ML19106A201

Part 3 of 5 - NRC-2018-000531_Interim 1 Response Package

ML19106A201
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: ML19106A201 (366)

Text

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC RESPONSE NUMBER (04-2018)

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 2019 000531 1 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RESPONSE TYPE INTERIM FINAL REQUESTER: DATE:

Jason Fagone 03/20/2019 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 1 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:

The responsive records are provided to you in part.

The NRC is not providing duplicative records.

This is the best quality of documents available.

We continue to process your request.

Signature - Freedom of Information Act Officer or Designee Stephanie A. Blaney Digitally signed by Stephanie A. Blaney Date: 2019.03.20 06:12:19 -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:

03/20/2019 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: non responsive and duplicative 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)

From: Bickett, Brice Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:51 PM j(b)(l )(C)

To: Ferdas, Marc: Collins, Daniel; Urban, Richard; Screnci, Diane;L,._ _ _ ____,

Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT (b)(5)

Brice From: Urban, Richard Se

• tember 29, 2014 12:37:06 PM To: (b)(7)(C) Collins, Daniel; Ferdas, Marc Cc: crenc1, 1ane; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Subject : RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT Auto forwarded by a Rule (b)(7)

I agree with (C) hat it must remain internal. However, please keep in mind that this is not a "real allegation

because it is 1censee-supplied wrongdoing. The reason we put these into our allegation process is to track them.

From:!(b)(7)(C) I Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:16 AM To: Collins, Daniel; Ferdas, Marc; Urban, Richard Cc: Screnci, Diane

Subject:

RE : NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point uestions - TETRA TECH REPORT (b)(5)

Dan - the 0 1investigation is In progress,i..............--....---,.......,,--.,....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

as long is the Note is only for NRC interna 1ssem1nallon. (b)(7)

C l(b)(7)(C)

Special .Agent in Charge Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I 2100 Renaissance Blvd.

Suite 100

From: Collins, Daniel Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 1Q*l2 AM To: Ferdas, Marci Urban, Richard; !(b)(?)(C)

Cc: Screnci, Diane .___ _ _ __,,

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions -TETRA TECH REPORT Hi Marc -

I lend to agree wi1h you here. Would like to hear from Diane, Rick, and ~ also. Isn't the 01 investigation is still in progress ? lk'.LJ I can call Drew if needed.

Thanks, Dan From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:01 AM To: Collins, Daniel; Urban, Richard;!(b)(7)(C)

Cc: Screnci, Diane ....__ _ _____.

Subj ect: FW: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT Dan/Rick (b)(l)(C)

FSME/DWME eputy Director has recommended we issue a daily on the recent press inquiries about Hunters Point. Nol sure we should be doing this. What are your thoughts? A proposed write-up is provided below.

MCNYO s f e,yda4,'

Chief, Decommissioning & Technical Support Branch (NRC/Region 1/DNMSI 610-337- 5022 (work)

!(b)(7)(C)  !(cell) marc.ferdas@nrc.gov From: Chang, Richard Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 9:54 AM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Ferdas, Marc Cc: Chang, Lydia; Norato, Michael; Sollenberger, Dennis; Poy, Stephen

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT Marc and Orysia, I chatted with Drew this morning, and he recommended that RI write up an EDO Daily note regarding this topic. I know that your guys are busy, so I took a first stab at drafting one for you (it is a bit long though and will need to be shortened). Please feel free to edit it and see if it is factually correct.

Thanks, (b)(5)

I 2

(b)(5)

From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 9:19 AM To: Ferdas, Marc Cc: Screnci, Diane; Chang, Richard Subj ect: RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT Tetra Tech's RSO advised me of the potential soil problems in November 2012. The Navy had questions at that time . Tetra Tech briefed the NRC on April 23, 2013, followed up by a copy of the report.

We haven't done anything yet. 01 is continuing its investigation. I spoke to the OI agent this past Friday and he is still working the case. We won't inspect urntil the 01 case is done.

We inspected Tetra Tech in February and March 2011, January 2012, and in April and July 2014. One non-cited violation was issued in March 2011 for fa ilure to secure a low activity radium source.

Tetra Tech has not had any enforcement, the Tetra Tech that shows up with escalated enforcement is a portable gauge com pany not t he service provider.

From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 6:10 PM Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

Fw: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT Orysia Can you please work w/ the appropriate folks to get Diane a response. There is a short time frame on this.

Sent via NRC BlackBerry From: Screnci, Diane Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 01:56 PM To: Ferdas, Marc

Subject:

FW: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT

Marc, Do you think we can come up with answers to her first two questions on Monday? The other two I ca n look up.

Thanks-Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 3

From: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal) [1]

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 1:54 PM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal); Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions - TETRA TECH REPORT Hi Diane, We understand that Tetra Tech, the Navy contractor on the Hunters Point project, has notified the NRC that the company mishandled soil samples and falsified survey data. According to an April 2014 report produced by Tetra Tech titled "INVESTIGATION CONCLUSION ANOMALOUS SOIL SAMPLES AT HUNTERS POINT NAVAL SHIPYARD,"

the Navy discovered that Tetra Tech had submitted soil samples from locations different than the ones specified in the Final Status Survey Report for Building 517-Survey Unit 2. The company confinned this to be true, and subsequently discovered an additional 12 survey units on three sites also had anomalous soil samples. According to the report., some survey units (it does not specify how many) did exhibit radionuclide concentrations above release criteria. TI1e report states that those areas were remediated and resampled until release criterion were met. As we understand it, this means Tetra Tech submitted falsified soil samples and found radionuclides of concern at levels above release criteria in areas that the company had already remediated.

We are requesting the following information:

When was the NRC notified about this?

What action has the NRC taken against Tetra Tech in this instance?

Has the NRC ever cited Tetra Tech? If so, when and why?

Has the NRC ever taken enforcement action against Tetra Tech? If so, when and why?

l. .

We are on deadline and would appreciate a response by Tuesday, September 30. I can be reached at <b_)_(6_)_ _ ___.

Best, Liz Wagner Liz Wagner 11 ve~l1g.. t 1ve ho *, i,r'.!i'. flew~

(1 '1:Jll 4J2A7351 b f 1108 '132 A425 2'150 N. F11st St.1c1.t Sa11 Jo~c. A 95131 gi_izabeth, wagner@nbcuni.com www. nbcbayarea. com/ investigations From: Screnci, Diane [2]

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:52 AM To: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions

Liz, I have attached the inspection reports for Tetra Tech at Hunter's Point. You'll notice there are several different types of documents. When inspecting this type of license-holder, NRC inspectors have a few options for documenting their work For example, in 2012, the inspector found no violations of NRC requirements. In that case , the inspector used only an NRC form (Form 591 ) to document the inspection and its results. In 2011, the inspector documented a "non-cited violation" using an inspection report and a Form 591. In April, the inspector used the inspection report (which I've previously sent you) and inspection record to document the inspection.

If you need any further assistance, please let me know.

