Register Notice dated January 24, 1989, the Commission's "Policy Statement on the Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operations," refers to safety culture as "the necessary full attention to safety matters" and the "personal dedication and accountability of all individuals engaged in any activity which has a bearing on the safety of nuclear power plants. A strong safety culture is one that has a strong safety-first focus." The Commission has also referenced the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group's (INSAG)

• definition of safety culture.as follows: "Safety Culture is that assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individu_als which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance." Your general statement that production takes precedence over radiation safety does not provide a nexus to there being a safety culture problem at Hunters Point Naval Station.

However, if you are aware of any additional specific radiological safety issues that have occurred as a result of a production over safety mentality and that fall within NRC j urisdiction, we would be interested in that type of information. If you or others have any such additional specific information to provide, please contact me via the phone number or postal address provided in the cover letter within 10 days of the date on which you receive this letter. If no additional information is received, we intend to take no further *action on this matter at this time. Concern 9: You asserted that some RTs entered inaccurate information on radioactive waste storage bags because they do not understand their instruments. You stated that there has been confusion about the use of R0-20 meters. 2

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Concern 10: You asserted that some meters have not been calibrated correctly. Concern 11: You asserted that some survey records are corrected, when a mistake is made, by whiting out the mistake, correcting it, and then photo copying the form . Concern 12: You asserted that source storage locations have not always been posted or secured. You stated that, on at least one occasion, an RT was told to "hide it and lock up and go about your work." Concern 13: You asserted that TLDs have not always been located correctly on poles. You stated that they may be shielded or not placed at the right height or are not located on the posting pole. Concern 14: You asserted that the wrong individual was named as the authorized user on a posted materials license. Concern 15: You asserted that a supervisor attempted to alter the radiation work area postings to allow laborers to remove a pipe. Concern 16: You asserted that laborers removed a pipe from a radiation controlled area without the pipe being frisked for contamination. Concern 17: You asserted that a Tetra Tech employee brings !(b)(l )(C) Ito work and that the !(b){7}(C} I has been seen moving potentially contaminated samples, entering and leaving a radiation controlled area without frisking , and drinking soda within a radiation controlled area. You stated that the employee intimidates other employees who question this practice by virtue o~(b)(7)(C) I Concern 18: You asserted that personnel do not always sign in and out on Radiation Work Permits and sometimes fail to frisk themselves when leaving radiation controlled areas. You stated that disparate discipline is applied for violators. 3

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Concern 19: You asserted that someone told you that there were "a lot of real problems" at Alameda, "not just little HR problems like here." Concern 20: You asserted that employees were falsifying their time sheets. Response to Concerns 19 and 20: The NRC determined that these concerns involve issues that do not fall under NRC regulatory jurisdiction. Agencies that may have jurisdiction in these matters would be the State of California Inspector General and/or the Naval Inspector General. We intend to refer both concerns to the Naval Inspector General. For any additional follow-up on these concerns, we have provided the contact information for these agencies: Office of the Naval Inspector General Building 172 1254 Ninth Street, S.E . Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5006 Telephone: (800) 522-3451 E-mail: NAVIGHotlines@navy. mil FAX: (202) 433-2613 Office of the Inspector General State of California P.O. Box 348780 Sacramento, CA 95834-8780 Telephone: (800) 700-5952 FAX: (916) 928-5974 Concern 21 : t You asserted that lOU were laid off on December 16, 201 for attempts to address and correct observations considered adverse t9-industry standard radiation safety practices as well as regulatory license compliance, aneti9r participating as a silent witness In a State of California Labor Commission discrimination hearing for another!(b)(7)(C) !employee 4

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19401M415 JAN 5 2012 Rl-2011 -A-0113 l'b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Dear Ms. Andrews* This letter pertains to two concerns that ou reviousf raised to the NRC during your interview on October 26, 2011, with Mr. (b)(7)(C) with the Region I Field Office, NRC Office of Investigations ( . e o concerns were re a ed to the health physics program at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. These concerns were acknowledged to you in a letter dated November 17, 2011 . Since that date, you have provided the NRC information regarding additional concerns that you have regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Speclflcally, we have received: (1) a string of your e-mails from Ms. Catherine Daly, Deputy Labor Commissioner, State of California, on November 21, 2011 ; (2) a voice message that you left for me on December 10, 2011 ; (3) an e-mail that you sent to l<b}(7}(C} Ion December 10, 2011, which included comments regarding our acknowledgment letter to you dated November 17, 2011; and (4) notes regarding your telephone discussion on December 11, 2011 with Mr, R. Munoz from the NRC Region IV Office in Texas. Based on our review of your additional information, we have identified twenty new concerns under NRC regulatory jurisdiction (Concerns 3 through 22) as described in Enclosure 1. We have responded to several of your concerns (i.e., Concerns 4, 8, 20, and 21 ). We have initiated actions to examine the remaining concerns . If the descriptions of these concerns as documented In the enclosure are not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure that they are appropriately described prior to the completion of our review. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer. In evaluating your concerns, the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity to any organization, Individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is important to note, particularly if you raised these concerns internally, that individuals can and sometimes do surmise the identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of the nature of the information or because of other factors outside our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm nor deny the individual's assumption. In addition, if a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to your concerns, to the extent consistent with that act, the information provided will be purged of names and other potential identifiers. Further, you should be aware that you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been formally granted in writing. In our earlier letter to you dated November 17, 2011, you were provided an NRC brochure entitled "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC." The brochure discusses important information regarding the NRC allegation process, identity protection, and the processing of CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

McFadden John From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:21 PM To: Maier, Bill; McFadden, John Cc: Hammann, Stephen

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011 -A-0113 - Hunter's Point We will be inspecting at Hunters Point next week and will speak to the Cl then. I will ask if they mind us providing contact info. From: Maier, Bill Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:08 PM To: McFadden, John Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

FW: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point Hello Jack, I got both of your voice mail messages. I have not yet contacted OSHA pending a response from Orysla (see below). If she responds that the individual has no objection to providing his/her contact information to OSHA, then I will forward it on to the OSHA Region 9 office in San Francisco. Their number is 415-625-2547. Please note my new address and telephone/fax numbers, effective December 16, 2011: Bill Maier Regional State Liaison Officer USN RC Region 4 1600 East Lamar Boulevard Arlington, TX 76011-4511 Tel: 817-200-1267 Fax: 817-200-1122 e-mail: bill.maier@nrc.gov From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 9:01 AM To: Maier, Bill; Tifft, Doug Cc: Hammann, Stephen; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point I will find out if the Cl minds us giving their contact info to OSHA. From: Maler, Bill Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:46 PM To: Tifft, Doug Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Hammann, Stephen; Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

FW: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point

Doug,

This is very lacking in details. One lesson I've learned from OSHA is that if the referral is based on a complaint (as this one is), they need a name and contact info to follow-up with if they decide to do so. Did the individual send the e-mail anonymously? If not, does he/she object to us giving OSHA his/her contact information? Bill From: Tifft, Doug Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:59 AM To: Maler, BIii

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point OSHA referral attached. Note that although the contractor ,s based out of NJ, the alleged violations occurred at the Naval Shipyard 1n San Francisco -Doug From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:13 AM To: Tifft, Doug Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysla

Subject:

RE: RI* 2011-A*Oll3 - Hunter's Point Doug. I have attached the OSHA form with details of the issues. The company information is. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Contac

• b 7 c Phone (b )(7)(C)

Let me know if you need anything else. Steve From: Tifft, Doug Sent: T hursday, December 15, 2011 10:23 AM To: Johnson, Sharon; Hammann, Stephen

Subject:

RE: RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point

Steve, Attached is the OSHA referral form you can use to put down the details of the OSHA issues. I also will need contact information (name, phone number, address) for the company.

Thanks,

-Doug

From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:04 AM To: Hammann, Stephen Cc: Tifft, Doug

Subject:

RI-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point Importance: High FYI Steve At the 12/5/2011 ARB there were actions assigned to refer to OSHA and Navy IG. Please coordinate with Doug and send us email when referrals to OSHA and Navy tG are completed. Thanks Sho.ron )..Aw John6o>> A:lt~o.tion A,:.\:.\i:ito.nt 610-;J37*S374

Johnson Sharon From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:39 PM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: 01 Interview Transcript Rl-2011-A-0113 vs Rl-=2011-A-0019 No problem, I finished reviewing it anyway From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:35 PM To: Hammann, Stephen Cc: Urban, Richard

Subject:

OJ Interview Transcript RI-2011 *A* Oll3 vs Rl-=2011-A-0019 Importance: High STEVE FIRST I HUMBLY ANO WHOLE HEAR1EDL Y APOLOGIZE!!!! After ~ojna soaP.lresearch on the confusion, it would appear to me that the 01 interview transcript (1-2012-002) {b}(7H%rth

• oes actually belong to Rl-2011-A-0019, as a !(b)(?)(C) !ft should still be reviewed to ascertain If there are any new issues that apply to either case.

T he latter case, Rl-2011 -A-0113 has not even been offered ADR or 01 let alone DOL although they have filed a complaint with DOL. So - there is no real rush to review the transcript If you really do not have the time - j ust let me know please. SORRY!!!!!! Sho:ron J,..""w l<>hn4o>>

     ,AJ{egedio)'I. ~~i~tt1.nt 610-337-S374

McFadden, John From: McFadden, John Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:21 PM To: Farrar, Karl Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John; Hammann, Stephen

Subject:

SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE - 20110113arb2corrected.docx Attachments: Cover Page_Blue - Sensitive Allegation Material.doc; 20110113arb2corrected.docx SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE Karl I have been told that Disposition Action 4 in the attached ARB form was meant to be done verbally, not in writing/letter. Is that also your understanding? Jack

McFadden, John From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:17 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0113 From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:16:44 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011 -A-0113 Auto forwarded by a Rule From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:01 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011-A-0113 We have captured all the concerns including those in the Munoz receipt form of 12/11/ 11 From: Urban, Richard Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 10:57 AM To: Joustra, Judith; Hammann, Stephen; Masnyk Balley, Orysla Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0113 I have the Navy IG referral letter drafted but I would like to place it into concurrence with her status letter. I have drafed the cover letter but I need Enclosure 1 from you guys. There are like twenty-some concerns and we have taken action on a few of them. I would again ask that we be sure we have captured all her concerns, including those in the Munoz receipt form of 12/10/11 . Once we receive Enclosure 1, Jack can get the letters into concurrence next week.

McFaddeh, John From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 1:58 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon: Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION (2011-A-0138) and (2011-A-0113). From: Farrar, Karl Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 1:58: 17 PM To: Hammann, Stephen; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION (2011-A-0138) and (2011-A-0113). Auto forwarded by a Rule Steve, as indicated during our discussion last week, the Cl's ion both cases made out a prima facie case. In the first case (2001-A-0138), the protected activity would be raising the issues about the health physicist not being qualified to perform the job and the adverse act would be the individual being fired. In the second case, the protected activity would be raising issues regarding the employees exiting the RCA without being monitored and the adverse act would be the Cl being laid off. Karl From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 201110:19 AM To: Farrar, Karl

Subject:

WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Karl, During last week's allegation panel there were two separate cases we need a prima facie determination to be made. The disposition was for me to provide the information to you and for you to make the determinations and respond via email to R1Allegation Resource. Discussion of events for prima facie determination 201 l *A-0138 (,c Cl believe~el,vas terminated for raising safety concerns. Specifically, the Cl tol<Gii}upervisor thalhebelieved one of (b}(7)(C) t he health fiysiclsts working on the Hunters Point remediation project is not qualified as a hea lth Jivs'tclst and had

      -- falsTf1ed *- *ob history. According to the c1upervisor took t he concern to'th (b)(7)(C)                                                                                                                      and that the -I                --1 (b)(?)(C) old the supervisor that he wanted the Cl removed from the site. The Cl claim he as fired the next day. /

2011-A-0113 The Cl believe@~as retaliated agains~ aid off on i2/16/lifltor attempting to address/correct radiation safety practices and acting as a silent witness in a State of California Labor Commission hearing regarding anot her employee who !(b)(7)(C)  !. Specifically, the Cl had notifiecG:u,ianagement that safety concerns existed, such as

         """"""-J.A\ IA Ai" .... vi*{....._ ,.. *kA Or/\ H,rf*kAII .. Iii.Ah""'°' f':_....... k,....t_.. ......... ..... ~:-.,A ... A.4 ~A /tiJ ..... A~f, -'*""' i--'""--'t,,. ...,..,.,4 <"'--J,...._,,.,,..,. ***'"'-- .,.,., .,....., - - * ._, . -1:.i:: ...... ...J

{licen.se~ knew&bjlacted as a silent witness in a State of California Labor Commission hearing and§i}vas subsequently l_!aid off J ,. Steve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399

I McFadden, John From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 8:39 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon: McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: ****SENSITIVE ALLEGATIONS MATERIAL**** Attachments: Enclosure 1.2011-A-O 113.docx From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 8:38:41 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

****SENSITIVE ALLEGATIONS MATERIAL****

Auto forwarded by a Rule Attached is enclosure 1 for 2011-A-0113 Steve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399

McFadden, John From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:25 PM To: Urban, Richard ; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: *'**'****Sensative Allegation Material....***** Attachments: Navy.lG.referral.docx From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:24:51 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

"****"*Sensative Allegation Material**'**'***

Auto forwarded by a Rule Attached is the Navy IG referral letter and enclosure 1 with the concerns listed. A second enclosure, the Navy response to our RFI dated 6/232010, needs to be added. Steve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 Office of the Naval Inspector General Building 172 1254 Ninth Street, S.E. Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5006

SUBJECT:

REFERRAL OF CONCERNS RECEIVED BY THE NRC REGARDING TREASURE ISLAND

Dear Sirs:

By letter dated September 12, 2011, the NRC sent you a letter concerning activities at Treasure Island and Long Beach Shipyard located in California. Recently, the NRC was notified of additional issues involving Treasure Island, which is a Navy Base Relocation and Closure (BRAC) site in California. We have enclosed the specific concerns (Enclosure 1) for your review and any action you deem appropriate. This letter is being transmitted in consultation with the NRC Office of Inspection General (OIG). Similar concerns to those delineated in Enclosure 1 have been brought to the attention of the Navy Master Materials License No. 45-23645-01 NA in March 2010. We have enclosed (Enclosure 2) their response dated June 23, 2010, to our Request for Information (RFI). The NRC and the Department of Defense are involved in discussions over the implementation of the NRC's jurisdiction at BRAC sites. Therefore we determined that, since you are already reviewing similar issues, referring these concerns to you is the best course of action for timely review of the concerns. If you have any questions regarding these concerns, please contact Mr. Marc Ferdas of this office at (610) 337-5022, or via email at Marc. Ferdas@nrc.gov. Sincerely, Raymond K. Lorson, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosures:

As Stated Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0113 SUNSI Review Complete: OMB (Reviewer's Initials) DOCUMENT NAME: G:\WordDocs\Current\Misc Letter\LNavylGreferral.doc After declaring this document "An Official Agency Record" it will be released to the Public. To receive a copy of this document, Indicate In the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachmen tiencIosure "N" = No cop OFFICE DNMS I DNMS I ORA I OGC 1 DNMS I NAME OMasnyk Bailey MFerdas RUrban Kfarrar Rlorson DATE

ENCLOSURE 1 1 The Cl asserts that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Treasure lsland/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project, presented to and approved by the Board of Supervisors, "deliberately minimized areas impacted with radionuclides ." This document apparently characterizes the site as having contamination "isolated to a small portion of Site 12 and Building 233" and does not include areas 30, 31 , and 33, where contamination has been found. The submitted EIR supports a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) which has been disputed by the California Department of Public Health.

2. The Cl asserts that the contractor at Treasure Island, Shaw Environmental, engages in "highly questionable remediation activities", including lack of proper data about test trenches and backfilled areas, waste shipments, waste profiles, holding spots, waste receiving facilities, high-level waste, and site characterization. As evidence, the Cl offers the fact that Shaw Environmental has been issued numerous violations by California Department of Public Health and has been asked to change many of its radiological practices.

3. The Cl asserts that there is a lack of evidence that only short lived radionuclides were used at a training mock up of a ship, the USS Pandemonium, or that the two locations where the ship stood were properly surveyed.

6. The Cl asserts that soil movement at Treasure Island has led to the spread of contamination to non-impacted areas of Treasure Island and Verba Buena Island.

Consequently, the Bay Bridge on/off ramps and historical properties on Verba Buena Island should be surveyed.

4. The Cl questions the ongoing groundwater monitoring at Treasure Island since radium-226 has been found in wells in parts of Site 12.

5. The Cl asserts that there are ongoing problems with decommissioning at Treasure Island, CA, and is concerned that the site has not been properly characterized, decommissioned, or released.

6. The Cl asserts that the 2006 Treasure Island Historical Radiological Assessment (HRA) is inaccurate in that it indicates that there were no radiologically impacted sites at Treasure Island and was not updated when radioactive contamination and discrete radioactive sources were found. He states that the HRA was found to be "flawed" by California Department of Public Health, and that contractor work plans are based on this inaccurate document.

7 The Cl has particular concerns about Site 31, as follows: the potential radiological impact of Site 31 has been ignored; dirt excavated from within the fenced area of the site is significantly contaminated with radionuclides, in particular radium 226; no radiological controls were in place during past fieldwork in Site 31 ; and, the wind may have distributed contamination to an adjacent Child Development Center and a Boys and Girls 4

Club, and to residents of Treasure Island in general.

8. The Cl asserts that Treasure Island has not been properly characterized for possible radiological contamination.

9. The Cl asserts that radium buttons were distributed to thousands of attendees of the 1939 World's Fair, which may be the source of some of the radium found at the site.

10. The Cl asserts that the Navy has failed to timely follow through on surveys, screening, and sampling of known debris disposal areas such as Site 31 .

5

                                                                                                                   /

McFadden, John From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:35 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Rl-2011-A-0113 Attachments: OSHA 12-22-2011 Tetra Tech .docx From: Tifft, Doug Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:35:05 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0113 Auto forwarded by a Rule Attached OSHA referral form was sent to Region IV SLO for OSHA referral.

  -Doug
  ~OU<f    ~t/Jt Regional Stat e Liaison Officer Pftice; 610-337-6918 l(b)(7)(C )

APPENDIX A NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS DATA SHEET PART I -ISSUE Name: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. License or Docket No.: NRC licensee/ Certificate Holder Hunters Point, San Facility (If applicable) 29-31396-01 Franciso, CA Descriotion of Issue: There has been an increase in occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point. Staff is told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using cell phones or radios while driving. Work was being performed at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave , SanFrancisco, CA 94124. How Issue was Identified: Concerned individual reported this in an email to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licensee representative informed: Jj6 Jj6 NA Name Title Date Licensee Comments: NA Other oersons Informed: NA NA NA NA Inspector's siqnature Teleohone Number Date Part II-FOLLOW-UP Descriotlon of immediate corrective actions taken if anv: NA NA NA NA Inspector's sianature Telephone Number Date Part Ill - OSHA CONTACT OSHA Informed: YES/ NO Date Informed: OSHA Office: Date: Office I Person Contacted: Telephone No. _ _ -- -- NRC OSHA llason Officer

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb3.docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-0113 Branch Chief (AOC): Ferdas Site/Facility: Navy - Hunters Point, CA (decommissioning site) Acknowledged: No ARB Date: 12/21/2011 Confidentiality Granted: NO, email sent toOI Concern(s) Discussed:

1. Cl alleges that she was terminated by Tetra Tech for "Attempts to address/correct observations considered adverse to industry stander lation safety practices as well as regulatory license compliance ... ". Also, Cl contends tha she as fired after "participating as a silent witness" in discrimination hearing for another (b)(7)(C) etra Tech employee~ *

• Security Category* NIA Does alleger object to providing concerns to the llcensoe via an RFI? Need to find out from Allegations and/or 01.

ALLEGAT)ON REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES (b)(7)(C) Chair: Lorson Branch Chief: Hammann SAC: Urban 01 RI Counsel: Others: Masnyk Balley, Holody, Orendi, Spitzberg*~'"""- - - ' DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet, If Applicable) NIA _ __ RFI Inspection or Investigation Both DISPOSITION ACTIONS

1. Regional counsel to confirm via e-mail that the Cl has made a prima facie case of discrimination. DB to provide Regional Counsel documentation for decision.

Responsible Person: Farrar ECO: 12/30/11 Closure Documentation: e-mail Completed:

2. Status letter update. Status letter with offer of ADR/01/DOL rights. Also ack the additional tech concerns as described during the previous ARB.

Responsible Person: Urban/Ferdas ECO: 12/30/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: Chilling effect on contractor staff PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: High RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 01/DOUDOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement?

G :\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb3.docx NOTES: Repanel of Rl-2011-A-0113. Cl sent in letter clarifying previous concerns and added this concern. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:21 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: **-*sensitive Allegation Material******** Attachments: ALEUJ New Allegation Receipt Form.odf - Adobe Acrobat Pro.pdf; Tetra Tech - Hunters Point:~usan Andrews ..) ...,. From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:20:41 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: *****sensitive Allegation Material**-**** Auto forwarded by a Rule From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:16 PM To: Urban, Richard Cc: Masnyk Balley, Orysla

Subject:

FW: *****Sensitive Allegation Material******** From RIV From: Vasquez, Michael Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:00 PM To: Hammann, Stephen

Subject:

FW: *****Sensitive Allegation Material******** From: Vasquez, Michael Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:50 PM To: Roberts, Mark

Subject:

FW: *****Sensitive Allegation Material******** I don't know if our allegations people have had a chance to forward this to your allegations people. It's related to work at the same site - Hunters Point. From: Munoz, Rick Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:29 PM To: R4_AVAIL_DNMS_MSA Resource Cc: Vasquez, Michael

Subject:

*****Sensitive Allegation Material********

Rick Munoz

Johnson, Sharon (b )(7)(C) From: Sent: riday, December 09, 2011 5:24 PM To: Munoz, Rick r;:

Subject:

Tetra Tech - Hunters Point~usan Andrews.* - Rick I Just got off the phone with\§usan Andrews-=r;;:;e)s the person I was referring to during our last conversation that "still worked at the project, saw wrongdoing, and ~rted as such to Region I (Also one of my "active on-site witnesses from a list requested by !(b)(7)(C ) J Region I, who agreed to talk to him and rl th * . (b)(?)( C) (M~rews was termin~neo tocJay at Hunters Point ord wa provided b~supervlso pe(Susan, he

..Joi       it was !(b)(7)(C)         Idecision (b)(7)(C)      ot hi . Its being tree~ as an end of year reduction in force. I gave
\ Susan our cell phone number and aske er o ca you immediately - lold(!!~my take ls you'll want to know.
~ I've also ive her the phone number's for Cathy Daly, California Labor Commi sioner's Office, Retaliation Unit as well as (b)(?)(C)                Firm.

I hope~usaal..qets thro~g_h .... Best regards, Bert Bowers (b)(?)(C)

Page2 of7 Allegation Receipt Form Allegation Number: RIV-2011 -A-

                                                .!..~ 1*~imte<1:10/20/1 )                 Received By: -'-R-'-i.c.:...k..:...M
                                                                                                                             '-'--'uc;,.n...;;o..;;;z_ _ _ _ _ Receipt Date: 12/11/201 O Facility/Outside Org Name:                            Bering Sea Environmental LLC., dba Aleut World Solutions (AWS)

GENERAL INFORMATION: CONCERN# 1 I Concern (one or two sentences): Aleut World Solutions (AWS) Radiation Work Permits and Standard Operating Procedures are not being Implemented as written and are continuously being violated. Management Is knowingly allowing these violations to continue. (Concern Details and Comments Field worker union laborers were pulling soil samples without HP supervision resulting In cross contaminatJon and fallilng 1 frisk-out of Radiologically Controlled Areas/Radiologically Managed Areas (RCA/RMA)as per (RWP 002011-001) Including b1

 , drivers entering and exltln the RCA RMAs. Sa

• lab In a ut b (b )(7)(C) les r t thj~HP Thef b )(7)~~~ _ _

ch~~k a:'."' and w:: befoa carde~to the mobll lJ with no Rae training no.!.!!9..!?e on e wor perm or s gn- n s ee w c was o serve y t ree HP's lncludlng a Tetra Te?Tr--()(, _SL!pervlsorl..:..J.yas also observed drinking a soft drink within the RCA/ AMA and collecting soll sample containers without frisking. Once thei(b}/7}/C} t knows the Navy or NRC Is on site, the workers are notified of the Inspection during the 7:30 am meetln s to curtail an non essential activities and o erate as er rocedure. No records ot her than testimony from other senior HPs In RSY-4 and RSY-2 1-_,.......,..........................................-,.~ HP i.;....;..;....;..;......;..._ _ _ _ _ ____.

~ ~ ~+--............_......,__, HP AWS Supervisor                                                                               '

(b )(7)(C) _ upervlso1(b}(7)(C) _

• J, APM ..__

What Is the potential safety Impact? Is this an ongoing concern? ls it an immediate safety or security concem1 ,r the concern Is

       . n Immediate and/or ongoing concern. the Issue must be promptly called in to your Branch Chief.

Residual radioactivity (Is not an Immediate safety concern) These non-compliance activities are on-going. Was the concern brought to management's attention? Was It entered Into t e Corrective Actions Program (CAP)? What actions have been taken? If not, why not? W at requirement/regulation governs t Is concern? License Tie-Down Conditions, Procedural Violations, 10 CFR 20.1902, 10 CFR 20.1301 HARRASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION (H&I) Regu atlons prohl it NRCJ,censees, contractors, &su ontractors from discriminating against, rassing, or int/mi atlng Individuals who engage In protected actl\tities (alleging violations of regulatory requirements, refusing to engageIn practices unlawful by statutes, etc.). Does the concern involve discrimination orH&I? lf"No,"proceedtopage2. r Yes Ci' No Was the individual advised of the DOL process? (': Yes Ce' No jWhat was the protected activity? When did It occur? jWho in managment/supervislon was aware of the protected activity? When and how were they made aware?

   !What adverse actions have been taken (termination~ demotion~ etc)? When? What Wills man~ement's reason for action?

Page 3 of7 Allegation Receipt Form Allegation Number: RIV-2011-A- !Why does the alleger believe the actions were taken as a result of engaging In a protected activity?

Page 4 of7 Allegation Receipt Form Allegation Number: RIV-2011 -A-

                                     ~..m ~Ul)dlto_<<!.,~!

GENERAL INFORMATION: CONCERN# 2 I Concern (one or two sentences): The Cl (senior Health Physicist) was terminated by Aleut Solu}i_'?ns, a sub-contractor for Tetra Tech, for raising safety concerns. The Cl feels the reason for the lay off was because~e),ad raised concerns one too many times. jConcem Details and Comments The reason given was that Tetra Tech needed to down size the number of Health Physicists by two, as requested by the navi contract (CT0-04). The Cl has worked at hunters point for 6.5 years worked and as an HP for nine years. The Cl stated

     There Is a ~llllng effect at Tetra Tech. If the RSO was fired for raising non-compliance issues what would they do me?@,

stated that!!'3was prohibited from speaking to the Tetra Tech RSO who has since been fired.

  /What records, aocuments, or other evidence should the NRC review?

No records other than testimony from other senior Health Physicists working in In RSY-4 and RSY-2 See Concern #1

  !What other individuals (witnesses or other sources) could the NRC contact for Information?

See Concern #1 What Is t e potential safety mpact7 Is t Is an ongoing concem7 Is tan Immediate sa ety or security concern? If the concern Is on Immediate and/or ongoing concern, the Issue must be promptlycalled In to your Branch Chief. See concern #1 Was the concern brought to management's attention? Was It entered Into the Corrective Actions Program (CAP)? What actions have been taken? If not, why not? Yes. jWhat requirement/regulation governs this concem7 10CFR30.7 HARRASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION (H&I) Regulations pro I It RC lcensees, contractors, & su contractors from iscriminating against, arasslng, or Int mldotfng n M uafs w o engage fn protected activities (alleging violations ofregulatory requirements, refusing to engage In practices unlawful by statutes, etc.). Does the concern Involve discrimination or H&I? lf"No, "proceed to page 2. r. Yes r No Was the Individual advised of the OOL process? C. Yes r No

 !What was the proteded activity? Wfien did It occur7 The Cl raised the concern that radiation decontamination Surveys, soil sample collection, and sample preparation was not being performed whkh was contrary to established procedure$, She also stated that there were exposures to a member of
   ,m~LL111w.c.-....1:t..1t.Jii1111W~.a.u~=aiLU:lti..i11.1111:Jcu:::.LD&t.1LD.w.tL1.JLD.ll~11.1:.1~u:i.w;i..£11u.uCA.LD.ii1.1111U1~to the mobile lab b y the ;'

(b )(7)(C) with no Rad training nor 1igne on e wor permit or HP sign-In sheet which was observed by three HP's Including a Tetra Tech supervisor. The procedures for the NRC licensees working these sites commit to establishing and Implementing procedures relative to radiological controls and radiation safety. The last time sh d non~compliance was December 2, 2011 .~he was notified on December 9, 2011 of the termination ho In managment/supervlslon was aware oft e protected activity? When and ow were they made aware7 {b)(7)(C) he Cl Immediate supervisor. The Cl informed the supervisor numerous times on numerous occasions. He respon e y saying "I can't do anything about it".

 /What adverse actions have been taken (termfnatlon, demotion, etc)? When? What was management's reason for action?

Management's reason was that the a was terminated because of reduction in force. The termination effective date will be n-,........,._.. ,.:. .,n, ,*

I/fl Page 5 of7

,~****-..~. Allegation Receipt Form

'\~,j

 ~Y~l               Allegation Number: RIV-2011 *A*

• o* "- fonn last updr JOQll/1 J t

    -Concern # 1 & µ. Also In th"ep; (b ){7 )(C)        ~he O's supervisor told h~ not~ speak t~ urt Bowe~ former RSO Tetra Tech) because ~owe~ would attempt to fix non-compliance issues. And,\_!oWeijwas fl red for raising safety concerns (actlv 01 Investigation) \

• Page6of7 Allegation Receipt Form Allegation Number: RIV-2011-A-

                               ~om,i..1~:10/2~'.)

GENERAL INFORMATION: CONCERN# 3 I Concern (one or two sentences): Equipment and Individuals are entering and exiting RCA/RMAs without proper radioactive contamination surveys to releas, for unrestricted use. Concern Detatls and Comments No records other than testimony from other senior Health Physicists working In In RSY-4 and RSY-2 See Concern #1 [What other Individuals {witnesses or other sources) could the NRC contut for tnformation7 See Concern #1 What Is the potentla safety Impact? Is this an ongo ng concern7 Is It an Immediate safety or security concem7 / t e concern Is an Immediate and/or ongoing concern, the Issue must be promptly called In to your Branch Chief. Residual radioactivity (Is not an immediate safety concern) These non-<ompliance activities are on-going. as the concern brought to management's attention? Was it entered Into the Corrective Actions Program (CAP)? What actions have been taken? If not, why not? Yes and corrective actions have been taken other than firings. The last tim she reported non-compliance was Decembe 2, 2011 She as notified on December 9, 2011 of the termination. license Tie-Down Conditions, Procedural Violations, 10 CFR 20.1902, 10 CFR 20.1301 HARRASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION (H&I) Regu atlons pro I It NRC kensees, contractors, & subcontractors rom d,scrimlnotlng ago nst, arasslng, or lntlmidotmg in ividua s w o engage In protectedactivities (alleging violations of regulatory requirements. refusing to engage In practices unlawful by statutes, etc.). Does the concern Involve discrimination or H&l? lf*No, "proceed to page 2. r, Yes r._. No Was the individual advised of the DOL process? 0 Yes Ci' No

 !What was the protected activity? When did It occur?
 !Who In managment/supervlsion was aware of the protected activity? When and how were they made aware?
 !What adverse actions have been taken (termination, demotion, etc}? When? What was management's reason for action?
 !Why does the alleger believe the actions were taken as a result of engaging In a protected activity?