4

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 From: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal) [3]

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:30 PM To: Screnci, Diane

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions

Diane, Is the report you attached a summary of a larger report? The attached letter states that "results of the inspection were discussed with [Tetra Tech] at the conclusion of the inspection" and I need to clarify if said results are housed in another report.

Also, can you please attach the inspection reports of any previous inspections at Hunters Point?

Liz Wagner lnvc,tigativc Pr~](',

o '108.432.4735 t: bl/6) l~BC B, rca l,cw~

f 408.*132,'141.5 2450 I~. First S\reet ~an JOSE'. C/l '15131 elizabeth. wagner@nbcuni.com www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations From : Screnci, Diane [ mailto:Diane.Screnci@nrc.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:00 AM To: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal)

Subj ect: RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions

Liz, No, we can't discuss a specific person or specific concerns brought to us through the allegation process. Nor can we publicly discuss how we followed up on those safety concerns.

I sent you the inspection report on the April inspection yesterday. I've attached it again.

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 From : Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal) [4]

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:22 PM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions

Diane, A few follow up questions:

5

1f we obtain a release from the individuals who brought these concerns to the NRC, can the NRC discuss their allegations and the results of any subsequent investigations? It is our understanding that the i ndividuals have granted permission to the NRC to discuss the results wit h us.

ls the inspection that the NRC performed on April 7 and 8 a result of the letter sent to the NRC by Consumer Watchdog?

We would like to request the details of the inspection that took place on April 7 and 8. Is there a written report associated with the inspection? Or just verbal comrnunicat,on?

l(b)(6)

Please call me at.__ _ _ _ _.lFtyour earliest convenience.

Thank you, Liz Wagner Uz Wagner lrwc-,ti~ativc Pr oducc r ' l~BC Bil

• Arca l'J t \>/S o 408 .432 .4735 1 , b 6 f ,10s. ,n2 12s 24'>0 ,~. Fi,~l Stre et .an ose, . 5131 el izabeth. w agner@nbcuni.com www. nbcbayarea. com/ investigations From: Screnci, Diane [mailto:Diane.Screnci@nrc.gov)

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:46 PM To: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions Elizabeth.

I am responding to the emails you sent to me as well as the message you left for Richard Chang in the NRC's headquarters office.

I am declining your request for an on-camera interview.

I can neither confirm nor deny whether a specific individual has come to the NRC with safety concerns. It's important that workers and other members of the pubhc bring safety concerns directly to the NRC at any time.

Since some individuals will come forward only if their identities will be protected from public disclosure, safeguarding the identity of allegers is an important part of our process to ensure the voluntary flow of such information.

Now, having said that, the NRC is aware of issues regarding radiological safety concerns at Hunter's Point similar to those you asked about. As is our process, we have followed up on those concerns as appropriate.

As I've explained, we have a very thorough process for evaluating concerns that are brought to the agency. We determine the safety significance of allegations and the appropriate course of action to follow-up on the concerns. Once the NRC completes its evaluation, the person who raised lhe concern is notified of the agency's conclusions. Our correspondence with an alleger is not publicly available.

The Navy is the lead agency for Hunter's Point and the remediation is being conducted by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The Environmental Protection Agency has regulatory oversight for the Navy's remediation NRC does not regulate release criteria or 6

approve decommissioning procedures at this facility. For Navy contractors with NRC licenses, the NRC conducts routine regulatory oversight to ensure that the contractors perform their activities in accordance with their NRC license. The past several inspections specifically addressed the handling of potentially contaminated soil, and the radiological monitoring of workers. These site inspections included: review of procedures, review of records and reports, observation of work activities, and interviews with site personnel. For the 2014 inspection , NRC was also accompanied by a State of California inspector. I have attached the most recent inspection results for your use.

Please contact me if you have any further questions.

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/ 337-5330 From: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal) [5]

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 7:47 PM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal); Wagner, Elizabeth ( NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions Diane, Thank you for your email. I wanted to update you with additional information we have received during the course of our reporting. We would also like the NRC to address claims that potentially radiologica l impacted materi~lleft Hunters Point without being properly scanned or screened. Former Tetra Tech radiological tech}Susan Andrew.?__,1as claimed that the sensitivity of the rnrt;i l monitor wds weakener! in September 2011. and that potentially radioactive soil left Hunters poii:it when it shouldn't havej She ~ lso claims that potentially radiologi,cal impacted soil was used as backfill. Additiona lly, s_he rla ims that unqualified personnel are working in safety-sensitive roles at Hunters Point We understand that the NRC did investigate these claim s. We are requesting a copy of the report that investigation produced. Our request fo r an on-camera interview still stands. We would like to discuss the claims by/_S.11san Andrews.

the outcome of an NRC investigation and the it,ems mentioned below. We are under deadline and would like to schedule an interview within the next week.

l(b)(6) I Please contact me at.__ _ _ __, to discuss.

Thank you, Liz Wagner Liz Wagner l11w7st 1uativc~ Pr ~~~~~

o 408 412 .4735 From: Screnci, Diane [ mailto:Diane.Screnci@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 7:34 AM To: Wagner, Elizabeth ( NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Poi nt Questions 7

Hi Elizabeth, I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can.

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 From: Wagner, Elizabeth ( NBCUniversal) (mailto:Elizabeth.Wagner@nbcuni.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:38 PM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal); Wagner, Elizabeth ( NBCUniversal)

Subject:

NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions Hi Diane, Whistleblowers who used to work at Hunters Point- including former Tetra Tech radiation safety consult anv Elbert Bowers t-have told us that they have concerns regarding site remediation. Amonft his toncerns:

That safety protocol and radiological safety controls are being ignored at Hunters Point That unqualified personnel are working in safety-sensWve roles at the site That the culture at Hunters Point changed from one in which radioactive cleanup was a top priority to one in which getting work done quickly and cheaply is paramount Mr. BowerS\sa id thafhe taiseq' hrsr:oncerns to the NRC, but that1his loncerns were ignored.

We plan to report these developments. and would like to include the NRC's side of the story. We are req uesting an on camera interview with an NRC official to discuss the claims brought forth by former contractors at Hunters Point.

Specifically, we would like to address how the NRC has handled these claims and whether the NRC has launched an investigation into th~ cleanup efforts at Hunters Point. We would like to schedule the interview as soon as possible.

Please contact me a _(b)( 6) ~o discuss this opportunity Thank you, Liz Wagner Liz Wagner lrwe~llgat1ve P*odL1ce1 rea News 0408 -432 .4735 1 t 4oe,m£47'5 2'1~0 N. F1r~1 5trcrt s~11 Jo~c. "5131 el lzabeth. wagner@nbcuni .com www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations From: Screnci, Diane (mallto:Diane.Screnci@nrc.gov]

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 10:18 AM To: Wagner, Elizabeth ( NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions Liz, I'll see what I can do. Typically, we don't discuss how we follow-up on safety concerns.

Diane Screnci 8

Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/ 337-5330 From: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal) [6]

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:05 PM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Nguyen, Vicky {NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions

Diane, Would you please let me know w hat t he NRC's course of action is when it' s det ermined?