Page 7 of7 Allegation Receipt Form Allegation Number: RIV-2011 -A-ALLEGATION INFORMATION Allegatlon Received by: l8JPhoneNoice Mail OLetter OEmail 0Fax Qin-Person Olnspection CJOther (describe): Was this allegation identified by the NRC or a licensee acrlng In their official capacity? ('Yes r No ALLEGER INFORMATION Full Name: Susan Andrews Emall: Telephone: (b)(7)(C) cell (main number) Malling Address: !' Lb_)-(7-)-( C_) _ _ _ _ _ __J-- - - - - - I(b)(7)(C) hom Employer: Aelut World Solutions Occupation:  ;;;. S.;:;. e::.:c n:.:: lo::.:cr..:.H::.:cP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

  , Relatlonshlp to Facllity:           18JLicensee Employee              OPrlvate Citizen                0State Agency O Former Llcensee Employee        ONewsMedia                      OMunlclpal                     Government 0Contractor Employee              0Speclal Interest Group         OFed/              State/Local      Govt Employee O Former Contractor Employee      OOther    Federal   Agency      001           DIG               Confidential Source OOther (describe):

ALLEGER PREFERENCE FOR FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE Contact by: 18JTelephone Best time to contact: Between _,s ,.____ (' (i'pm 1o___ am and ..;...;;; (' am Ce pm OPostal Service OEmall or~ Between _ __ ('am and ('am ('pm - - - - ('pm Other Requests/Comments: LICENSEE INFORMATION REQUEST & INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY PROTECTION paint at concerns are discuss or in rmation ,s requeste rom t e censee, t ea legers t entity w/1 not e revea e . 7i Is contact Is necessary for the NRC to conduct our independent evaluation for the concerns. If the concerns are an agreement state Issue or the Jurisdiction ofanother agency, explain that we will transfer the concern to the appropriate party. Ifthe a/legeragrees, we may provide the alle r's Iden ti for follow-u . Does the allege, OBJECT to the NRC requesting information from the licensee to support an evaluation? Ci' Yes (' No Does the alleger OBJECT to the release of their Identity? Explain in certain situations (ie: dlscrlmlnatfon coses), their identity will need to be released in order for the NRC to obtain specific and related fnformatlon from the licensee. r Yes Ci'No ADDITIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION NRC Headquarters Department of Labor HOO (Immediate Safety Concerns): 1-301-816-5100 Main Call Center: 1-866-4-USA-DOL (M-F, 8am-5pm) Non-emergency Toll-Free Hotline*: 1-800-695-7403 http://www.dol.gov "This hotline is not recorded from 7am-5pm Eastern. Discrimination/Wage/Back-Pay Issues: 1-866-487-9243 After hours, this calf wlll be transferred to a recorded line. TIY for all DOL Issues: 1-877-889-5627 RIV Allegations OSHA Hotline: 1-800-952-9677 ext. 245 1-800-32 1-0SHA Regional Offices: Fax:1-817-276-6525 http://www.osha.gov/htrnl/RAmap.html Email: R4Allegation@nrc.gov

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:45 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: -*"*"*Sensative Allegation Material*****'"' Attachments: Rl-2011-A-0113#2ARB.repanel.docx; 2011 -A-0138.rev1 .ARB.docx From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:44:47 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

0 ****sensative Allegation Material******* Auto forwarded by a Rule Attached are rev 1 of the ARB disposition forms for 113 and 138. Only minor editing, no real changes to the concerns or dispositions. Steve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 610-337-5399

Johnson, Sharon From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 4:56 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; Hammann, Stephen; Modes, Kathy; Roberts. Mark: _ R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE _ ~

Subject:

RE: SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE - FW* Susan Andtews Attachments: Rl-2011-A-0113#2AR8Disposition.docx - The only new allegation here is that the Cl was fired for raising safety concerns and participating in another Jetra Tech employees discrimination suit. Attached is an ARB disposition form for that new allegation.

• Mark or Steve please add this to the panel on Wednesday. This is No. 2 on Kathy's list.

From: McFadden, John Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 8:38 AM To: Ferdas, Marc Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McFadden, John; Hammann, Stephen; Modes, Kathy; Roberts, Mark; Masnyk Balley, Orysfa

Subject:

RE: SENSffiVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE - FW1 Susan Andrews Marc This Cl provided two concerns to 01 on 10/27/2011 (Rl-2011-A-0113) which were acknowledged in a Jetter dated 11/17/2011 . Via emails received on 11/21/2011, this Cl provided an additional 19 concerns (still Rl-2011-A-0113). The Cl's letter with the "Comments* listed on the right-hand side of the pages is the additional information provided to 01 on 12/10/2011 . It appears that this additional information includes at least a claim of discrimination. We need your Branch to check the Cl's letter for any other additional concerns. Rick is out today but will be back in the office Monday. I will be out of the office next week so all emails should be sent to R1Allegation Resource. I believe that Rick intends to handle this additional information/concerns in Rl-2011-A-01 13. Rick will decide if a supplemental allegation receipt report is required but an ARB for the additional concerns is a certainty. I believe that paneling the new discrimination concern and any additional technical concerns on Wednesday 12/21/2011 with 01 in attendance would be sufficient and appropriate. If there are any questions, please call. Jack X5257 From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:50 PM To: McFadden, John; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; Hammann, Stephen; Modes, Kattn'.:; Roberts, Mark

Subject:

RE: SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE - FW * .<:;usan Andrews Rick/ Jack, Is this the additional information that the Cl stated they would provide? If so should we draft a receipt report and ARB form? Looks like regional council will need to make a prima facia case? Please advise? Also, we will need to panel this soon. We have an inspection planned for early Jan 2012 and need to know if we should continue to pursue or await for 0 1. Branch 4 , Based on response on questions above, will need to get the paper work in ASAP. thx

M o. r-c S . F e l"d o.s Chief, Decommissioning Branch (NRC/Region 1/DNMS) Marc.Ferdas@nrc.gov 610-337-5022 (wl !(b )(7)(C) From: McFadden, John Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:02 PM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; Mcfadden, John; Ferd~ Marc .,.

Subject:

SENSmVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE i_FW: Susan Andrews . SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                                       - - - WARNING - - -

SE ITIVE ALLEGA N ATERIA THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT CONTA MATERIAL WHICH MAY RELATE TO AN OFFICIAL NRC INQUIRY OR ES ATION WHICH MAY BE EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE P SUANT TO NE OR MORE PARTS OF TITLE 10, CODE OF FEDERAL REG TIONS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY SPECIAL HANDLING REQUIRED WHEN N LONGER NEEDED, DISPOSE OF THE ATTACHED DOC ENT IN A SENS VE UNCLASSIFIED WASTE RECEPTACLE OR BY DESTRO A MEANS THAT CAN PREVENT RECONSTRUCTION IN WHOLE ART. SEE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 12.5 FOR INSTRUCTIONS DELETING SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL FROM ELECTRONIC STORAGE MEDIA.

AC TO INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS LIMITED TO STAFF AS REQUIRED BRIEFING AND RESOLUTION. DIS E OF INFORMATION TO UN RIZED PERSONS IS P ED Orysia This is related to the email which I sent on 12/13 (attached). Please review the attached letter from the Cl for any additional technical concerns other than the claim of discrimination. If you have any questions, please call me. Thanks. Jack 610.337.5257 From: Urban, Richard Sent : Tuesday, December 131 2011 8:56 AM To: McFadden, John 1

Subject:

FW: Susan Andrews From~(b)(?)(C) sent : Monday, December 12, 201110:35 AM

ro: Urban, Richard

    ~ ubject: FW: Susan Andrews See below
                                                                                *I From : !(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Saturda December 10, 2011 10:53 AM To : (b)(7)(C) Hello, i (b)(7)(C) I This is Susan Andrews fro~ (b)(7)(C) lwe talked in my home on October 26, 2011 about my concern at Hunters Point Shipyard Project. I got a letter from Richard Urban regarding my concerns. I'm mailing him additional information on this subject matter. am also attaching you a copy of what I am mailing to him. I also way informed bv my Tetra Tech supervisort(b)(?)(C) ~. on Friday, December 9, 2011 that I was being laid-off on December 16, 2011 . . Thanks for all your help in this matter, Susan Andrews (b)(7)(C)

Urban Richard From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 4:53 PM To: Teator, Jeffrey Cc: Urban, Richard; Roberts, Mark

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0019 - Tetra Tech Importance: High Jeff Mark Roberts has asked if the 01 interview transcript (1-2012-002) can be provided to Orysia Masnyk-Bailey for review. Orysia's official work duty station is her residence and that is where this document would have to go. Rl-2011-A-0019 and 1-2012-002 Thanks Shio*on 1.-Aw lohn~on A(lefJtlltion ~~i~ttllnf 610-*r:37-S374

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 2:43 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 2:43:25 PM To: McNamara, Nancy; Tifft, Doug Cc: Modes, Kathy; Hammann, Stephen; Roberts, Mark; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Auto forwarded by a Rule During a panel for Allegation r1-2011-A-0113, a safety issue came up and the panel determined that the concern should be referred to the OSHA office that can address a safety concern at Hunters Point, CA, a Navy Base Relocation and Closure site with exclusive Federal jurisdiction. The concerned individual stated that there ahs been an increase in occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point. Examples given were that Tetra Tech employees, a contractor at Hunters Point, were told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using their cell phones or radios while driving. From: McNamara, Nancy Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:58 PM To: Masnyk Balley, Orysla

Subject:

OHSA referral Hi Orysia. I will be at a conference this week and then on leave. Please send the OSHA referral information that you and I discussed last week to Doug Tifft. Doug is the other SLO and can handle it for you. I told him to expect the information from you.

Regards, Nancy

Johnson, Sharon From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11 :14 AM To: Roberts, Mark Cc: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Attachments: LNavylGreferral.doc; Tl11-14&30-2011arb1 .docx; 20110113arb2.docx Mark, this determinE:d to not be an allegation because we don't have jurisdiction. The ARB disposition forms are attached. This Is# 10 on Kathy's list. This refers the issues to the Navy IG for both forms. There is a mistake on the forms since No. 2 from R1-2011-A-0113 goes to OSHA not the IG. If this look OK and we get Enclosure 2 we can start concurrence. Karl may have already spoken to the Navy IG. I have attached the referral letter to the IG for Lorson's signature. I have Enclosure 1 but Allegations needs to give us Enclosure 2 which will be Navy to NRC letter dated June 23, 2010 in response to our RFI for R1-2010-A-0020. Sharon, could you please send mark an electronic copy of that letter so we can add it as an enclosure. Thanks.

G:\ora\alleg\panel\Tt11-14&30-2011 arb1 .docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-XXXX Branch Chief (AOC): Ferdas Site/Facility: Treasure Island, CA - Navy BRAC site ARB Date: 12/5/2011 Confidentiality Granted: No Concern(s) Discussed: None of the concerns have a security component: (1) The concerned individual (Cl) understands that NRC now has jurisdiction over radium-226 and questions if NRC has been made aware of the lack of proper site radiological characterization at Treasure Island. Also, prior NRC licenses at the site authorized large quantities of cesium-137. The lack of proper site characterization could be masking the presence of cesium contamination at the site. The Cl is concerned that NRC has failed to notify potentially impacted residents of Treasure Island about radium 226 contamination at Site 31, and asks that we do so "without delay". (2) The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Treasure lsland/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project, presented to and approved by the Board of Supervisors, "deliberately minimized areas impacted with radionuclides." This document apparently characterizes the site as having contamination "isolated to a small portion of Site 12 and Building 233" and does not include areas 30, 31 , and 33, where contamination has been found . The submitted EIR supports a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) which has been disputed by the California Department of Public Health. (3) The contractor at Treasure Island, Shaw Environmental, engages in "highly questionable remediation activities", including lack of proper data about test trenches and backfilled areas, waste shipments, waste profiles, holding spots, waste receiving facilities, high-level waste, and site characterization. As evidence, the Cl offers the fact that Shaw Environmental has been issued numerous violations by California and has been asked to change many of its radiological practices. (4) There is a lack of evidence that only short lived radionuclides were used at a training mock up of a ship, the USS Pandemonium, or that the two locations where the ship stood were properly surveyed. (5) Soil movement at Treasure Island has led to the spread of contamination to non-impacted areas of Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island; consequently the Bay Bridge on/off ramps and historical properties on Yerba Buena Island should be surveyed. (6) Questions the ongoing groundwater monitoring at Treasure Island since radium-226 has been found in wells in parts of Site 12. (7) There are ongoing problems with decommissioning at Treasure Island, CA, with concerns that the site has not been properly characterized, decommissioned, or released. (8) The 2006 Treasure Island Historical Radiological Assessment (HRA) is inaccurate in that it indicated that there were no radiologically impacted sites at Treasure Island and was not been updated when radioactive contamination and discrete radioactive sources were found. This HRA was found to be "flawed" by California. Work plans are based on this inaccurate document. (9) The Cl has particular concerns about Site 31: the potential radiological impact of Site 31 has been ignored; dirt excavated from within the fenced area of the site is significantly contaminated with radionuclides, in particular radium 226; no radiological controls were in place during past fieldwork in C':*- ~~ * --.-1 *i..- ..,;..,....i -""'" "'"'""' ,.i;.,.+~;h, ,+orl ,..nnh:,min<>tinn tn ,:an ,:arli.:al"""nt r.hilrl n ...\li:>lnnmPnt r.PntPr

G :\ora\alleg\panel\Tl11-14&30-2011arb1 .docx ( 10) Treasure Island has not been properly characterized for possible radiological contamination. ( 11) Radium buttons were distributed to thousands of attendees of the 1939 World's Fair, which may be the source of some of the radium found at the site. (12) The Navy has failed to timely follow through on surveys, screening, and sampling of known debris disposal areas such as Site 31 . Does alleger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? Unknown ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES Chair: Collins Branch Chief: Ferdas SAC: Urban 01: Richart RI Counsel: Farrar Others: Masnyk Bailey, McFadden, R Johnson (FSME), T Stokes (OGC), Seeley DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet, If Applicable) NIA _ __ RFI _ __ Inspection or Investigation Both Transfer to Navy Inspector General DISPOSITION ACTIONS

1. Letter to Cl. Explain that NRC jurisdiction over radium and BRAC sites is under review and that these concerns will be referred to the Navy IG (concern 1).

Responsible Person: Ferdas/Urban ECO: 12/31/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed: 2 . Contact NRC IG to forward concerns to Navy IG. Responsible Person: Ferdas/Masnyk Bailey ECO: 1/12/2012 Closure Documentation: Completed:

3. Draft memo for Navy IG referring concerns 2

• 12, attach Navy response to R1-2010-A-0020 addressing similar issues Responsible Person: Ferdas/Masnyk Bailey ECO: 1/12/2012 Closure Documentation: Completed:

SAFETY CONCERN: Potential for radioactive contamination and/or sources to be released offsite or site improperly .released for unrestricted use. PRIORITY OF QI INVESTIGATION: RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 01/DOUDOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement? When did the potential violation occur?

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb2.docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-0113 Branch Chief (AOC): M. Ferdas Site/Facility: Tetra-Tech, Hunters Point, CA Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: 12/5/2011 Confidentiality Granted: No Concern(s) Discussed: None of the concerns has a security component. These concerns were gleaned from a series of emails exchanged between a current and a former Tetra-Tech employee. These emails were forwarded by the CA Labor Commission to NRC 01. This is additional information provided by the Cl for R1 -2011 -A-0113. These allegations are similar to others received about radiological work practices at Navy decommissioning sites. Most of the other allegations have been about contractors working at sites with concurrent Agreement State/NRC jurisdiction, where NRC cedes its authority to the Agreement State. Hunters Point is under exclusive Federal Jurisdiction so NRC has sole authority.

1. Chain of Custody (CoC) documents have been falsified.

Cl states that "someone" was falsely signing CoC sample forms for "someone else", evidenced by wrong handwriting and misspelling of name.

2. There has been an Increase In occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point.

Staff is told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using cell phone or radio while driving. State OSHA does not have jurisdiction at Federal site.

3. Radiation safety training for Radiation Technicians (RTs) Is lacking or Inadequate.

4. The!(b)(7)(C) Irefused to allow a b 7 c to dlscl line a (b)(?)(C)

ICb)£WC) I for failure to take a required test. The (b)(7)(C) sa

                                                                                             '--,--...---.........,..y_in

_g___..J there will be "no write ups of anyone".

5. Laborers are handling potentially contaminated soil without proper training and certification by processing soil samples for the lab. They have been observed working without wearing required gloves. In August 2010 laborers were surveying and sampling soil on the soil pads.

6. Production over safety.

RTs are told to work quickly so as not to slow down remediation work. Tetra Tech work practices are "construction dominated," with production taking precedence over radiation safety. 7 . Inaccurate labeling. Some RTs have entered inaccurate information on radioactive waste storage bags because they do not understand their instruments. There has been confusion about the use of R0-20 meters.

8. Incorrect calibrated survey meters.

Some meters have not been calibrated correctly.

9. Inaccurate records.

Some survey records are corrected, when a mistake is made, by whiting out the mistake, correcting it, and then photo copying the form.

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb2.docx Source storage locations have not always been posted or secured. On at least one occasion a RT was told to "hide it and lock up and go about my work".

11. Improper area monitoring.

TLDs have not always been located correctly on poles. The Cl opines that they may be shielded or not placed at the right height, but are not located on the posting pole.

12. Incorrect license.

The wrcmg individual is named as the authorized user on a posted materials license.

13. Incorrect work area postings.

A supervisor attempted to alter the radiation work area postings to allow laborers to remove a pipe. The C l did not allow this to occur.

14. Improper contamination controls.

Laborers removed a pipe from a radiation controlled area without the pipe being frisked for contamination. The Cl questions what happens when other RTs are on duty.

15. Improper access control to radioactive material.

A Tetra Tech employee brings (b)(7)(C) t~ work . The J(b)(?)(C) !has been seen moving potentially contaminate samp es, en enng an eaving a radiation controlled area without frisking, and drinking soda within a radiation controlled area. The employee intimidates other employees who question this practice by virtue ofL..l<b_)_(?_H_c_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....J

16. Inadequate RWP controls.

Personnel not always signing in and out on Radiation Work Permits, and sometimes failing to frisk themselves when leaving radiation controlled areas. Disparate discipline is applied for violators. This was previously brought to the attention of the NRC and will be addressed In an Inspection In January 2012 (R1 - 2011-A-0113)

17. Inadequate RT training.

A Senior RT is not adequately trained . This was previously brought to the attention of the NRC and will be addressed in an inspection in January 2012 (R 1- 2011-A-0113)

18. Concerns at another site (Alameda).

The Cl states "According to XX they have lots of "real" problems over there . Not just little HR problems like here." This refers to Alameda , another Navy decommissioning site in California. Alameda is under concurrent Agreement State/Federal jurisdiction. California and the Navy have Jurisdiction. (b)(7)(C)

19. Falsification of time sheets.

The Cl implies that employees are falsifying their time sheets, "... why do they let aand[ ] leaveearly and sometimes even add more OT to their time sheet.. .". *-._ Does alieger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? Unknown at this time. (b)(?)_(C) ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES Chair: Collins Branch Chief: M. Ferdas SAC: Urban 01: Richart RI Counsel: Farrar Others: Masnyk Bailey, Robert Johnson (FSME), T Stokes (OGC), McFadden, Seeley, M Roberts

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb2.docx DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet. If Applicable} NIA _ __ RFI _ __ Inspection or Investigation L Both DISPOSITION ACTIONS 1 Status letter to Cl. DB to provide Enclosure to status letter. Responsible Person: Ferdas ECO: Dec 30, 2011 Closure Documentation: Completed: 2 . Perform inspection of Tetra Tech (Concerns 1 and 3-17) Responsible Person: Ferdas/Masnyk Bailey ECO: Jan 13, 2012 Closure Documentation: Completed:

3. Refer concerns to OSHA and Navy IG (Concerns 2)

Responsible Person: Tifft ECO: 12/31/201 1 Closure Documentation: Completed: 4 . Refer concerns to Navy IG (Concerns 2, 18 and 19). Work with NRC IG. Responsible Person: Urban/Ferdas ECO: 12/31/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: Inadequate radiation safety and decommissioning practices could lead to the spread of contamination and inappropriate release of contaminated facilities and grounds for unrestricted use. PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 0/IDOUDOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement? When did the potential violation occur? NOTES: This should be treated as an update to Rl-2011-A-0113 and a status letter with the additional concerns should be issued to the Cl. In the enclosure letter remember to include the following as a response to the issue: Concern 6 - Allegation Office provide "boiler plate" language concerning production over safety. Concern 18 - Allegation Office provide boiler plate" language that issues should be provided to CA and Navy IG. Provide contact information. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

                                                                                                             /

McFadden, John From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 8:08 AM To: McFadden, John; Urban, Richard Cc: Modes, Kathy; Roberts, Mark

Subject:

RE: SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSj; -fuE: Susan Andrews H & I against Tetra TectQ : "" There may be a misunderstanding here. I already told Rick we would not be able to review the 114 page Cl transcript until the middle of next week. Any additional concerns would not be on a panel for the 21 51. From: McFadden, John Se,~: Fridal, December 16, 2011 2: 12 PM I To:U>)(7)(C_ Cc: R1ALLEGATION RES0URc~ (b)(7)(C) Masnyk Bailey, Orysla IFerdas, Marc; Hammann, Stephen; Modes, Kathy; Roberts, Mark;

Subject:

SENSITTVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE - RE: Susan Andrews H 8r. I against Tetra Tech SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFO-DO NOT DISCLOSE l'b )(?)(C) I The Cl left a voice message for Rick Urban on 12/12/2011 stating tha{§!he was going to be laid off on 12/16/2011 so we already aware of that: An acknowledgement letter for two concerns received by you on 10/27/2011 were acknowledged in a letter dated 11/17/2011 . The nineteen additional concerns which were provided via emails Which were forwarded by 01 to RI Allegations on 11/22/201 1 were paneled on 12/05/2011 but have not yet acknowledged via a status letter. The email and attachment from the Cl in your email of 12/12/2011 to Rick Urban has not yet been thoroughly reviewed by DNMS for concern content but apparently contains at least a claim of alleged discrimination. This latest information from the Ci is scheduled to be paneled on 12/2112011 , and any identified concerns would be communicated to the Cl via a subsequent status letter If you have any questions, please call. Jack X5257 From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Friday, December 16, 20111:12 PM To: McFadden, John

Subject:

FW: Susan Andrews H & I against Tetra Tech FYI From: !(b)(?)(C) ;;; Sent: Friday, December 16, 201112:02 PM T,.., 1 lrh,:,n D irk:.,-A* 1"kncnn t;h::.rnn

Good morning - f: I just received a call frorriBert Bowertlequesting that I let\§ysan Andrews know that we are aware that she has been given a lay off cfate by Tetra ~ch out at Hunters PointJ t ~dahiiiv aware tha(§@has been in touch and we would follow up, becaust1).~ said th~eels that1S_b~is ~a" of being hung out to dry , so to speak. Has an acknowledgment letter b~ent t~~~9yet? Alsohasl!h:Jreceived any correspondence from the NRC advising that we are aware that E::,Js set tot5e laid off? r )(? )(C) 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region-I Fleld Office 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

!(b)(7)(C)      I Direct
 .p.10-337-5131 Fax =- <
                                        -==

l(b)(?)(C)

Johnson, Sharon

                                                                                       /

From: nttt. Doug Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:23 AM To: Johnson, Sharon; Hammann, Stephen

Subject:

RE: Rl-2011 -A-0113 - Hunter's Point Attachments: OSHA Referral.dot Steve, Attached is the OSHA referral form you can use to put down the details of the OSHA issues. I also will need contact information (name, phone number, address) for the company Thanks,

-Doug From: Johnson, Sharon sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:04 AM To: Hammann, Stephen Cc: Tifft, Doug

Subject:

Rl-2011-A-0113 - Hunter's Point Importance: High FYI Steve At the 12/5/2011 ARB there were actions assigned to refer to OSHA and Navy IG. Please coordinate with Doug and send us email when referrals to OSHA and Navy IG are completed. Thanks Shc::..l'on }..Aw Joh~on ,A:tlegAtion ,A:4d.i4tAnt 610-337-,374 1

APPENDIX A NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS DATA SHEET PART I -ISSUE NRC Licensee/ I Name: I I License or Docket No.: Certificate Holder I Facility (if aoollcable) I I Description of Issue: How Issue was identified: Licensee representative informed:

-Name Title Date Licensee Comments:

Other oersons Informed: lnsoector's sianature Telephone Number Date Part II - FOLLOW-UP Descriotlon of immediate corrective actlons taken If anv: Inspector's slanature Telephone Number Date Part Ill - OSHA CONTACT OSHA Informed: YES / NO Date Informed: Office/ Person Contacted: _ _ OSHA Office: Date: Telephone No. _ _ NRC OSHA Liason Officer Issue Date: 02/11/04 A-1 1007, Appendix A

D(8) Urban Richard From: Daly, Catherine@DIR [CDaly@dir.ca.govJ Sent: Monday, December 12. 201 1 11 :33 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE* Request for Correspondence It's not a problem with me.

                                     ,,- ~

[sh~just got fired s@~will soon be one of our claimants. The same goes foitlJe.J coworker.

• I've told the company they must reinstate the original plaintiffs[ Bert Bowers and j<bU?)(C) I by January 9, 2012. Otherwise, I will recommend the California State Labor Commissione order their reinstatement. The recommendation, especially with these facts, is proforma.

I approached the NRC because I wanted to ensure I did not interfere with any upcoming federal enforcement action. Catherine S. Daly Depu ty Labor Commissioner Reta lintion Compl.iint Unit 455 Golden Gate Ave 10th Floor Ease San Francisco, ('A 94102 cdaly@dic ca.,gov (415) 703-4841 (lelepllone) {415) 703-4130 (fax) From: Urban, Richard (mailto:Richard.Urban@nrc.gov] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 8:26 AM To: Daly, Catherine@DIR

Subject:

Request for Correspondence

Dear Ms. Daly,

This e-mail is in response to your conversation with !(b)(?)(C) !office of Investigations, regarding your re uest to receive correspondence from the NRC involving activities at Hunter's Poir In an e-mail that you provided to (b)(?)(C) on November 21 , 201 1, you passed along a string of e-mail conversations between two indlvi ua s 1nvo vlng alleged improper activities at Hunters Point. We thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. since the NRC Region I Office has jurisdiction over certain activities at Hunter's Point. Alleger identity protection is an important aspect of the NRC's Allegation Program. All reasonable efforts are taken not to disclose an alleger's identity outside the NRC, and an alleger's identity is only revealed within the agency on need-to-know basis. Only in certain circumstances is an alleger's identity revealed outside the agency, and this 1

course of action is not normally taken unless releasing the alleger's identity is necessary to obtain resolution of th1 allegation, or otherwise serves the needs of the agency. In only certain circumstances is correspondence shared between Federal Agencies, such as the NRC and the Department of Labor (DOL). For example, the NRC and DOL are entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of the MOU is to facilitate coordination and cooperation concerning the employee protection provisions of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U .S.C. 5851. Both agencie~ agree that administrative efficiency and sound enforcement policies will be maxim ized bv this cooperation and the timely exchange of information in areas of mutual interest. Since it appears that you have ~~ound relationship with the individual, iBsh~ is agreeao,e, you may obtain correspondence directly frorrfr_~ Thank you for your understanding an'cfcc5'operation in this matter Sincerely, Richard J, Urban Sr. Allegation Coordinator Region I, US NRC 2

Urban, Richard From: l(b)(7)(C) I Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:35 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

r Fw: Susan Andrews Attac hments: L§usanAndrewstoNRCRlchardUrban121011 docx , See below

'From {                                    (h)?~c ,

5ent: Saturday, December 10, 20t1 10:53 AM To:l<b}(Z)(Cl l

Subject:

Susan Andrews_ Hell (b)(7)(C) . !his is Susan Andrews fromc_ l l(b~)~(7~)~ (C~)=-- - - - - - - - - -1lwe talked In my home on October 2011 ou my concern at Hunters Point Shlpybro ProJect. I got a letter from Richard Urban regarding my concerns. I'm mailing him additional Information on this subject matter. I am , attaching you a copy of what I am mailing to him (b)(7)(C) I also way informed by my Tetra Tech supervisor on ~day, December 9, 2011 that I was being laid-off on December 16, 2011

-Thanks for all your help in this matter, Susan Andrews

.(b)(7)(C) l \

CONC[R,,,~ lJ!:_;*- - - - - - - - - - - - (b)(5) (b)(5) (b)(5) Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:32 AM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: Hunters Point (Tetra Tech) Rl-2011-A-0113 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO From: Urban, Richard Sen@~nt 6 ~~ l{bf~~} ::~;;:~~: ~~~1 ! 10:31:51 AM Ferdas, Marc; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

Hunters Point (Tetra Tech) Rl-2011 -A-0113 SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO Auto forwarded by a Rule The Cl left a voice message for me over the weekend(§h~had received our ack letter and said@as more issues to tell us about. Keep in mind that the ack letter only had a couple of concerns and we are since aware of a bunch of new issues that we paneled last week. So hopefully they are the same. However,Ghe said she was told she was going to be laid-off 12/16/11.Jbut(sb_ipelieves it's in retaliation for raising concerns. So it looks like we will have to repanel a prima facie rt a minimum. 1

Urban Richard From: Teator, Jeffrey Sent: Thursday, December OB, 2011 7:18 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

RE: State Cases 23564 and 21491~owersQ v Tetra Tech - (b)(7)tC) I Daly wants correspondence. r b)(7}(C) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region I 475 Allendale Rd (b)(7)(C) ses 23564 and 21491:@owersQ v Tetra Tech

• Could you reply to this e-mail for completeness of the file, that you informed Daly that the NRC would handle these concerns and that she did not want to receive correspondence on this matter. Thanks.

(b)(7)(C) I discussed this issue briefly with Ray at Monday's 0845 am RA meeting and he requested that I forward It to you a The below listed information was provided to me by Catherine Daly, Deputy Labor Commissioner, Retaliation Complaint Unit, State of California. Ms. Daly was provided the information by a Cl who raised similar concerns to 0 1:RI Hb)(7)(C) I during an interview he conducted (of the Cl on a discrimination investigation regarding Tetra-Tech while in CA in late October. The concerns taken by (b)(7) were put into the RI allegation system. "'" (C....;)_ _, Rick, please advise if I need to put into the allegation system, the concerns listed below under the heading "Allegations." r )(? )(C) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region I 475 Allendale Rd 1

G:\ORA\ALLEG\PANEL\20110113arb2.docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2011-A-0113 Branch Chief (AOC): M. Ferdas Site/Facility: Tetra-Tech, Hunters Point, CA Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: 12/5/2011 Confidentiality Granted: No Concern(s) Discussed: None of the concerns has a security component. These concerns were gleaned from a series of emails exchanged between a current and a former Tetra-Tech employee. These emails were forwarded by the CA Labor Commission to NRC 01. This is additional information provided by the Cl for R1-2011-A-0113. These allegations are similar to others received about radiological work practices at Navy decommissioning sites. Most of the other allegations have been about contractors working at sites with concurrent Agreement State/NRC jurisdiction, where NRC cedes its authority to the Agreement State. Hunters Point is under exclusive Federal Jurisdiction so NRC has sole authority.

1. Chain of Custody (CoC) documents have been falsified.

Cl states that "someone" was falsely signing CoC sample forms for "someone else", evidenced by wrong handwriting and misspelling of name.

2. There has been an Increase rn occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point.

Staff is told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using cell phone or radio while driving. State OSHA does not have jurisdiction at Federal site.

3. Radiation safety training for Radiation Technicians (RTs) is lacking or inadequate.

4. The!(b)(?)(C) ~efused to allow a!(b)(?)(C) !to dlsclpllne a ~.... )(_7)_(C--,),---,----'

(b--, ((b)(7)(C~ tor fallure to take a required test. Th1(b)(7)(C) r was overheard saying there will be "no write ups of anyone".