Thanks, From: Screnci, Diane [7]

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:53 AM To: Wagner, Elizabeth {NBCUniversal)

Cc: Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal)

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions

Liz, NRC's role at the Hunters Point site is to provide regulatory oversight of contractors with NRC licenses.

When we receive safety concerns, we evaluate them and determine the appropriate course of action. That's the process we're following with the letter you asked about. I cannot provide any further details.

I also cannot confirm or deny whether others have come to us with safety concerns.

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 From: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal) [8]

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:02 PM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal); Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal)

Subject:

NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions

Diane, 9

Thank you for the call back today. We understand t hat the NRC is taking over the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Radiological Health Branch's investigation into whistleblower allegations regarding Parcel Con Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco. The state has informed me that Parcel C is under exclusive federal j urisdiction.

Attached, please find a copy of the allegation letter sent to CDPH and the NRC.

Here are our questions:

o Why is Parcel C under exclusive federal jurisdiction?

o What does the investigation entail?

o How long will it last?

o What are the findings thus far?

o What will happen at the conclusion of the investigation? (Will the NRC issue a report, etc.?)

o Has the NRC been contacted by whistleblowers about Hunters Point in the past? (Please provide specifics.)

o Has the NRC investigated allegations regarding Hunters Point in the past? (Please provide specifics.)

I am copying my colleague Vicky Nguye*n on this email, as well. Please contact us with any questions.

Best, Liz Wagner Liz Wagn er hive~ltgat,ve Pr ofilTit U,}( l);,1 A ea 1-Jf'vl~.

u 408 4.32 47351 c b 6) lr 'iOfl.432.4415 2450 11. f ir it "..lr((*t $a11 Jo~r. C.A '/~1:1 elizabeth .wagner@nbcuni.com www. nbcbayarea. com I investigations 10

From: Smith, James Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: Bickett, Brice; Klukan, Brett; Chang, RichardJ'b)(7)(C) IKoenick, Stephen FW: Fwd: SF Chronicle: Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide

Subject:

FYI-More HPNS in the news From: LEE, LILY [9]

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 2:42 AM To: Smi1th, James; Masnyk Bailey, Orysla

Subject:

[External_Sender] Fwd: SF Chronicle: Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

From: "LEE, LILY" <LEE.LILY@EPA.GOV>

Date: April 22, 2018 at 11 :29:55 PM PDT To: "Chesnutt, John" <Chesnutt.John@epa.gov>, "Huitric, Michele"

<Huitric.Michele@epa.gov>, "Yogi, David" <Yogi.David@epa.gov>, "Lane, Jackie"

<Lane.Jacki e@epa.gov>, "Harris-Bishop, Rusty" <Harris-Bishop.Rusty@epa.gov>,

"Fairbanks, Brianna" <Fairbanks. Brianna@epa.gov>

Subject:

Fwd: SF Chronicle: Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide From the front page of today's SF Chronicle:

Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide Ex-Hunters Point workers say soil went to landfills By J.K. Dineen 1

Leah Millis/ The Chron icle 2016 The San Francisco Shipyard development is under way at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in 2016.

Brant Ward / The Chronicle 2015 By 2015, condominium construction was well in progress at the former Superfund site. with some tinits completed and owners moving in at the San Francisco Shipyard project.

2

Chronicle file 1966 lhe Hunters Point Naval Shipyard was home to the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory from 1946 to 1969.

Sited farmer MuM.n PM\tNaval Shl.pya-d The scandal involving cheating in the $1 billion cleanup at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard has until now focused on allegations of what was left behind at the site: radioactive dirt dumped into trenches to save the time and expense of testing and disposing of it properly.

But former shipyard employees and environmentalists say that toxic waste removed from the site is of j ust as great a concern. Soil with potentially dangerous levels of radioactive waste, t hey contend, was trucked to conventional landfills across California - the sort of dumps that typically fill up with tree branches, construction debris and old dishwashers, not radiological waste from a former nuclear test lab that handled uranium and plutonium.

The shipyard, home to the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory from 1946 to 1969, is now the site of the San Francisco Shipyard development project, regarded as perhaps t he most important development site in the city. It is to contain more than 10,500 housing units, 300 acres of open space, millions of square feet of retail, schools. a hotel and artists studios.

Before developer FivePoint starting building condominiums in 2013, former shipyard employees say that Tetra Tech, the company that was paid between $350 million and $450 3

million to lead the cleanup of the site, relaxed the standards for what was allowed to leave the property starting in 2011. The portal monitors - radiation detection scanners used to prevent trucks containing dangerous materials from exiting - were reset to be less sensitive.

An area with scaffolding t hat allowed inspectors to get on top of the trucks to inspect shipments was taken down.

And whereas previously trucks that set off an alert from the portal monitor more than twice would be made to dump their soil loads back on a tarp to be retested and cleaned of dangerous materials, the new policy just required an employee to walk around the truck with a handheld monitor. Those monitors rarely detected anything because the truck bed made it tough to get readings, according to workers.

Former shipyard employee Susan Andrews, who operated portal monitors in 2010 and 2011, sa id Tet ra Tech management went to extreme lengths to ensure trucks were allowed t o ex it, no matt er how many times they set off the radiation detector.

"Before 2011 that dirt was never to leave until the radiation detected was found, contained and put in a secure lockup box," she said. "In 2011, they changed the way they d id business."

Andrews said she saw trucks leaving the yard at night after the portal where they exited was supposed to be closed for the day - something she witnessed in January and February of 2012 from her condominium on Cleo Rand lane, right above the shipyard ent rance. She was one of nine former Tetra Tech employees to raise concerns with the Nuclear Regu latory Commission. She said she was laid off a short time later.

"I would be out with my dog about an hour after everyone had gone home, and I'd see these trucks full of dirt - 10 or 15 of them - going right by my condo," she said. "It was crazy.

Where on the site the dirt was coming from or where it was going I don't know. But nothing should have been leaving after the portal monitor was shut down" for the night.

A recent review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies found that as much as 97 percent of Tetra Tech's cleanup data for two parcels at the shipyard was found t o be suspect and should be retested, according to John Chesnutt, manager of the EPA's local Superfund Division. A spokesman for Tetra Tech did not return a call seeking comment.

While the Navy has acknowledged the problems with the Tetra Tech work, it continues to insist that the materials were removed from the site properly and safely.

Derek Robinson, who is leading t he cleanup for the Navy, said soil is stockpiled on-site and sampled to "to select the appropriate landfill for disposal." Soil that meets both radiolog ical and chemical cleanup requirements is put back into trenches on the site, places where structures may later be built.

Soil that doesn't meet those standards is separated and either sent to a landfill that accepts specific types of contamination in the soil or to a low-level radioactive waste site.

Some batches of dirt hauled off Hunters Point were tested and deemed too "hot " for conventional dumps, meaning they contained unacceptably high levels of radionuclides like cesium 137 and strontium 90 - both can cause cancer. That dirt, at least 4,300 cubic yards, was transported in watertight steel bins to Clive, Utah, one of four disposal sites in the United States licensed to accept low-level radioactive waste.