    -5. Laborers are handllng potentially contaminated soil without proper training and certification by processing soil samples for the lab. They have been observed working w ithout wearing required gloves. In August 2010 laborers were surveying and sampling soil on the soil pads.

6. Production over safety.

RTs are told to work quickly so as not to slow down remediation work. Tetra Tech work practices are "construction dominated," with production taking precedence over radiation safety.

7. Inaccurate labeling.

Some RTs have entered inaccurate information on radioactive waste storage bags because they do not understand their instruments. There has been confusion about the use of R0-20 meters.

8. Incorrect calibrated survey meters.

Some meters have not been calibrated correctly.

9. Inaccurate records.

Some survey records are corrected, when a mistake is made, by whiting out the mistake, correcting it, and then photo copying the form.

10. Inadequate postings.

Source storage locations have not always been posted or secured. On at least one occasion a RT was told to "hide it and lock up and go about my work".

11. Improper area monitoring.

TLDs have not always been located correctly on poles. The Cl opines that they may be shielded or not placed at the right height, but are not located on the posting pole.

12. Incorrect license.

The wrong individual is named as the authorized user on a posted materials license.

13. Incorrect work area postings.

A supervisor attempted to alter the radiation work area postings to allow laborers to remove a pipe. The Cl did not allow this to occur.

14. Improper contamination controls.

Laborers removed a pipe from a radiation controlled area without the pipe being frisked for contamination. The Cl questions what happens when other RTs are on duty.

15. Improper access control to radioactive material.

A Tetra Tech employee brings !(b)(7)(C) Ito work. The (b)(?)(C) has been seen moving potentially contaminated samples, entering and leaving a radiation contro ed area without frisking, and drinking soda within a radiation controlled area. The employee intimidates other employees who question this practice by virtue of l(b)(7)(C) I

18. Inadequate RWP controls.

Personnel not always signing In and out on Radiation Work Permits, and sometimes failing to frisk themselves when leaving radiation controlled areas. Disparate discipline is applied for violators. This was previously brought to the attention of the NRC and wlll be addressed In an Inspection In January 2012 (R1 - 2011 -A-0113)

17. Concerns at another site (Alameda).

The Cl states "According to XX they have lots of "real" problems over there. Not Just little HR problems like here." This refers to Alameda, another Navy decommissioning site in California. Alameda is under concurrent Agreement State/Federal jurisdiction. California and the Navy have jurisdiction.

18. Falsification of time sheets.

The Cl implies that employees are falsifying their time sheets, " ... why do they let J and M leave early and sometimes even add more OT to their time sheet. .. ". Does alleger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? Unknown at this time . ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES

   *        .

• fb11 7)(Cl Chair: Collins Branch Chief: M. Ferdas SAC: Urban 01: RI Counsel: Farrar Others: Masnyk Bailey, Robert Johnson (FSME), T Stokes (OGC), McFadden, Seeley, M Roberts

DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet, If Applicable} N/A _ __ RFI _ _ _ Inspection or Investigation L Both DISPOSITION ACTIONS

1. Status letter to Cl. DB to provide Enclosure to status letter.

Responsible Person: Ferdas ECO: Dec 30, 2011 Closure Documentation: Completed:

2. Perform inspection of Tetra Tech (Concerns 1 and 3-16)

Responsible Person: Ferdas/Masnyk Bailey ECO: Jan 13, 2012 Closure Documentation: Completed:

3. Refer concern 2 to OSHA Responsible Person: Tifft ECO: 12/31/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed:

4 . Refer concerns 17 and 18 to Navy IG. Work with NRC IG. Responsible Perso*n: FarrarfTeator ECO: 12/31/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: Inadequate radiation safety and decommissioning practices cou ld lead to the spread of contamination and inappropriate release of contaminated facilities and grounds for unrestricted use. PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION: (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 01/DOUDOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory req uirement? When did the potential violation occur? NOTES: This should be treated as an update to Rl-2011-A-0113 and a status letter with the additional concerns should be issued to the Cl. In the enclosure letter remember to include the following as a response to the issue: Concern 6 -Allegation Office provide "boiler plate" language concerning production over safety. Concern 17/18 -Allegation Office provide boiler plate" language that issues should be provided to CA and Navy IG. Provide contact information. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

G:\ora\alleg\receipt\20110113rcvsupplement.docx Allegation Receipt Report Date Received: 11/21/2011 (Additional information) Allegation No. Rl-2011-A-011: Supplemental Received via: [X] E-mail Employee Receiving Allegation: These concerns were obtained from a series of emails exchanged between a current and a former Tetra-Tech employee. These emails were forwarded by the CA Labor Commission to NRC. These are additional concerns provided by the Cl listed in R 1-2011-A-O113. These allegations are similar to others received about radiological work practices at Navy decommissioning sites. Most of the other allegations have been about contractors working at sites with concurrent Agreement State/NRC jurisdiction, where NRC cedes its authority to the Agreement State. Hunters Point is under exclusive Federal Jurisdiction so NRC has sole authority. (b)(?)(C) Source of Information: (XJ licensee employee Alleger Name: Susan Andrews Home Address: ttome Phone: !(b)(?)(C) I City: (b)(?)(C) Alleger's Employer: Tetra Tech Alleger's Positionrritle: Radiation Technician (RT) Facility: Tetra - Tech at Hunters Point, CA Docket No. or License No.: 29-31396-01 Navy decommissioning site Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of Impropriety or Inadequacy? Yes Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities? Yes Is the validity of the issue unknown? Yes If NO to any of the above questions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for Information, public responsiveness matter, or an OSHA referral). Is there a potential Immediate safety significant issue that requires an Ad-Hoc ARB? No The original allegation receipt form for R1 -2011-A-0113 did not contain the Information needed below. Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy? Yes No N/A If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights? Yes No N/A Did they raise the issue to their management and/or ECP? Yes No N/A Does the alleger object to having their issue(s) forwarded to the licensee? Yes No Provide alleger's verbatim response to this question: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Was confidentiality requested? Yes No Was confidentiality initially granted? Yes No N/A Individual Granting Confidentiality:

G:\ora\alleg\receipt\20110113rcvsupplement.docx Allegation Summary:

1. Chain of Custody (CoC) documents have been falsified.

Cl states that "someone" was falsely signing CoC sample forms for "someone else~, evidenced by wrong handwriting and misspelling of name.

2. There has been an increase in occupational accidents and mistakes at Hunters Point.

Staff is told to work quickly and ignore safety rules about not using cell phone or radio while driving. State OSHA does not have jurisdiction at Federal site.

3. Radiation safety training for Radiation Technicians (RTs) Is lacking or inadequate.

4. refused to allow a !{b)(7)(C) ~ to discipline ~ (b)(?)(C) b 7 c or allure to take a required test. Th~(b)(7)(C) I was o._v_e....,.

rh_e_a-rd- sa_y..,..in_g__, there will be *no write ups of anyone".

5. Laborers are handling potentially contaminated soil without proper training and certification by processing soll samples for the lab. They have been observed working without wearing required gloves. In August 201 O laborers were surveying and sampling soil on the soil pads.

6. Production over safety.

RTs are told to work quickly so as not to slow down remediation work. Tetra Tech work practices are "construction dominated." with production taking precedence over radiation safety.

7. Inaccurate labeling.

Some RTs have entered inaccurate information on radioactive waste storage bags because they do not understand their Instruments There has been confusion about the use of R0-20 meters.

8. Incorrect calibrated survey meters.

Some meters have not been calibrated correctly.

9. Inaccurate records.

Some survey records are corrected, when a mistake is made. by whiting out the mistake, correcting It, and then photo copying the form .

10. Inadequate postings.

Source storage locations have not always been posted or secured. On at least one occasion a RT was told to "hide it and lock up and go about my work".

11. Improper area monitoring.

TLDs have not always been located correctly on poles. The Cl opines that they may be shielded or not placed at the right height, but are not located on the posting pole.

12. Incorrect license.

The wrong individual is named as the authorized user on a posted materials license.

13. Incorrect work area postings.

A supervisor attempted to alter the radiation work area postings to allow laborers to remove a pipe. The Cl did not allow this to occur.

14. Improper contamination controls.

Laborers removed a pipe from a radiation controlled area without the pipe being frisked for contamination. The Cl questions what happens when other RTs are on duty.

15. Improper access control to radioactive material.

G:\ora\afleg\receipt\20110113rcvsupplement.docx A Tetra Tech employee brings !(b}(?)(C) ko work. The !(b)(?)(C) !has been seen moving potentially contaminated samples, entering and' leaving a radiation controlled area without frisking, and drinking soda within a radiation controlled area . The employee intimidates other employees who question this practice by virtue of !(b)(7)(C) I

16. Inadequate RWP controls .

Personnel not always signing in and out on Radiation Work Permits, and sometimes failing to frisk themselves when leaving radiation controlled areas . Disparate discipline is applied tor violators. This was previously brought to the attention of the NRC and will be addressed in an inspection in January 2012 (R1-2011 -A-0113)

17. Inadequate RT training.

A Senior RT is not adequately trained. This was previously brought to the attention of the NRC and will be addressed In an Inspection in January 2012 (R 1- 2011 -A-0113)

18. Concerns at another site (Alameda).

The Cl states "According to XX they have lots of "real" problems over there. Not just little HR problems like here." This refers to Alameda, another Navy decommlsslonlng site in California . Alameda is under concurrent Agreement State/Federal jurisdiction. California and the Navy have jurisdiction. (b)(7)(C)

19. Falsification of time sheets.

The Cl implies that employees are falsifying their time sheets , " .. . why do they let [ )md 0 1eave early and some times even add more OT to their time sheet ... ". . (b)(7)(C) Functional Area : {X) Decommissioning Materials Discipline For Each Concern: (1] Falsification [8, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16] Health Physics [2, 6, 9 J Industrial Safety [3, 5, 7, 17 J Training/qualification [2, 4, 12, 18, 19 ] Other: [4] procedural adherence, (12)materials license posting, (181issues at non-NRC re lated site . and [19) t jme sheet falsjflcatiqn ,

Johnson, Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:48 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: R1-2011 -A-0113Additional Info Attachments: HuntersPointTT ARBDisposition.docx; HuntersPointTT AlllegationReceiptReport.docx From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:48: 10 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

R1-2011-A-0113 Additional Info Auto forwarded by a Rule

  ,.,.SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL - DO NOT DISCLOSE*

• Attached Is an allegation receipt report and ARB form. This should be t reated as additional Information received concerning Rl-2011-A-0113, because the same Cl Is providing the Information and are additional concerns to what was previously paneled.

We would llke to present the concerns at the 12/S ARB to get alignment that OK to Incorporate Into Rl-201l*A-0113 and acceptable to proceed with previo us ARB declslo n. Mo.re S. Ferdas Chief, Decommissioning Branch (NRC/Region l/ONMS) Marc.Ferdas<@nrc.goy

 @0-337-so22 (wl l(b)(7)(C) 1

Johnson, Sharon From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesda November 22, 2011 9:50 AM To: Cc:

Subject:

b 7 C ohnson, haron; lrblG)(Cl RE: State Cases 23564 and 21491 BowersQ t Ferdas, Marc; Welling, Blake; Lorson, Raymond; Collins. Daniel v Tetra Teet\] (b)(7)(F ) l<b)(?)(C) I Actually DNMS needs to look thru this documentation in conjunction with their knowledge of the technical details already supplied by these two allegers to determine if there are needed additions to either alleger's file or new files need to be opened. Marc, I will leave the files out for your staff to review to make this determination. Thanks. FromJ(b)(7)(C) I Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:31 AM To: Ferdas, Marc; Welling, Blake; Lorson Ra mond* Collins, Daniel cc: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; ..........7~ -- .......----.

Subject:

FW: State cases 23564 and 21491: wers Tetra Tectu (b)(?)\C) I discussed this issue briefly with Ray at Monday's 0845 am RA meeting and he requested that I forward It to you all The below listed information was provided to me by Catherine Daly, Deputy Labor Commissioner, Retaliation Complaint Unit, State of Gallfacoia Ms Palv wf s provided the information by a Cl who raised similar concerns to 01:RI !(b)(7)(C) _ during an interview he conducted fof the Cl] on a ...--_,_., discrimination investigation regarding Tetra-Tech while In CA in late October The concerns taken by !(b)(?)(C) ! were put into the Rf allegation system. Rick, please advise If I need to put into the allegation system. the concerns listed below under the heading "Allegations." l(b)(?)(C) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region I 475 Allendale Rd King of Prussia, PA 19406 Office Hb)<Z}(C) I Blackberry (l(b)(?)(C) From: Daly, Catherine@DIR [mailto:CDaly@dir.ca.gov) Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 2:52 PM TolrblrzVCl I ,r-, _

Subject:

State Cases 23564 and 21491:@.owers,LJ...f Tetra TechJ (b)(7)(C)

Dear!<b)(?)(C) I . -..... ,

. -- . . *r - ---, Enclosed p l ~ find the emails from Ms. Andrews),~greed I could pass alon~r name since~he_plready has met with (b)(?)(C) ,...... 1

• I Johnson, Sharon From:  !(b)(7)(C)  !

Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Ferdas, Marc; Welling, Blake; Lol Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:31 AM Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; I C FW: State Cases 23564 and 21491 : Bowers/

                                                                               ~~ullins, Daniel I
                                                                                       ,,,, v Tetra Tech_.

(b)(7)'t.C)

                                                                                           \

I ~iscussed this issue briefly with Ray at Monday's 0845 am RA meeting and he requested that I forward it to you all. The below listed information was provided to me by Catherine Daly, Deputy Labor Commissioner, Retaliation Complaint Unit, State of California. Ms. Daly was provided the Information by a Cl who raised similar concerns to 01:RI !(b)(7)(C) ~uring an interview he conducted [of the Cl] on a discrimination investigation regarding Tetra*Tech while in CA in late October. The concerns taken by!~b)(7) were put into the RI allegation system. . . _c ,._ . . . . Rick, please advise if I need to put Into the allegation system, the concerns listed below under the heading "Allegations." l(b)(7)(C) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region I 475 Allendale Rd King of Prussia PA 19406 Office (b)(7)(C) Blackberry (b)(7)(C) L-------' From: Daly, Catherlne@DIR [mallto:CDaly@dlr.ca.govJ Seat: Moodav To: (b)(7)(C) r November 2J 20ll ":52 PM

Subject:

St.ate Cases 23564 and 21491:@'owerQ Tetra Tech_ (b)(7){C) l(b)(7)(C) Enclosed plea~find the emails from""'M'""'s=*..-. :.,.................__..,.&j§h~greed I could pass along/EeJ name sinc~e_j31ready has met with (b)(?)(C) Althoug s!]e acknowledged employees may be handling relatively lo. levels at radiatio

• e mindset toward igngq~g safet is harde ing.t<bH7)<C)

(b)(7)(C) ecently preventec:tJieryos (b)(?)(C) ro ,....._i-s_ ci_ li-n-in_g_ __ (b)(7)(c)

• taKe r~ujred test and conti~ed insubordination. Sh~p r eard (b)(7)(C~ tellingf~ <7HC) Jeplac ment -

there will be no write-ups of anyo . <~(7) did not object. 1 Allegations listed below include but are not limited to the following:

• Falsified chain of custody documents (including misspelled employee names) 1
• Increase in accidents and mistakes. Instruments books all must be done over.

o This would concern State OSHA but it has no jurisdiction over federal enclave

• Laborers handling soil and pipe without proper training or certification.
• Not posting sources. Hiding TLD.
• Leavin{Bower~name ~P as licensee.
• Moving RAD signs around when they want laborers to perform work.
• People not signing in and out of sites. Disparate discipline for those do violate.

                         *,.     * -                                                                               (b )(7)(C)

• l(b)(?)(C)  !):>ringing !(b)(?)(C) !onsite without permission - allowing O to move samples - drink liquids near site - intimidate fellow employee who questionO l(b)(?)(C) I A s l i k e l y knows Ms. Anorew*~ell phone i~

l(b)(?)(C) h_ (b)(7)(G) lifhis week she is Non Responsive ~ k It You may always reach me at the numbers below. Or my cell at alternate email at ~(b)<7><C> I l ________, (b)(?)(C)

                                                                                                      ._                       !,Or Catherine S. Daly Deputy J.abor Commissioner Retaliation Complaint Unit
           '1 55 Golden G;ite Ave JOlh Floor East San Franci11co, CA 94J02 (4JS) 703-4841 (telephone)

(415) 703-4130 (fax) [r:rom~(b)(7)(C) Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 3:10 PM To: Daly, Catherine@DIR

Subject:

A current Sr RAD Tech mindset as cultivated by Tetra Tech at Hunters Point..* Hi Cathy-(b )(7)(C) *

       \ To follow is a series of emails from a reliable, CO)l',~ed, and obviously frustrat~d party at HPS. [Ms Anarew~ ~sn13-,of
         'the witness names I provided to yoirJie[ andl§.be.jgreed to let me share this wr you I'm now of the nnjnin_h~eally

• would ~nefit from talking with you she'§Jbeen interviewed recently by the NRC's (b)(7)(C) ,~ e l l.

       "'susan'~construction dominated" o servations perti~nt to Tetra Tech practices a Hunters Point eerily echo whatl....l..J
        ~ ~ a y i n g in many ways (and me too) ...G::he_talled to "vent" after which I decided to get this information to yo.u ....

a5ainfjfie*~willing to talk with you in confidence. \ Regards,

                   ~                                                                                                          (bJ(?)<P) 2

Oldest to most recent.... top to bottom .... 3

' I 7 How are you . c) ook a lay o~1 is still doing stup~ ff. She thinks she is "' boss and ma no~ ~ 0 slow her down~ s moving to -

• fast...accidents....an q oesn't hefp....not good. Hope you are ok...

Sent from my iPad.~sa~= ,

      =
    /IIIllI II/II/I/IIIIII/I/I IllIIIII II/IllIllIllI/

Froi :{(b )(7)(C) To: b}(Z}CC} j  : Sen: 8/8/2011 12:44:49 ~ M. Pacifir. r1~v11qnt r 1me , Subj: Upda~ (b)(?)(C) hat forgot'to sign out on the RWP. It was (b)(7)(C) ow, how ey grve a salary person ad off? .., That's not punishment. > s e r on ay o an ' sard 0 . That would not be a pu ent. That's ~ has t off this Tuesday. This Is not fair. And what abou /' i ??? The other day they pulled up a piece of pipe and I don't in ey even laid it on plastic and the tech there never surveyed it They didn't have an lnstrument~ ls trying to write this one up. Hope he doesn't get In troub~ construction end is going to fast. Susan I/IIIII/I/III/II/IIIJll11111,,11,,,,,,,,11111/I Fros (b)(7)(C) Td (b)(7)(C) Sen: 8/8/2011 5:14:36 P.'1(.)i Pacific 'Dayllght Time Subj: By the wayl Yes, your name is still on the MOU about the licence In Bldg 400 Break rea.... and No there are none posted at the main office.... no MOUs ...... They took a load of good paper to Bldg 400 to toss...why... it Is like 8 x 14 ....... never used, some still in unopened boxes....and they worry about money? ....why do they go ut to a vender nd buy unusable posting ...300 at a time?.... and they worry about money? ..... why do they le (b)(7)(C) eave early and some times even add more OT to their time sheet..now that we don't clock in an ou .... an ey worry about money?....why do they

 'have 2 techs per day come in one hour early (10 hour days) to                                            k instruments and they sometimes
   .eave early?...                    ey worry about money?....Why do they le                           ave roJecf gas in his personal car and
                  '    *   '-

• l r me any... seems like favoriti as a l/b)(7)(C) l-e engineers.... m aroun (b)(?)(C) ..whe 7 here he rides to work with not here, he drive mpany truck.....is that fair...... and worry about money???....And U~"'-'i!i~ ~:;,...,they give , a day off for a deficiency he still gets paid... he's on salary!!!! ...and what ould not sig in or out of an RCA. ....this totally shocked me when I first went out into es peopled ys off for not doing it .. strange.... they can break the rules but the people 4

I under them can't..... ! thought.good leadership was to roll downhill .... management was to set the example..... not be an exce~ion ~the procedures... _ Goodluck.~sa'l-J . IllIllI II/IIIllII/II/IIIIllII/IIIII/I/IIIIIllII Fr9m*lcb)(7)(C) Tol(b)(7)(C) 8 Sent: /10/2011 8:03:59 A.M. Pacific oavuot'lt Time Subj: (b)(7)(C) . _,- - - Remember me emalllng u about~ ot signing out on the RWP. She had to take this Tuesday off with~ ay. Also she got wrote up with a deficiency and it's In her file

• S' file also. She is not happy. Now my question ts thi x l aid esterda to the RAD roup only that he forgot to sign out and ha take a day off. Now remember he Is salary. So he'll get paid The big question is did he get w cause a deficiency??? I bet not!!! And what about (b)(7)(C) * -

On ano er no e. Why can[1(b)(7)(C) ~ lk in Parcel E RCA and not frisk outll!I He walks this alfthe t(me and never signs out a frisker!!! Nor signs a RWP. Is he exempt?? Now here's a good one. Ihe source*is brought back and forth to the * -r Portal Monitor Booth by!(b)(7)(C) lln the beginning he Involved me with this. I stayed until he came and picked up the source. He always gave me grief for this He said I could just hide it and lock up and go about my work. No I can't. It's a source and this Is not posted Or controlled. But he made me do it anyway. So I did. I don't want fayed off. Now yesterday It changed back to what I wanted. I don't leave untll he has picked It up. Why nolti(???? Just olad he finally came to his senses And where isi<b)(7)(C) liid1ng !he I LOs In Paroel E Are they shielded and are they at the right height???? Or on the ground. He is not putting them on the posting pole. So where ??? Oh, well. Get on the wrong side of these two and I'll be out of here. And (b)(7)(C) does-riot lrke me. I don t really know why. I just know y hort spoke n to me. Not friendly like he is with others lik ,..

• Thanks for reading this.

@usa,O - * "" IIII//Ill/III III/II/I IllI I I/III/IIIIllIllIIIllI From (b)(7)(C) To: b 7 C Sen :

• ht Time Sub b 7 C To' yet 7 c )

              ~t;}           x as not happ J\ 7 as~              leave the~ *            ~       ouldn't leave becaus~         ad not reported to her
                                                          *ed to radi >< K J No answer, so she phoned ~ l ~ f t a message telllng him at s e was waiting an so as~                                           e was on his way to the office. We are not allowed to talk on the radio or cell phone while driving. He ~                                   st there so why pull over and stop just to answer her when you knows what she wants. That would have taken more time. So when he arrived in h!!.9ffice she lit into him. No
~adio on no cell ph _ c What's wrong with you. I'm waiti_!lg and 1110s~ important!~ 7xc ) l,5 waiting. And we don't want to keep                    '       waiting. Now do We!

Now tal~boyt a th ssed to get the job~ Pressed to drive to fast. Pressed to answer the radio while 7 driving. All because CJ ants to leave wit~ erore 4:30. But she IS getting paid Up until 4 :30. Well,

'unless she did not a                                          our to her time sheet!!! Ever since they took the tii /?~k out they leave 7

ear . d 1s 1s wh  ?)(CJ ill not have clocks on site again. We have to kee c ~ appy. But why?~ NWf employees ha to stay unt, a east 4:23. But RSRS employees (not all of them) would leave~ _ t not , as e~rf~ ~ they are leaving now. Now the AWS employees (not all of them) leave early. Thanks to~ eing Iwitt(j(YC:~ ow she reprimands someone that is doing a good job, and not trying to leave early. What's next.I He p ~,,,...

• 5

is one of the towed array boys He has to finish up in the area. He has to return his instruments and the Kobota. He is not a slacker. Nor does he stand around and talk the breez~ ery quite and to himself. So he was not wasting time to get to the office. What she did all was because of~ This 1s~ ~ aood. This young man did - not deserve to be talked to by her that way. Now he has to worry about upsetting_ XC) IA construction superintendent that should be setting a work example. Sorry for being so upset, b t i ~ hi little stuff that messes our job up out here. It adds up and after awhile folks just don't care. If they mak x' c ha y all is wen. We are RAD folks not canst ction eo I nd this is how the mind set for RAD coverage changes. d that is so wrong. But you can't buc * (b)(7)(C) , He backs l (b)(7)(C) ~orry. _ ,. . ./ Sent from my IPad.~san=~ Susan,_ I/I IIllIllI IllIIII//IIIIIIIIIllIllI/IIIllI/I Ill Frofill(b )(7)(C) To:I b)(7)(C) . Sent: 8/15/2011 4 :57:44 P.M. Pac,m, '-'<>'"~"' , 1111~ Subj: Photos These were all taken on August 15, 2011. 6

7 /IIIllIIIIII/IllIllIll/IIIIIIIIIIIllI/III/I/Ill t>m:~(b)(7)(C)

j b)(7)(C) l Sen!:/15/2011 4:58:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj : Photo taken on Aug 3 , 2011 8

                                                        *   'upy I

I I r

                                 *I I

I (b)(?)(C) I I (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) II/IIIIllI IIllIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIII/II/IIII/IIIIll Fr~lt?2~11

~~:z,i/                                    e 0

5:00:26 P.M. Padfi~aylight T Subj: Photos taken on Aug 15, 2011 9

10 IIIIII/IIII/Ill/Ill///I/IIIll/Ill//I///IIIll/// Fromf b)(?)(C) To:l (b)(7)(C) Sent 8/19/2011 8:07:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time I

• Subj: Re: Hello Well, I'm not surprised. The will all sti k together. They like their pay check. And people are more about that than telling the truth (b)(?)(C) as nervous that he was going to be called in to do a statement.

Upper management ques 1one 1m repeatedly about that horrible day. He told me this today. I just listened. He doesn't know we talk. Plus he worked under you. Now, in my opinion he would do anything not to jeopardize his job. He will lean toward what they what him to say. And I will tell you this, he is leaning to what they want to hear. I was not happy. It was all I could n *m . Yo~ave him the opportunity to ha~ job he has now. But he believes that (b)(?)(C) ke1;os bim -t. there. And he does runt ~bX7l

• his feelings get hurt. He really dislikes b 7 C and f b)(?)(C)

And this puts me in a ba wa\ They are my friends. -r ~""'.

                                                                                               ~      ~   {.._____....,

Sent from my iP!3d~ us~ 11

r )(7)(C) On Aug 19, 2011, at 3:48 PM

a f susan:1

              '"Many thanks for snanng your hopes and prayers! We'll need to talk when a time is good so I can bring everything up to date for you. All I can say after xesterday ~ that~ .

Tetra Tech bunch is capable of - and willing to play dirty (everflb)(7)(C) _M,hich really surprised and disappointed me).... will have to discuss pertinent details .... the more they "beat their chesr, the deeper the hole they dug and the non-responsive my attorney and I became .... I believe it drove them crazy.... after 1 O+ hours, nothing was resolved.... they first tried to offer up a settlement of "token change" and "permanent duct tape on the mouth" (was prepped to expect tha viously, when their offer was 1 refused they were ticked off.... later, they (primaril ' 1s of blatant lies and Innuendos trying to discredit me ... e an (b)(7)(C) f!V-v~e.,;. n_s....ta-rt

                                                                                                                            "!"e- d-=---

throwin (b)(7)(C) nder the bus - maybe after they sense was a out to comer them.... w a t ey doh't realize is I actually do have them cornered. . as stated before, I suppose the earlier offer refusal must have ticked them off... at this point I'm personally ready to withdraw from the mediation process and tum things over to the regulators (NRC's 01, etc).... currently weighing all optiOns with attorney while continuing to "calmly" process what came out from yesterday... strength is In numbers and In this unfolding scenario it may come to where you and quite a few others are asked to be Involved - it wouldn't be in a way to put you at jeopardy though! Thanks for the positive reinforcement. .. it means a lot, and let's talk! Bert In a messa e dated 8/1 (b)(7)(C) Hello. I hope and pray that all went well for you. I'm covering Wo~ 33 this morning. The laborers ace cernovjng a piece of pipe. S ~ 1

                                                    *usraecided to move the RAO posting back. I had to stop him. o                  Im that he just couldn't ome an      ve _ __

postings when ever he wanted too ioed b 7 C to come over. But he never showed. Finally c J< .)l~J y. And work ...

• continued coftept~ :rhey are used to C nd his RCTs. Sorry 1

for their luckf *

• j dld shQ.w u p later. He started to barrel into the area without signing in. Woops. I stopped him. He dtd sign in and out. This makes me wonder what really goes on with other RCTs at the control point.

Have a great day. SusanJ

 =

IIIllI/II/IIIIIII/Ill/II/I/IIIIIIllI/III/III Ill FJ ~ l (b)(7)(C) T (b)(7)(C) 1 Sent: 8/31/2011 8:06:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Fwd. Amazing ~ usa,s) Begin forwarded message. 12

From(susan Andrew~'- ~b_)_(7_)(_c_) - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . - - - - - - ' DaJe; August 31 , 2011 8:05:08 AM PDT Tol§usan Andrewsc.J(2b):..!. (7--'-)~(C--'-)- - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - - ~

Subject:

Re: Amazing *r Woops. I hit the wrong llttle button on my !Phone. Sorry. Now to finish A t2usan 1 - ,. On Aug 31 , 2011 , at 8:00 AM.fuusan Andrews !(b)(7)(C) lw~te> Hello. Just needed to mention this to u. Today at the 7 am field meetin~ffb)(7)(C) bavJ-EVERYONE a Captain Awesome Certificate of Awesomeness. Amazing. So now he has given everyone one. So my beef with this is n ull. Is someone giving Tt a heads up on stuff? Strange. Just a thought. (susa~

      =

IIllIllII//I/IIII///IllIll/III/IIIIIllIIIllIIII From: (b )(?)(C) To: b 7 C Sent: 917/2011 12:07:07 P.M. Pacific S andard Time Subj: EMS You were right. EMS lost their contract here at HPS I think it ends tomorrow.

   @usan]
   /IIIIIIIIIIllI/II/IIllIIII/III/IIIIllII/II IIIll From:l(b)(7)(C)

To: J(b)(7)(C) Sent: 9/7/2011 1:51 :51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time Subj. New RAD Waste Co Do u happen to know who is taki~ MS' place?* I'd like to work for them. Maybe? What do u think? ~ asked for my resume a few years ago. But I didn't give it to him. Glad I didn't now. They are all nice folks. I'll miss tt,Pm usan:1. IllI/I//IIIII/IIIIII/IIIIllIII/IIIIllII/IIllIll From }(b)(?)(C) ToJ(b)(7)(C)

  ~Sent: 9/10/20119:22:11 A.M . Pacific DaytlghtT'.. im                    .: ~ e _ _ _ __
   ~ Re: Question                                                        ~ . ,      ,       =>                  \

C J7E}[l from the Lab~quit.[bfilb)(?)(C) rsked tnem all to pick up some; aa eodlie sa1a IIV ** * . so he quit...they brough (b)( ack In from the iierd .... he is happy... l then askecii(b)(7)(C) bt this is what the confusio~was aH abouf ~ said no ... that he has over heard something about the lab being OU~ II did se~ (~~)(C) : in~ office a while back and the conversation seemed sad for them .... an~(7)(1 13

         \ aid well that's the way it goes.... .I though~ , c J a_t I heard and saw that maybe someone was bidding ainst them for the lab contract....and no                 ays this....maybe there is something to it...l did email

t. b 7 C nd asked him ... so that maybe could get in there.. but he said It was just a rumor.. .! did NOT tell ~Im as much as I'm telling you.... but something is going~ .. ,.

In a message dated 9/9/2011 1:05:t3 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,@..__)_(?_)_(C _)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

          ...that's news to me{susaii) ... out I'll "put my ears to the ground" in that regard!

In a message dated'°9!8/2011 10:23:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, J(b)(?)(C) I I iust heard that the lab might be out of here. Any truth to that? (b)(7)(C t:)ld me. Tks.