The rest of the waste, the vast majority, about 7,800 truckloads carrying 156,000 cubic yards, was marked "nonhazardous" and went to conventional dumps.

4

It was hauled to Kirby Canyon in Morgan Hill, near San Jose. It was transported to Keller Canyon in Pittsburg. It went to a dump in Buttonwillow, near Bakersfield, and to facilities in Vacaville and Brisbane owned by Recology, which collects San Francisco's household trash.

Most landfills also have portal monitors, although environmental experts say they are used sporad ically and do not test for radiation. If soil contaminated with radioactive material left the shipyard site wit hout being properly vetted, it is possible it landed in one of these landfills.

The t iming of t he changes Andrews observed at the portal is consistent with testimony from other whistle-blowers, who say the entire culture of the cleanup changed in early 2011 when Tetra Tech's contract was restructured from "time and material" to a "firm fixed -price model."

Suddenly, the contractor had a financial incentive to complete the cleanup as quickly as possible because it was working for a specific dollar amount.

Shortly after that contract change, worker and whistle-blower Bert Bowers, who was in charge of monitoring compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, said he started to see violations of industry standards - equipment left where it shou ldn't be and employees working without proper oversight. He complained and was later fired.

"The incentive was there to cut corners and get bonuses, and I started to see the effect," he said. "The standards started to become compromised."

Anthony Smith, who worked as laborer and technician at the shipyard during that time, said he and his colleagues spent months taking soil from areas known to be clean - like the foundation of an old movie theater - and passing it off as coming from sections of the site known to be highly t oxic.

"It came down from the higher-ups - 'We're gonna make this clean today. Go get a sample from the normal place, go get a clean sample; " Smith said.

Lindsey Dillon, a professor of sociology at UC Santa Cruz who is writing a book about the cleanup and redevelopment of the shipyard, said it's ironic that the champions of the redevelopment project cast it as "the heroic story of cleaning up a toxic military base" while the waste taken off the property is "creating a new geography of toxic exposure."

Conventional landfills tend to be located in communities lacking economic or politic clout.

"It's a systemic issue, because these landfill sites are located in particularly vulnerable areas,"

said Dillon.

Don Wadsworth, a hea lth physicist who specializes in radiation safety and radioactive waste management services, said the classified nature o f Hunters Point's history makes it hard to know what is buried on t he property. But the federal government allocated plenty of money t o do t he job correctly.

'The problem you have is t hat Tetra Tech was on a program of deceiving the client and the regulators about the conditions on the site and the conditions of the materials leaving the site," said Wadsworth. "In this case, the safety guard rails were not only ignored, t hey were ripped up and t hrown away."

Daniel Hirsch, retired d irector of the Environmental and Nuclear Policy Program at UC Santa Cruz, said the "release criteria" governing waste materials the Navy set at t he shipyard were far lower than they shou ld have been. And it is problematic that t hose standards may have been violated.

5

Hirsch said he has spent two years trying to find out what happened to the materials removed from the shipyard.

"The Navy have resisted and resisted and resisted, he said. "My impression is that they kn ew this was a potential problem and didn't want it exposed."

Landfills sell material as well as accept it so it's tough to say where all material from the shipyard wound up. Hunters Point soil could have ended up in rural roads, parks or building sites, Hirsch said. It could have been used as *cover" at landfills and ended up blown into nearby neighborhoods. It could contaminate water tables and irrigation used for crops.

In addition, waste and unwanted furnishings and metals such as pipes salvaged from razed buildings on the site could be recycled. Contaminated office furniture, fencing. metals and concrete from buildings all could have ended up in places where they could do harm to an unsuspecting public.

"I predict those communities will be up in arms, and they should be," Hirsch said. "They have converted one Superfund site into perhaps many."

Several of t he waste removal and recycling companies that received soil and debris from the shipyard did not return calls.

Recology, which owns facilities in Vacaville and Brisbane, said it would review all shipments from Hunters Point. Spokesman Eric Potashner said his facilities require customers to sign a guarantee that the soil doesn't contain contaminants that are not accepted, which would include anything radioactive.

"We have a robust sampling and acceptance criteria for all waste that comes into the site," he said.

Andrews, who is from West Virigina, said Tetra Tech should be responsible for conduct ing tests at the landfills where the shipyard soil ended up. She said that her co-workers went along with the program because the Hunters Point jobs were the most lucrative in the country for workers in the hazardous waste remediation field. They paid $42 an hour plus

$1,500 a week in expenses. Most of the workers were from Southern states where that kind of money goes a long way.

"I was told to shut my mouth, that I didn't live there, had hit the lottery, that I should shut up and save my money. The more they said that, the madder I got," she said. "I did care, and I decided that the people of San Francisco were worth more than my salary" J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter:

@sfjkdineen 6

7 Shaf tenner Hunta5 PontNawl Shlpywd Jch\ Bta,d\&ld/ The Otnric:111 8

From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:09 PM To: RlAILLEGA TION RESOURCE Cc: Bickett, Brice; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: !Fwd: SF Chronicle: Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide Forwarding for possible inclusion in the allegation file.

Cheers ,

Brett From: Smith, James Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:04 PM l(b)(?)(C)

To: Bickett, Brice; Klukan, Brett; Chang, Richard ;.__ _ _ __.

Cc: Erickson, Randy ; Koenick, Stephen ; Powell, Raymond; Orlando, Dominick

Subject:

FW: Fwd: SF Chronicle: Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide FYI As a follow-up to the articles, a few minutes ago, Randy Erikson from RIV received a call fro"l

.J(b)().)(C) Iand patched me in for a teleconference to discuss the toxic dirt articlesfX XC>

7

! who formerly worked for the State of California on Naval Bases in San Francisco, offered to provide detailed information that he has gathered from the many ears at the Hunter's Point and Treasure Island working for the State of California. He said that he can be contacted a (b)(6)

!(b)(6) rif we wish to ask him for further details. It didn't sound like an allegation, but perhaps an offer of assista...n_c_

e ..,

if_w_e~

needed to get eye witness specifics as ito the activities ofTetra Tech at the site.

Jim From: LEE, LILY[mailto:LEE.LILY@EPA.GOV)

Sent: M onday, April 23, 2018 2:42 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia <Orysia.MasnykBailey@nrc.gov>

Subject:

{External_Sender] Fwd: SF Chronicle: Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

From: "LEE, LILY" <LEE. LILY@EPA.GOV>

Date: April 22, 2018 at 11 :29:55 PM PDT To: "Chesnutt, John" <Chesnutt.John@epa.gov>, "Huitric, Michele"

<Huitric.Michele@epa.gov>, "Yogi, David" <Yogi.David@epa.gov>, "Lane, Jackie"

<Lane.Jacki e@epa.gov>, "Harris-Bishop, Rusty" <Harris-Bishop.Rusty@epa.gov>,

"Fairbanks, Brianna" <Fairban.ks.Brianna@epa.gov>

Subject:

Fwd: SF Chronicle: Toxic dirt from S.F. may be far and wide 1

Klukan, Brett From: Warnek, Nicole Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:44 PM To: Kluka n, Brett Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

RlALLEGA TION RESOURCE* Warnek Nicole Re: NRC Statement o (b)(7)(C)

FW: NRC Statement o (b)(7)(C)

Concerns (RI-2016-A-0019)

Concerns Brett - here ,s my first cot on a letter to the Hunters Point lawyer. Can you provide a better response tor the highlighted section? I'm at a loss. The lawyer's original email is attached.