         @ usan\

IIIIllIllI/IIIII/IfIIII/IllI/IllI/II/IIllI/III/ From!(b)(?)(C) To:l(b)(?)(C) I Sent: 9/29/2011 5:12:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: LAB! I stand corrected...RSRS did lose the LAB Contract.. ... Berkeley Labs is coming In to take over....not quite sure when ... but they know th

                                                              ..so it must be soon .... .l'm pretty sure that the people work~ ~-

i in trouble.... they still have the field contract.. )( (b){?)(C) re II Saudi Arabla.....word Is that (b)(? (C o e e ... (b)(?)(C) re supervisors... (b)(?)(C) ight go too ... l heard.... Late usar, III/Ill/IllII/III/IIll/Ill/I/I IIII/IIIIII/I/II/ Susan I IIIII/IIIllIII//IllIllIIIII I!IllI/I/I IllIIIIll From: (b)(?)(C) To: (b)(?)(C) Sen . 1me Subj: Procedure Hello.... only 3 procedures have been updated since you left.....#12-Release of Material from a RCA on April 15, 2011; #21- Portal Monitor on September 22, 2011; #26-Hand Scan when truck falls the PortaJ Monitor on September 21 , 2011.. .. hope this helps.... IIIllI/III/I/IIIll/IllIllIIIll/Ill!///IIIIIllfl s.: F' !(b )(7)(C) To (b)(7)(C) 10/1 mo11 12:44:49 p.M. Pacific oaYli9ht Time Subj: Re: Kids to work! 0 t 14

On Oct 17, 2011 , at 12:08 PM~L.. (b-)-( ?-)(_C_) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                      .. .it's disappointing to see just how low "professionalism" seems to have sunk there..

but you hang tight, help is hopefully on the wayl BB

• In a message dated 10/17/2011 11:10:26 AM. Pacific Davliqht Time,

                  !(b)(7)(C)                                               ~rite~                                  ,

It must be l/b)(7)fQ} I to work week! (b)(?)(C) lias again ..,.. j to work with b brought !(b)17}1S::~ truc'S,i Plusll(b)(?)(C) l otd me tocay, tfle reaso Q is takinQ on site in a Tt as off this past Friday is because she didn't sign out on a . So she gets a Friday off. It has been stated that when this happens we aren't to get a Monday or Friday off. Only a Tuesday-Wednesday or Thursday. It's a punishment. I'll see this Friday when she does her time sheet. It must be -nice to !(b)(7)(C) I SusanJ -...

       =

Ill/IllI I//IllII///II/III IIIIll/I /IIIllIllI II// Susan~

    //Ill/II/IIIl/l//llllt11, ,,....

Sent: 10/17/20114:38:21 P. . PacificDayightTime .e Subj: Re: _ in . 1 l1bX'if"-, (. I ta * > t the end of today. She said she did take her into RSY4 in a Tt truc't2...__Fuesoonea 1t 7 ut a I was alri ht. She wasn't getting out of the truck. This is so wrong on so m.~a~n.u:,.l~ v- .__ __, again. ow (b)(7)(C) is giving in to her. We just can't make it right because again (b)(7)(C) ts

(b)(7) (C) . And we'll be the next to go!! Susar

                                                                                                      ~,

On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:50 PM~1L(b _)_(?_)(_C_) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '

                  ... my word, my word, how brave (or is it complacent) they've become! l have a feeling that bubble's gonna bust real soon! BB In a messa e dated 10/17/2011 2:36:26 P.M. Pacific Da Ii ht Time s now sitting ffice. remem~ r:.:.w     ..:.;..e
                                                                     ~n~ s ....e_ w_o_u ...,....co
                                                                                                - m-e- a...,.t earlier times a...

n___, s,....e_w. -as given paperwork to do. Lik.e sorting and fifing. To keep her busy. But why bring her to work??? Take off if you have company. You never had your mother sit in your o~ e a I day when she visited. And neither does any one else. Excep cause she

                  !(b)(7)(C)                  ~ nd RASO will be here this wee Susar[}

IllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

                                                   . Pacific Oa Ii ht Time Susan On Oct 24, 2011 , at 10:12 AM,rL -)-( ?-)(_C_) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '

Well. .. if you ask me. that's a pretty arrogant display of "I don't care and you don't matter"... I'd suggest that you keep this as part of your "good notes" to share during your meeting this coming Wednesday! In a message dated 10/24/2011 9:50:19 AM. Pacific Daylight Time, (b)(7)(C) b 7 C in a Tt truck again a~ site

                                                                                                      . ~(b)(7)(C)            _ __
              ~ ~il.iiked her to st~v io the pffice area. Bu~                                                                  -r J<        had talked t~ b)(l><C> ~ bout this. He says everyone knows. So e can't do anything about it. He agrees with me that it is wrong.

I'm ~t lbe esy3 gate today and !(bli7)(C) Is In paa 03 & OS. And the Rb)(7)(C) l s sitting in the truck by the fence. She doesn't even have a shipyard pass to even get on the shipyar * *ust

              ~ ~ r!,.2!,!.Jt   . in his log book. He saw her to. So di (b)(7)(C)

( J\7 c oo. What's up with this blatant refusal comply with company rules???? Susan"3 - l/l/llll!I/I/II/IIIIIII/IIIIII/I/IIIII//II/I/I/ F rof ,j(b )(7)(C ) To: (b)(7)(C) 16 I

Sent: 10/24/2011 12:51:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: MOU. Licence Your still posted on the MOU for Tt on the license at Bldg 400 break area. A copy. Susari1 ... llllllllll/lllll111.... Fromirft}(p<f} j) To:9(b _7)_C _ e p ,,

• c '

1 I Sent: 10/26/2011 8: 19:39 A.M'.i>acific Daylight Time Subj: White out Did u know that when ake a mistake or mistakes on a su and turn it in. An (b)(7)(C) wh1tj it and (b) 7 (C

                                                                ~Pf       a~d ~ en make a color copy re ok with this. I

• just can't do that. I either rewrite it or one line it an'a inltlai it. Confusing to mel Susa~

IIIllIIIIIllIII/II/IIII/I I/III/IIIIII/IllIII/II Fro~,!(b)(7)(C) To: (b)(7)(C) Sen: vo731J2011 9:00:32 AM. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Device-10 11 This Just keeps getting better. They found another deyice on --==---,::============ Wednesday.l@H_7)(C) ),ere there. Maybe morel I was covering CKY the Ca d doing an incoming sur~ey on 3

 .generators at 8-400 b 7                               sat th                            Monltotji *-                 w...,.a_s_a~i- - --

• In office at 11 : a ( ){ > dice ci o assist her and n to B-258 to put the evic . e ra oe nd said that I would assist them. So I went out and got all my stuff ready. RWP form , TSA, meters (M*3, M-1  ::,;lig~h~ts~, ~R;A~D~:-:-:-;:- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

tape, new RAD tag & PPE. When they got ther K > s gong to just pass the device to me and they were going on  ;::at.:.Y*:...W:.:.:.ro::;n:..:..;g:!..:.._ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ First, I'm j\j~t 7

                        'rfA    tq let you both in to the Bid                             )( J No we are giving It tor ~ c ] it's yo,tt'Hxffl* Me: well I can'tRM~                                     ~,ffln*'t~oilt~we::.__ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Bldg by myself. So she tot~' ~Jo go with me. Sc[' ? )(C) 9ot out of the Kabota While she was signing the RWP she said she was not from . They didn't know. So I said we can't lo~ inf 1 tion. Once I got that through ll7

                                                         ~t~,

going to sign the device In - that I was going to do that. So I asked what the ID# was. They didn't know So I asked where did if come he came back and said tha'if o kc a, that I knew the ID# and that I ad done this 9 times before t~ ~1"s-the 10 # and I have never put a device in lock up. I do the ithout some

                                                                                ~ent to asift:6:'.,;x...'x. ::c:;:.\_ _
                                                           "'. T"l"ll!~;:.;:o~h=-=n:c':o~.~,-=d~o'=n"fr't7k=n'=

1------------------ o:':'"w:=,;;;...::;;.;.;;:_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ inventory. So now it's not getting nice. So I decided to take the device into the RCA-RMA and do my best until I could get to someone in the Know! The device was in a PIG so I took it in and when I opened the PIG it was in a bag and the bag was labeled with i orm *on.:.:.*- . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Some right some wrong. So I proceed to log it in whe x, c1 aioed to come to the control pl*: : l let him in. So I did. He wanted to know what was going on c we rn e o ice an sa1 7 I didn't know what I was omg c II d was an ID#, i..,n~d......,.,.......,,..,.....__ th . 7 . n't know what I was taking bou 7 XC) as told by both](b)(7)(C) f an c o go to Bldg 258 in 5 min for trainin . She refused. 17 "l.. .

Susan"l IIII/fl,,",,, Ill Ill,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,///,,,111111 Frorol(b)(?)(c) To:!<b)(7)(C) ,.} , Sent: 11/1tt011 2:35:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time e Subj: Re!CIL. 7}(C} I Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Berkeley, CA The web site will take ur resume, they don't say they are hiring. Susan .J On Nov 1, 2011 , at 10:02 AM...:,<~,..:.).:.. (7.:.;

                                                      )(:...

C.:..

                                                             ) -------..-----------------'

that's interesting{s__usa!iJonl hafnote, do you know wnat "C&T" stands for - an~: they officially advertising to fill Hunters Point lab posrtions (and if so, how many)*~ . ] - ln a messa e dated 11/1/2011 8:08:39 A. M. Pacific Oa Ii h TI (b)(7)(C) b)(7)(C o me today that b 7 c ut her application in to C&T (the new lab company}. He sai s e put tn to pound dirt in the oven conex. A RCA-RMA. That's just to get her foot in the door. This

• re I saw her walki in and out drinking a drink. Like a

(/TJ elieves that what (b)(7)(C) ant they will get More fami bers. There are so many people in this area that would love to have that job. What about them!!! -1ho,PE((b..lJll.l.(~_ _ _...J-- -

                   )(7 ci     ave more control and better j udgement than to let this II                   appen. So sad for C&T if they hire her.

SusanJ

                   .,l IllIllIIIIIIIllIIII111,*. ..

18

                                                                   ..as. in the meetin~-..'.I'm guessing it is abou (b)(7)(C) fusing IllIIJII/IIllI/II/IIIIIllJIIIIIllIllIll/II/1111 From j C  ~

To:ffl(b ; C)

            ,1fij Sent: 11/2/2011 3:52:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Re: Black and white RAD posting All along their areas. It's a hit and miss. They just c hanged some of them out. This photo was taken in Parcel E.

Sent from my IPad.@usa,u - ( b....

                                                 )("7)

( C,,..,.) On Nov 2, 2011. at 1:53 P

         , susa,w -                 -
          "Where Is this posting configuration located?

Thanks,

         ~ert"j Fro : (b)(7)(C)

To: (b)(7)(C) Sen : :4 :4 . . ac, ,c Daylight Time Subj: Black and white RAD posting Shaw area. 19

Susan III/IllIII/II/IIIIII/IIllIII/IIIIll/IIllII/IIII 20

bout the meeting wit II he would say was that at eas e was glad to talk to her. He then said th~ - ~ would be said to day a e o meeting. This was at 3:30. He jumped up from his desk and went to ask his boss if he could leave. So he did . He pulled out at 3:45. I guess he didn't want to be in the 4:00 meeting. Strange. Sent from my IPad@ usa.EJ l(b)(7)(C) On Nov 2, 2011 , at 2:03 PMiL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.

                  .... hmmm, sounds like maybe they're in the area for a combination of reasons .... oh, to be "a fly on the wall"I In a message dated 11/2/2011 12:07:31 P.M. Pacific Also I asked (b)(?)(C)             they were hiring l(b)(7)(C)          ~e said..

I noway. Susan) l//ll/llllll/l ll///lfll/lllll""" L..."T,- - -- - ' Susan -- ./ (b)(7)(C) l On Nov 3, 2011 , at 10:00 AM,L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                ... hmmm, I wonder what that Alameda stuffs all about?

In . ll/llllll//ll/lll/ll/lll//llllllllllll/ll//lll1 21

Sen: Subj: (b)(7)(C) / j ; kiRci Yes she is getting a job out here with the new lab company. C&T. In the lab i (b)(7)(C) es J ha=1 x And she has had then for awhile. So she ha~(b)(7){C) I This just is not right. ....,.a- y"""'t,... o......... many relati~ here. And there are way to many folks right here in this area [ f reed a job. She only got it because of (b)(7) and the new Company wanting to make "brownie" points wit J Not nice. 7

                              '                                                                             q Susa[}
    /IllII/II//Ill/II111,, ..

Fro (b)(?)(C) To: (b)(7)(C) Sen : Subj: Re: N . - J(b)(7)(C) Her name is (b)(7)(C) I'm e 1t she ever1...._ _ b 7 C . ..,. J1 ol (b){?}(C) the sa e thing today.~ ust-found but a6out It all {his morni,~ ~ ~L-

 ....,....,.,rJ""!Jdere going to hire her and now they are not"......T,me wlll tell. .. l'm sure this will not ~olM-,,:n-....,;,,.....111 x x. > ants her out here let her get a job some where else..... and she could still live wit t x                            n ne would think that if a RCT has to supervise the field labors that collect the samp es in the 1e , a a RCT would have to supervise a non-RAD employee also in the Oven Conex.....They would be handling the same sample but without any RAD trainlng......and quallflcations....this has never made quite good sense to me anyway.. they have been letting field labors process the soil on the oven conex without an RCT watching them, but they can't collect It in the field without a RCT watching them. Sorry, but this doosn't make good sense to me.....then to have an unknown person that has zero RAO exposure come in off the s treet and just do lt...unreal... not acceptable...... how would the NRC look at                                                  Is rn this?

In a message dated 11/4/2011 2:29:28 P.M. Pacific Oayllght Time, l(b)(7)(C)

                                                                                                 --------=:~---------     : :,

I what a roller-coaster ride this is becoming (please keep me posLte_d_)_ I BTW, do vou know this gal's first and last name? s[J- . .- (b)(7)(C) ust stopped me and told me that "they" were going to hlr 1..,...,,.,,..,,..,..,...,....,~~"."':'i":l:--------------' or the a . But they are not now. He came and told me this so I can't

e. I sure hope I can trust someone out here.

III ~ SusanJ ~ I/IllIIIIII/II/III/IllI/I/II Itt 111,111,,,,,,,,,

0 ~ Nov 9, 2011, at 6:22 PM~(b)(l )(C) I

         ~~illasn't done all that "train and document" stuff by now, he'd sure better/
        ~..,.,,..~

7 thoughts about laborers sampling on the pads... assuming (as you

                   )(CJ     ffinned?) that pre-qual training was developed / approved /

com ith documentation in place: 1) who approved it, 2) when, and 3) is the work (as performed by the "qualified" laborers) subject to RAD Tech oversight? If not subject to such oversight, 4) why and 5) what's the justification? Final question would be. 8) when did the change take effect.. .. as of August 2010 when the "questionable act" (labo(~C~~*::eying and sampling on the pads) first surfaced and was questioned? If ll ,n _pan say "yes" to that, all I can say is the tmg and qua! pkg sure didn't cross my desk for approvallll As for laborers prepping samples in the conex, questions 1 - 5 likewise apply (when did you first see them doing this... when you sent me that email?).... Remember, what's Ii ted above is just me "thinking out loud".. I'm not implying you should confron b 7 C e ond what you've already done ... like you, I don't believe him either (much ess trvst BB In a a ou ,s. He said that the laborer was

                        ....,.;..;...,,......,----r~

it signed off that he was trained. And he said ut I bet it will happen now What do you Susarf) On Nov 9, 2011 , at 1:32 PM.~ )(C) CBert's take on Susan~~estions: - ,,.

                 'It's all about the consistent application of recognized Industry standards specific to a RAO Safety Program!

As with 'past Tetra Tech ideas' to arrange for 'lesser pay / non-qualified' laborers to do 'higher pay I technically oriented RAD work' (i.e., of a kind where ANSI 18.1 or 3. 1 certification 1s needed), you'd first better have in place some form of established qualification process and 'proof of ability w/ oversight'

               - inclusive of completion by 'potential candidates' of a
               'recognized' program (job performance measures, satisfactory mock up demonstrations, etc) where results justify that with ANSI 18.1 or 3.1 RAD Tech oversight, such tasks can be correctly/safely performed without compromise - and thus ensuring continued NRC license compliance (i.e., safety and well being of the project workers, the public, and the environment)....."

ft's that simple! So with what I've shared, you tell me how one should respond to your questions! In essence, for Tetra Tech to "go astray in any other direction", they end up getting what they pay for! Also

              - unique to your situation, if you encounter an "obligation" to come forward with an observed safety concern, does the fear of retaliation by the project prime come in to play - or will such a concern be
           ~e.!!Y.inelv ::1cknowledged and corrected?
           ~8/
                  ~                                                        n

4 In a message dated 11/9/2011 9:06:20 A M ~ fie Standard Timej(b)(7)(C) *tes: Who is qualified to process the soil samples for the lab in the oven conex. Can a laborer do it? They are not to collect the sample in the field with out RCT over site. Does this apply with processing in the oven conex with that same soil sample ??? Susan) .f' *'

  /IIll/IIIIIIIIll/II/III/IllI/II/III/Ill I/IIll/I
                                                   \IJ,.:~~~~~~-~RS or AWS. He did not kn.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - i

• Is mov1~ Y4 today b

                                                               ---     ver power CJ '

n this an F -~ (b)(7)(C) T~ )(7)(C) s;hr:111412011 2:26:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time Subj: Re* Knitti. !JS.- ,<IC.fm p+ {£) a,Lu e, ~ -> Thanks@ei!)or all your good words of wisdom. She took her back out to the field at 11 :0 thought she was employed here when she was in the conex that other day when she was ing in and out of the conex RCA-RMA. So. I'm worried that the RCTs~ tes will think that too and just Good luck. - t* let her go in and out wtth l(b)(7)(C) And they are all so afraid o ci cosing their job. ~usan] On Nov 14, 2011 , at 1:44 PM l

                                            ' ~(b)(7)(C)

Just got off phone .. L.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' We'll talk for sure! BB 24

i !]}~:;1~)l~t~~i~~~~1r: m~r'l'1"l"1"""1.,..:3~2'r:1110~p;"J

                                                                       -      .Mli.1pS,a;;c::;;ifir.::,c~S~t;;;;a;n;:;:

da  ; ,r;d~Tr;im e~ - - - - - ' ~ Subj: Re: Knittina fsusanJ _ .J/ I suppose the kid is safer knitting in the office as compared to anywhere else.... which should be off site unless it's "bring your child to work (from the office) day".

                    ~ming phone call just now... we'll talk VERY, VERY soon!

88~ n a messa e d *

• AM. Pacific ~t,:,nrfs:ird \ime, (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) I- - ~

She is in the o~ ttingl re here ~uJll )(C) is here. Why doe Is just not right. t~ n ring her here?? And ta e her aroun s, e This Susan]

  =

I III/IllIIIIIIII//IIIllI I/IIJIllII/IIIIIllIIIll 25

NnV 1 7 2011 P{l-2011-A-0113

Subject:

Concerns You Raised to th~ NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

&ear Ms. Andrews: ]                            ..

~ This letter refers to your interview with on October 27, 2011 , wit1 ~ ~; 67 1 with the Region I Field Office, NRC Office of lnvestigations o , regarding Hunters Point l ~ Shipyard. You expressed concerns related to the health physics program. Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concerns. We have initiated actions to *examine your concerns. If the descriptions of your concerns, as documented in the enclosure are not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure that they are appropriately described prior to the completion of our review. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer. In evaluating your concerns, the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is important to note, particularly if you raised these concerns internally, that individuals can and sometimes do surmise the identity of a person who provides Information to the NRC because of the nature of the information or because of other factors outside our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm nor deny the individual's assumption. In addition, 1f a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to your concerns, to the extent consistent with that act, the information provided will be purged of names and other potential Identifiers. Further, you should be aware that you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been formally granted in writing. Enclosed with this letter is a brochure entitled "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC," which includes an important discussion of the identity protection provided by the NRC as well as those circumstances that limit the NRC's ability to protect an alleger's Identity. Please read that section of the brochure. The brochure also contains information that you may find helpful in understanding our process for reviewing safety concerns. Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we have completed our review. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222 or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely, or"itc~1~::. 1 t i. .~~*

                                                                       . ...~,~ ,:J :
                                                                              ~

(

                                                                                        \'.

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosures:

As Stated CERTIFED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

[ Ms. Susan V. Andrewsj ". 2 Rl-2011 -A-0113 Distribution: Allegation File No. Rl-2011-A-0113 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\ACK\20110113ack.docx To receive a cop of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachmenVenclosure OFFICE DNMS:DB NAME M Ferdas ;1ls DATE 111 ,q- /2011

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Concern 1; You asserted that there was an occasion when Tetra Tech personnel did not perform surveys and/or frisks when they entered and exited a radioactively contaminated area. You stated that you saw this during the week of October 17, 2011 . Concern 2: You asserted that another Tetra Tech Senior Health Physics Technician, who worked at the site, knew very little and did not really follow radiation safety principles. Preliminary Response to Concern 2: After evaluating the information you provided, we have determined that additional information regarding this concern would enable the NRC to perform a more effective review of your concern. For example, if you can provide the name of the individual or specific tasks that the individual failed to perform in accordance with procedures or regulatory requirements, this information would help us focus our review effort. If you have additional information regarding this concern, please call the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, or contact me in writing at P. 0 . Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484, within 10 days of receipt of this letter. If no additional information is received within 10 days, we will proceed with our review based on available information. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KJNG OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19401..1415 NOV 1 7 2011

1 Rl-2011-A~0113 J

Subject:

Concerns You P<li!Coed to the N~C Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard {pear Ms. Andrews] This letter refers to your Interview ~th on October 27, 2011, Witli!(b)(?)(C) I !(b>ZJ<C~it!i the Region I Field Offite, NRC Office of Investigations (O!), regarding Htamters Poi.f lt N al hrpyard. You expressed concerns related to the health physics prbgtam. Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concerns. We have initiated actions to examine your concems. If the descriptions of your concerns, as documented in the enclosure are rrot accurate. please contact me so that we can assure that th*ey are appropriately described pr'ior to the completion of our review. The NRC normally

*completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take lon*g er.

In evaluating your coricerns, the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is imp*ortant to trG)te, particularly if you raised these concerns internally, that individuals can and sometimes do . surmise the identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of the nature of the information br because of other factors outside our control. fn such cases, our policy iS* to neither confirm nor deny the individual's a*ssumption. In addition, if a request is filed under the Freetlom of Information Act (FOIA) related to your concerns, tt> the extent consistent wi*t h that act, the information provided will be purged of names and other pG>tential identffier.s. f't:itthe'r', you shotJld be aware that you are not considered a confidential souree unless confi'dentiality has been fG>rmally granted in writing. Ehclosed with this letter is a brochure entitled "~eporting Safety Concems to the NRC," which ificf lldes an important discussion of the identity protection provided *by_the NRC as wen as ff'ros-e crr'cumstan*ces that litnit the NRC's ability to protect an alleger's idehtity. Please read that . section of the bro*chure. The brochure ~lso cdntains ihformation fhat you may find helpful ih understanding our proces*s for reviewing safety concerns. Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we ha've complet'Eid ou*r review. Should .you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance -in this matter, please call me toll-free via the NRC Safety HoOine at 1-8'00-432-1 156, *ext~nsion 5222 or contact me in wn1ing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. Sincerely,

                                                 ~/~

Richatd J . Urban Senior A11egation coordinator

         \ures: As.Stated
            ,DMAIL
             ~C.EIPi RE.QUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0113 Concern 1: You asserted that there was an occasion When Tetra Tech personnel did not perform surveys and/or frisks When they entered and exited a radioactively contaminated area. You stated that you saw this during the week of Oc;;tober 17, 2011 . Concern 2: You asserted that another Tetra Tech Senior Health Physics Technician, who worked at the site, knew very little and* did not really follow radiation safety principles, Preliminary Response to Concern 2: After evaluating the information you provided, we have determin'e d that additional into*rrnation regarding this concern woulq enable the NRC to perform a more effective review of your concern. For exampl*e, if you can provide the name of the individual or specific tasks that the individual failed to perform in accordance with proc.edures or regulatC>'r y requirements, thi's information wbuld help us focus our review effort. If you have additional infbrm'ation regarding this concern, please call the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 803*7 7, Valley Forge, PA 19484, witni*n 10 days of receipt of this letter. If no addition*a1 information is received within .1O days, we will proceel:I with our review based on avai1able information.

.. r'-.Ji.i,. I G :\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb1 .docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-201 1-A-01 13 Branch Chief (AOC): Ferdas Site/Facility: Navy - Hunters Point, CA (decommissioning site) Acknowledged: No ARB Date: 11/09/2011 Confidentiality Granted: NO, intake by 01 during investigation into another matter. Concern(s) Discussed: 1 During an interview of the Cl as a witness in 0 1 Investigation No. 1-2012-002 (a discrimination investigation}, the Cl who is a contract Senior HP Technician with AWS, subcontracted to Tetra-Tech, alleged that last week there was an occasion(s) when Tetra-Tech personnel (nfi) did not perform surveys and/or frisks when they entered and exited a contaminated area. The Cl did not state this was an immediate safety concern. When asked by 0 1for more specifics on frequency or num ber of occasions that this conduct occurred, the Cl did not respond.

2. The same Cl said that another Senior HP Tech who works on the site, knows very little and does not really follow RAD principals. T he Cl did not provide any more specific Information on -that Issue.

Security Category: NIA Does alleger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? NA ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES Chair: D Colllns/Lorso,.;.n.;_..____, Branch Chief: MFerdas SAC: RUrban* 01: (b)(7)(C) RI Counsel: Othors: OMasnyk Balley, McFadden DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet, If Applicable) Inspection DISPOSITION ACTIONS 1 Acknowledgment letter to Cl - Branch to provide Enclosure 1 Responsible Person: Urban/Ferdas ECO: 11/25/2011 Closure Documentation: Completed:

2. RI to perform an inspection of Tetra Tech at Hunters Point (ensure that review of quals of senior HP techs).

Responsible Person: Ferdas/Masnyk-Bailey ECO: 1/31/2012 Closure Documentation: Completed: SAFETY CONCERN: Pote ntial to spread low. levels of contamination outside of impacted areas. Low safety significance. PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE: ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION :

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20110113arb1 .docx (Only applies to wrongdoing & discrimination issues that are under investigation by 01/DOUDOJ) What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement? When did the potential violation occur? NOTES: There has been a previous Tetra Tech a/legation (Rl-2011-A-0019) regarding radiation safety practices at Hunters Point by a different Cl. Several of the concerns were substantiated although most of the concerns were unsubstantiated. DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, Of, Responsible Persons

Urban, Richard From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:26 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW : **SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION** Attachments: Rl-2011 -A-0113AR8Disposition.docx From: Hammann, Stephen Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:26:08 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Ferdas, Marc; Masnyk Bailey, Orysla; Seeley, Shawn

Subject:

**SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION**

Auto forwarded by a Rule Attached is A RB panel form for Rl-2011-A-0113 St eve Hammann Senior Health Physicist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I - Division of Nuclear Material Safety 6 10-337-5399 1

J*o hnson; Sharon From: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 1:31 PM To: Urban, Richard; Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie

Subject:

FW: WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Attachments: Rl-2011-A-0113ARBDisposition.docx; HuntersPointChecklistProposedRFl.doc From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 1:31 :07 PM To: Hammann, Stephen; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Seeley, Shawn; Ferdas, Marc; Urban, Richard

Subject:

WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Auto forwarded by a Rule Steve, here are the allegation disposition form and the RFI checklist. I think the best approach is to have the Navy look at this because the Radiological Affairs Support Office staff is out in California all the time and they specifically look at contractor performance. My second choice would be RFI and NRC Inspection if the NRC inspection can wait until March when we perform our annual visit with HQ Waste Management. Some of the questions need to be answered by Allegations because they received the info from 01 and we did not take in the information. Finally, I have reached out to Allegations for the past 3 years worth of Navy decommissioning allegations so we can get a better picture of whaUhow many allegations we have had to see if the RFI form needs to be changed.

• 1

G:\ora\alleg\receipt\20110113rcv.docx Allegation Receipt Report Date Received: October 27, 2011 Allegation No. Rl-201 1-A-011 Received via: {XJ In-person Employee Receiving Allegatio~L.:.(b...;.)..:... (7..:..)('C

                                                       --'-)- - - ,,- - - - - - '

Source of information: [X] contractor Alleger Name: ~ usan Andrews] Home Address: Home Phone: City/State/Zip: Alleger's Employer; AWS Alleger's Positionffitle: Senior HP Tech Facility* Hunters Point Naval Shipyard ON or LN: 030-38199/29-31396-01 200 Fisher Ave. San Francisco, CA 94124 Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Yes Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities? Yes Is the validity of the issue unknown? Yes If NO to any of the above questions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for information, public responsiveness matter, or an OSHA referral). Is there a potential immediate safety significant issue that requires an Ad-Hoc ARB? No Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy? Yes No N/A If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights? Yes No NIA Did they raise the issue to their management and/or ECP? Yes No NIA Does the alleger object to having their issue(s) forwarded to the licensee? Yes No Provide alleger's verbatim response to this question: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Was confidentiality requested? Yes No Was confidentiality initially granted? Yes No N/A Individual Granting Confidentiality: Allegation Summary: (1) During an interview of the Cl as a w itness in 01 Investigation No. 1-2012-002 (a discrimination investigation), the Cl who is a contract Senior HP Technician with AWS, subcontracted to Tetra-Tech, alleged that last week there was an occasion(s) when Tetra-Tech personnel (nfi) did not perform surveys and/or frisks when they entered and exited a contaminated area. The Cl did not state this was an immediate safety concern. When asked by Of for more specifics on frequency or number of occasions that this conduct occurred, the Cl did not respond. (2) The same Cl said that another Senior HP Tech who works on the site, knows very little and does not really follow RAD principals. The Cl did not provide any more specific information on that issue. Functional Area: [X] Decommissioning Materials [X] On Site Contractor Discipline For Each Concern: [X] Health Physics

Johnson, Sharon From: l<b)(7)(C) I Sent: Monday, October 31 , 2011 9:29 AM To: Johnson, Sharon

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point Alleg - 10/27/2011 Sharon-Good Morning The alleger's information is below: Susan V. Andrews {b)(7)(C) P.S.- I received an email trorr!(b)(7)(C) ~ following my Interview with her but before I came back to PA. I did not see it untll this morning and he asked a few quesµpns which answers were needed to for the purpose of entering the allegatlqn. Would you like me to contacLMs. Andrewal)gain to ask those questions or is that something t~at you all would traditionally do? I don't mind at all, just wanted to clarify l(b)(?)(C) I 0 U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigations Region-I Field Office 475 Allenda le Road Kjng of ecussja PA 19406

   !(b )(7)(C)              j
     ,6.10-337-5131 Fax     ::::,            ,o:O:::

l(b)(7)(C) From: Johnson, Sharon Sent: Monday. October 31, 2011 9:07 AM Td(b)(7)C'sl I Cc: Urban, Richard; Holmes, Marcy

Subject:

Hunters Point Alleg - 10/ 27/2011 l(b)(?)(C) I Did you happen to obtain the Cl 's address and home/cell phone number(s)? Thanks Sh"ron. J,..o.w fohlldon. AtlegCttiCm ~ 6idta:nt 610'"'3'37-S374

     ;  I Johnson, Sharon From:                       R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent:                       Friday, October 28, 2011 12:47 PM To:                         Urban, Richard, Holody, Daniel; McFadden, John; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie Subject :                   FW. AllegatlonRecelptReport.docx Attachments:                AllegationReceiptReport.docx From~(b}(?)(C)       I Sent: Fnday. October 28, 2011 12:46:21 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Su bJcct: AllegattonReceiptReport.docx Auto forwarded by a Rule 1}}