Thanks!

Nikki Mr. Anton, I am writing in response lo your email to Ms_Orysia Masnyk Bailey and Mr. Jay Bigoness, dated July 31 ,

2016. Your email referred to a letter I sent you, dated July 20, 2016, that acknowledged NRC's understanding of your client's concerns following an interview on June 28-29, 2016 In your email you requested my contact information and asked that the NRC explain which areas of the Hunters Point site are within NRC's jurisdiction. You also questioned the relevance of geographic Jurisdiction at Hunters Point.

The NRC and the S1ate of Ca lifornia have split JUrtsd1ct1on at Hunters Point. The details regarding these jurisdictional boundaries are documented in a letter from the NRC to the Navy, dated July 15, 2014. The letter is publically available through our NRC website al http://adams.nrc.qov/wba To locate the document, select the "Advanced Sea rch" tab at the top of the page: under "Document Properties," select "Accession Number" in the drop-down ::iox under the "Property Field" and enter the Access,on Number ML14071A057 in the "Value Ffeld." This will lead vou to a oackaoe of three documents ,ncludino the letter and two mans.

(b)(5)

In your email you also expressed concern that the NRC ts "turning a blind eye to the issues" at Hunters Point, and you believe that the NRC is more interested in protecting itself than protecting the public. Concerns regarding NRC performance or misconduct are handled by the NRC Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

Our Region I Counsel provided your email on to the OIG on Monday August 1, 2016, for their awareness. If you wou ld like to follow up with the OIG directly, you can reach them at 1-800-233-3497.

Sincerely, Nicole Warnek Senior Allegation Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 800-432-1156 x5222 (Safety Hotline) 61 0-337 -6954 (office)

Page 1 of 2 Region I Allegation Review Board Disposition Record Allegation: Rl-2016-A-0019 ARB Date: 08/10/2016 Site/Facility: Hunters Point Allegation Receipt Date: 08/01/2016 CONCERN(S) DISCUSSED:

Email received from the Cl's attorney on 8/1 in response to ack/clo letter sent 7/20, containing concerns and questions raised by the Cl's attorney.

1. The NRC was not doing its ~b and wa0 urning "a blind eye" to radiation safety issues raised at Hunters Point. Specifically~san Andrewslpreviously raised the concern about chain of custody records and NRC did nothing with this infotfuation. This is one example of concerns that were raised by in 2011 , 2012, and 2013 to the NRC inspector and "went nowhere".

Security Category: NIA

2. NRC is more interested in protecting itself due to current information showing a failure of oversight than protecting the public. Cl feels that the repeated referencing of jurisdiction at Hunters Point is a part of this effort to protect the NRC and those who work for the NRC that were to provide oversight of Hunters Point and Tetra Tech.

Security Category: N/A

3. Cl wants NRC to explain NRC's geographic jurisdiction at Hunters Point, and explain why the Acknowledgment Letter ("Concern document") to the Cl is so focused on geographic jurisdiction and seems to ignore the issue of license oversight jurisdiction.

Security Category: N/A SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE:

ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES:

Chair: Trapp/Nick BC: Nicholson SAC: Warnek 01:~ RC: Klukan Others: Bickett, Bolger DISPOSITION ACTIONS

1. Provide response by email. For issues 1 and 2: NRC performance/wrongdoing matters should be directed to the OIG. Provide OIG contact info and note that Region I has already forwarded these issues to OIG. For issue 3: Provide response to jurisdiction question Responsible Person: Warnek ECO: 8/26/16 Closure Documentation: RAC response email Completed:

2. Provide information to SAC regarding NRC jurisdiction at Hunters Point, referencing publically available documents as available.

Responsible Person: Powell ECO: 8/19/16 Closure Documentation: email to file Completed:

DISPOSITION CONSIDERATIONS,:

• Does alleger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? OYes ONo 181 N/A

• Has the ARB reviewed and approved the RFI Checklist? OYes ONo 181N/A NOTES:

Upon conclusion of the Allegation Review Board (ARB), this Disposition Record becomes the official ARB

Page 2 of2 minutes, and is considered reviewed and approved by the ARB Chair.

From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 9:34 AM To: Warnek, Nicole Cc: Bickett, Brice; RlALLEGATION RESOLIJRCE.

Subject:

Re: NRC Statement ofl(b)(7)(C) f oncerns Nikki, Just so that you're aware, I forwarded your email to OIG for consideration.

Cheers, Brett On: 01 August 2016 08:54, "Wamek, Nicole" wrote:

I received an email from the lawyer for the Hunter*s Point alleger, in response to the acknowledgement/closure.

letter I sent. I will work with Brice to figure o ut a response, but wanted you all to be aware of the email since I may need to reach out to you.

For reference, the acknowledgement/closure letter I sent to Mr. Anton is attached.

Brett - this m ay require an OIG referral.

Nikki From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia X Sent: Monday, August 01 , 2016 7:51 AM To: Wamek, Nicole Cc: Bigoness, Jay

Subject:

FW: NRC Statement of!(b)(?)(C) !Concerns Can you reach out to ~r. Anton or should I give him ano.tl}.er point of contact?

From: David Antor1l_(prnilto:d,widanto nlaw0.,uma1J.com)

Sent: Sunday, July 31 , 2016 3: 17 PM To: Bigoness, Jay <)ay.BiiJ.oness(cunn.:.go,*> ; Masn k Baile , Orysia X <Orvsiu.MasnvkBailey(l1mrc.g,ov>

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] NRC Statement of (b)(l )(C) Concerns Jay and Orysia:

I have received a letter from the NRC, written by Nicole Wamek, Senior Allegation Coordinator, that contains Enclosure l that sets forth 6 "Concerns". Could you please send m e Nicole's email address so ncan communicate with Nicole directly about the statement of concerns.

Additio nally, the statement sets forth statements as to what is or is not within the NRC jurisdiction, as if jlbXl)(C) rrould know such a thing. Please identify the scope of area that the NRC contends is witrnn its jurisdiction at Hunters Point and what areas are outside NRC jurisdiction.

In the wrongful termination case that I litigated o n behalf of four individuals that worked at Hunters Point and were released when they resisted the developing culture of rad cheating at Hunters Point I was confronted with a motion to dismiss the case based on the federal enclave. I have extensive information as a result of that process, including historic records of the areas claimed as enclaves by the Navy as well as detailed maps of the 1

enclave and non-federal enclave scope of Hunters Poinl If the jurisdiction of the NRC is exactly the same as the federal enclave or non-federal enclave area, simply identifying jt that way will work for me. lf the NRC area of jurisdktion differs from the federal enclave area, then a detailed explanation of a PRF of a map will work.

I have had deep concerns over the years worl<mg on this case that the NRC was not doing it job, and was more interested in turning a blind eye to the issues than doing what those in the field thought the NRC was suppose to do. [For examp~/ ~usan Andrew~ infonned Orysia in late 2011 of the falsefied Chain of Custody racumentatioffen\her Interview, and it appears the NRC did nothing with this information. Th.e records and

X7)(C) * ,. r{"; I tatements show thay M~. Andrews report to Orysia in 2011 of falsified COC documents was accurate and ongoing, and went on for over a year thereafter. This is j ust one example of many reports of misconduct involving the rad processes brought to the N RC in 2011, 12, and 13 that went nowhere.] I have been concerned tl1at the NRC may still be more interested in protecting itself due to current information showing a failure of oversight than protecting the public. I am concerned that the repeated referencing of jurisdiction is part of this effort to protect the NRC and those who work for the NRC that were to provide oversight of Hunters Point and Tetra Tech. I am hoping the NRC will realize the need to take a proactive effort to get things right at Hunters Point, rather than focusing on protecting its administrative butt.

Please also explain the relevance of geographic jurisdiction at Hunters Point when infonnation shows that a company with an NRC license has been reported as intentionally and fraudulently submitting documents to the government [Navy] about remediation of radioactive materials. It would seem to me that the :fraud involving rad material and fraudulent reporting to the government would both be of concern to the NRC due to the NRC issued license to Tetra Tech. Please explain to me why it is that the "Concern" document is so focused on geographic jurisdiction, and seems to ignore the issue of license oversight jurisdiction.

Due to my concerns, I want to go over these itemized "Concerns" for accuracy and completeness. At present [

need additional information on the issue of jurisdiction to respond. I can state that the scope of the "Concerns" appears incomplete as presently framed, but I know that I do not have foundation information on jurisdiction to accurately respond.

[ look forward to receiving the information and email address that I request so that we can provide clarification, corrections, and a full and accurate full scope of concerns relevant to the Tetra Tech license with the NRC and the conduct at Hunters Point.

David Anton 2

From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Monda Au ust 01, 2016 9:32 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Fwd: NRC Statement ofel;l(C) 1concerns Attachments: 20160019 ackclo.pdf -

• l(b)(7)(C)

See below for your awareness. The alleger's attorney cited concerns over NRC's oversight of Hunters Point activities.

We (Region I) plan to be the POC for further communications with the attorney.

Please Jet me know if you have any questions.

Thanks.

Cheers, Brett From: "Wamek, Nicole"

Subject:

FW: NRC Statement ofxixc)

Date: 01 August.2016 08:54 I Concerns To: "R 1ALLEG A TJON RESOURCE" , "Powell, RR~ond" "KJufan, Brett" Cc: "Masnyk Bailey, Orysia X" , "Bigoness, Jay" , f x x) , "Wamek, Nicole" I received an email from the lawyer for the Hunter's Point alleger, in response to the acknowledgement/closure letter I sent. I will work with Brice to figure out a response, but wanted you aJI to be aware of the email since I may need to reach out to you.

For reference, the acknowledgement/c1osure letter l sent to Mr. Anton is attached.

Brett - this may require an 0 10 referral.

Nikki From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia X Sent: Monday, August 01 , 2016 7:51 AM To: Warnek, Nicole Cc: Bigoness, Jay ...b_ _ c_____

7

Subject:

FW: NRC Statement of ( )( )( ) oncems Can you reach out to Mr. Anton ors ou I give im another point of contact?

From: David Anton[mail1o:d,n idantonla" (ri gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 3: 17 PM To: Bigoness, Jay <Jay.Bigoness(a 11rc.~ov>~Masn k Bailev, Orysia X <Orvsia.MasnvkBatlcv(tiinrc.gov>

Subject:

[Extema"l_Sender] NRC Statement of (b)(7)(C) Concerns Jay and Orysia:

1

I have received a letter from the NR C, written by Nicole Warnek, Senior Allegation Coordinator, that contains that sets forth 6 11Concems". Could you please send me Nicole's email address so I can communicate with Nicole directly about the statement of concerns.

ally, the statement sets forth statements as to what is or is not within the NRC jurisdiction, as if would know such a thing. Please identi fy the scope of area that the N RC contends is within its J on at Hunters Point and what areas are outside N RC jurisdiction.

In the wrongful tennination case that I litigated on behalf of four individuals that worked at Hunters Point and were released when they resisted the developing culture of rad ch eating at Hunters Point I was confronted with a motion to dismiss the case based on the federal enclave. I have extensive information as a result of that process, including historic records of the areas claimed as enclaves by the Navy as well as detailed maps of the enclave and non-federal enclave scope of Hunters Point. lf the j urisdiction of the N RC is exactly the same as the federal enclave or non-federal enclave area, simply identifying it that way will work for me. If the NRC area of jurisdiction differs from the federal enclave area, then a detailed explanation of a PRF of a map will work.

I have had deep concerns over the years working on this case that the NRC was not doing it job, and was more interested in turning a blind eye to the issues than doing what those in the field thought the NRC was suppose to do. [For examP.l;.L§"usan Andrew~n formed Orysia in late 2011 of the falsefied Chain of C ustody documentation itti!_~:}nterview, ancI1t appears the NRC did nothing with this information. T he records and rxixc> ~tatements show tha(Ms. Andrew3eport to Orysia in 2011 of falsified COC documents was accurate and ongoing, and went on for over a year thereafter. This is just one example of many reports of misconduct involving the rad processes brought to the NRC in 201 1, 12, and 13 that went nowhere.] I have been concerned that the N RC may still he more interested in protecting itself due to current information showing a failure of oversight than protecting the public. I am concerned that the repeated referencing of jurisdiction is part of this effort to protect the NRC and those who work for the NRC that were to provide oversjght of Hunters Point and Tetra Tech. I am hoping the NRC will realize the need to take a proactive effort to get things right at Hunters Point~ rather than focusing on protecting its administrative butt.

Please also explain the relevance of geographic jurisdiction at Hunters Point when information shows that a company with an NRC license has been reported as intentionally and fraudulently submitting documents to the government [Navy) about remediation of radioactive materials. It would seem to me that the fraud involving rad material and fraudulent reporting to the government would both be of concern to the NRC due to the NRC issued license to Tetra Tech. Please explain to me why it is that the "Concern" document is so focused on geographic jurisdiction, and seems to ignore the issue of license oversight jurisdiction.

Due to m y concerns, I want to go over these itemized "Concerns" for accuracy and completeness. At present I need additional information on the issue of jurisdiction to respond. I can state that the scope of the "Concerns" appears incomplete as presently framed, but I know that I do not have foundation information on jurisdiction to accurately respond.

I look forward to receiving the information and email address that I request so that we can provide clarification, corrections, and a full and accurate full scope of concerns relevant to the Tetra Tech license w ith the NRC and the conduct at Hunters Point.

David Anton 2

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19400.2713 July 20, 2016 David C. Anton Attorney At Law 1717 Redwood Lane Davis, CA 95616 S ubject: Concerns Your Client Raised to the NRC Regarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear Mr. Anton :

(b)(7)(C)

This letter refers to concerns raised by your clien egarding Hunters Point Naval Shipyard . The NRC became aware of your c ,en s concerns o March 11 , 2016, through an NBC Bay Area news article. The NRC interviewed your client on June 28-29, 20 16, to ob *n additional Information regarding his concerns. Enclosure 1 documents our understanding of (b)(7J(C) l(b)(7)(C) r oncerns. Please contact me if we misunderstood *Or mischaracterized his concerns.

T he NRC will pursue these matters, as appropriate. Typically, the NRC takes all reasonable efforts not to disclose an alleger's identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. However, because your clien1 notified the news media of his concerns, please understand that we cannot protect his identity as the source of these concerns.

The NRC plans no further correspondence on this matter. However, if you have any questions, clarifications, or additional information to provide, please call this office toll-free via the NRC R egion I Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, ext. 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at 2100 Renaissance Blvd, Suite 100, King of Prussia, PA 19406.

Sincerely, N icole S. Warnek Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCL0SURE1 Concern 1:

In the NBC news article, your client indicated tha[fu~upervisors ordered him to replace potentially contaminated soil samples with clean samples. During his interview with the NRC, your client indicated that the majority of soil replacements happened outside of NRC jurisdiction.

However. one example occurred in Parcel G, which is under NRC jurisdiction. Your client stated tha~ccompanied by another (namedJCblCZ)(C} I took soil samples from a trench under~ath Building 351 A One of the samples was above elease criteria. Your client e ed a meetin where the artici ants include (b)(l)(C)

(b)(7)(C) and othef(b)(7)(C) I At that meeting {b)(7){C) vise your c 1en o ge a-=c:r::e~""ample," because otherwise they would have to reme 1a e with a ~pecial machine due to asbestos in the area, and getting that machine back would "be too expensive.

Concern 2:

In the NBC news article, your client indicated thalb~upervisors instructed him to dump potentially contaminated soil into open trenches across Hunters Point. Durinfhisl interview with the NRC, your client clarified that the potentially contaminated soil was collectea-rl-om Parcel E, replaced with "clean soil," and dumped into trenches also located in Parcel E, which is outside of NRC regulatory jurisdiction.

Concern 3:

In the NBC news article, your client indicated thaf ~supervisors forced him to sign falsified documents (chain of8-li~ody forms for soil samples) that were later submitted to the government. Ourin~~ nterview with the NRC, your client stated that these chain of custody forms were for samples obtained in Parcel E. However, your client also stated that two other (b}(7)(C) names provided] were told to falsify chain of custody forms, and they worked in areas un er NRC jurisdiction.

Concern 4:

In the NBC news article, your clie,.ot indicated that supervisors tampered with computer data that analyzed radiation levels. DuringJ,ii)nterview with the NRC, your client clarified that the computer data was associated with surveys performed in Parcel E.

Concern 5:

In the NBC news article, yo~~ent indicated that, whe,fu~aised concerns internally, the company response was that.be ould go home if he didn't like the company's tactics. No additional d~tails were provide during your client's interview with the NRC.

Concern 6:

During his interview with the NRG, your client raised an additi9D~ concern not captured by the

,. NBC news article. Your clien~erted that, in January 2009.~ ollected a "backgroundtt sample that came back "hot." He was told by his supervfsor to get another sample and not tell anyone about the "hot" sample. he area was never investigated. This sample collection .

occurred outside of NRG jurisdiction.

ENCLOSURE 1 NRC Response to Concerns 1-6:

I Thank you for providing these concerns to the NRC. The NRC will pursue these matters, as appropriate.

• For your information, the NRC is in the process of finalizing our enforcement response for similar issues identified at Hunters Point pertaining to Parcel C. Specifically, the NRC transmitted an apparent violation to Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (Tetra Tech) by letter dated February 11 , 2016. The NRC identified that, between November 18, 2011 , and June 4, 2012, when tasked with obtaining soil samples to ascertain the amount of residual radioactivity in specific locations within Parcel C, Tetra Tech employees instead obtained soil samples from other areas that were suspected to be less contaminated. The February 11 , 2016, letter is publicly available in our Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at accession number (ML16042A074). Tetra Tech responded to the NRC by letters dated March 15, 2016 (ML16090A220) and March 22, 2016 (ML16090A318). The NRC is in the process of finalizing our enforcement response.

• From: Urban, Richard Sent: f.riday, March 27, 2015 8:SO_AM To: .QavidAntonlaw@gma il.com

Subject:

Your Request Per your letter to me dated March 17, 20 15, 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

From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:11 AM To: Klukan, Brett

Subject:

FW: WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:04 AM To: Urban, Richard; RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Ferdas, Marc

Subject:

WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFOR_MATION

~usan Andrew~ft a voice mail on my phone Saturday 4/24/2014{iti~advised me that the only wa~"1would c mmunicat ith me was throu h~ lawyer, David Antoine, by mail, or by email. I could not understand the address s e eft but h said that we ha he address on file.§ave her email as eithe (b)(7)(C) r (b)(7)(C) he said that I should "sendf£e3ny concerns an she would review them an get back 1

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:21 AM To: Klukan, Brett Cc: Bickett, Brice; Masnyk Bailey, Orysia; Ferdas, Marc; RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: U.S. NRC re: Recent May 2014 phone messages/ conversations... SENSmVE ALLEG INFO

Brett, Just an FYlr Mr Bower'iland§.usan Andrew~re basically being informed by their lawyer that they shouldn't talk to us; r~er 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~(b)( 5)

Sent: ..M...o..,..nd....a-y,-M...a-y-2-6,"'"'2""'01...4,_3... M.....--------c:=.:;,........-----

2....6...A....

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-Bai/ey 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 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 radiological 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 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, 11 Elbert "Bert Bowers 2

From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:57 AM To: Urban, Richard; Screnci, Diane Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Bickett, Brice

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News

• Hunters Point Questions SENSITIVE ALLEG INFO RI-2011-A-0019 I've reached out to OGC to see if I can get ahold of this guidance before next week.

Cheers, Brett From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:26 AM To: Klukan, Brett; Screnci, Diane Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Bickett, Brice

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News

• Hunters Point Questions SENSmVE ALLEG INFO Rl-2011-A-0019 I just spoke to Dave Vito. He is in RIV with Lisa. However, he told~e that OGC has previou~ ruled that this does not make them widely known allegers. Further, even thoug~~aid we could confirm~i~aving come to us, Dave cautioned that we should not. Dave said he could provide OGC justification when he gets back next week.

From: Klukan, Brett Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:01 AM To: Urban, Richard; Screnci, Diane Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE; Bickett, Brice

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions SENSmVE ALLEG INFO Rl-2011-A-0019 The complaint (the document at the first bottom of the docket list) notes that bot~ndrew~andfowe~made allegations to the NRC. The complaint is a public document.

Diane, thanks for finding this-I was just about to go look for it.

Cheers, Brett From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 10:52 AM To: Screnci, Diane; Klukan, Brett Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions SENSm VE ALLEG INFO Rl-2011-A-0019

• l(b)(7)(C)

Elbert Bowers; Susan Andrews;.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,

From: Screnci, Diane Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 10:48 AM To: Urban, Richard; Klukan, Brett Cc: Bickett, Brice; Dean, Bill; RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE : NBC Bay Area News* Hunters Point Questions SENSIBVE ALLEG I NFO RI-2011-A-0019

I think this might be what we're looking for.... http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/xsu4w9so/superior-court-of-california-county-of-san-francisco/susan-v-andrews-et-al-v-tetra-tech--ec-inc-et-al/

The entire docket is at http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/xsu4w9so/superior-court-of-california-county-of-san-francisco/susan-v-andrews-et-al-v-tetra-tech--ec-inc-et-a1/

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/ 337-5330 From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 10:40 AM To: Klukan, Brett Cc: Bickett, Brice; Dean, Bill; Screnci, Diane; RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions SENSmVE ALLEG INFO Rl-2011-A-0019 I spoke to the alleger. He has never spoken to this news reporter. As best as I can tell, it sounds like him and three other allegers have retained the services of an attorney and have filed a claim in Federal Civil Court. In the meantime DOL has put the cases on hold pending the claim. Brice and I believe that this court filing could be public and may contain the names of the allegers and their concerns .

Brett, could you get this filing? Is that possible? If we can verify w').9t we believe, we can probably go with widely-known alleger status for these allegers. I have the name olEB]attorney /©avid Anton}lput that's it.

[E_§ras supposed to call me back with contact information for the lawyer. {

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 9:30 AM To: Dean, Bill; Screnci, Diane Cc: Bickett, Brice

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions The alleger left me a voice message late yesterday. I will be callinl5.i~hortly, wh ich will hopefully make our job easy to respond to the reporter.

From: Dean, Bill Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 9:09 PM To: Urban, Richard; Screnci, Diane Cc: Bickett, Brice

Subject:

Re: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions Would be nice if we could reference the facf~is an alleger and be more transparent. No camera, obviously, but could we not say we have received allegations regarding similar issues and not say where we got them from?

Bill Dean Regional Administrator Region I, USNRC From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 02:43 PM To: Screnci, Diane; Dean, Bill Cc: Bickett, Brice

Subject:

RE: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questio~

I called El_t&bout an hour ago and left a message o~~ell phone-!5lhas yet to return my call.

2

From: Screnci, Diane Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:01 PM To: Dean, Bill Cc: Bickett, Brice; Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions Bill, I received this email last night. I've told the reporter I'll get back to her. Just wanted to run by you what I'm planning.

I've discussed this with Rick , who has discussed with HQ Allegations.

Rick is trying to contact the~ntlem~n~med in the email to determine whftther[fiil.vants us to treatfui~ s a p~lic alleger. !~does, we can then respond to the email by saying yes,ll!e~come to us; we've looked into

,hi~concerns and what we found.

lf[6~eclines ~ be treated as a public alleger - or is not reachable - we would have to "neither confirm nor deny" whethel,behad come to us ... and answer no questions abou(6§allegations I'd provide information about protecting tfie identity of allegers and why we do that.

In either case, I'd suggest we decline to go on camera with the reporter. (although I'm fairly certain she wasn't anticipating she'd have to come here to interview someone.)

Your thoughts?

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 6 10/337-5330 From: Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal) [mailto:Elizabeth.Wagner@nbcuni.com)

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:38 PM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal); Wagner, Elizabeth (NBCUniversal)

Subject:

NBC Bay Area News - Hunters Point Questions Hi Diane, Whistleblowers w ho used to work at Hunters Point-including former Tetra Tech radiation safety consultan@bert Bowe~have told us that thev have c9ncerns regarding site remediation . Among his concerns.

That safety protocol and radiological safety controls are being ignored at Hunters Point That unqualified personnel are working in safety-sensitive roles at the site That the culture at Hunters Point changed from one in whic.h radioactive clean up was a top priority to one in which getti'1g work done quickly and cheaply is paramount

~r. Bower!Paid that\ hP.hisec{ hi_s jtoncerns to the NRC, but tha(his}:oncerns were ignored.

We pla n to report these developments and wo.uld like to include the NRC's side of the story. We are requesting an on-camera interview w ith an NRC official to discuss the claims brought forth by former contractors at Hunters Point.

Specifically, we would like to address how the NRC has handled these claims and whether the NRC has launched an investigation into the cleanu efforts at Hunters Point. We would like to schedule the interview as soon as possible.

Please contact me a (b)(7)(C) to discuss this opportunity.

3

OCT 1 4 2014 Mr. Elbert G. Bowers Rl-2014-A-0045 11b11,1 *1 Subject* Concern You Raised Reaardina the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear\Mr Bowers.,

I The NRG Region I Office has completed its follow up in response to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which we identified one concern under NRG regulatory jurisdiction related to radiological controls. Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern and describes our review and conclusions regarding that concern.

Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission, and as such, we take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. We believe that our actions have been responsive . If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusion should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warranted . Should you have any additional questions or if the NRG 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, Ort.p*l Upd a, l Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Elbert G . Bowers 2 Rl-2014-A-0045 Distribution:

Allegation File No. Rl-2014-A-0045 DOCUMENT NAME: G :\ORA\ALLEG\CL0SE\20140045clo.docx Non-Public Designation Category: MD 3.4 Non-Public A.1 0 Non-Sensitive 0 Publicly Available 0 SUNSI Review 0 Sensitive 0 Non-Publicly Available OFFICE DNMS:NMS83 ORA:SAC/ ~

, Ill NAME M Ferdas /.A'-i R Urban t-;

DATE 10/ JO /2014 1011r 12014 OFFICIAL Rt:COFU) 69P¥

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0045 Concern:

In December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdown, you took photos of what you asserted as trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard through the streets of San Francisco and the Bay Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point. You stated you detailed your findings in e-mai ls to Tetra Tech managers.

Response to Concern:

NRC Assessment During an inspection conducted at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS) on July 21 - 22, 2014, an NRC inspector reviewed procedures and records and interviewed personnel familiar with activities that occurred in the 2010 time frame. Included in the records reviewed by the NRC inspector were two e-mails dated December 21, 2010, which you referred to in your concern , and the records associated with the investigation that was performed by Tetra Tech based on the information that you had provided to them.

In your first e-mai l you stated to Tetra Tech that "Baker" tanks had left the site without the use of the vehicle portal monitor (VPM). Based on discussions with Tetra Tech personnel during the inspection, the inspector determined that, at the time of your e-mails, Baker tanks were being utilized by various on-site contractors at HPNS, not just Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech performed an investigation into the picture you had taken, and concluded that the three Baker tanks shown in the picture were not associated with any activities they were performing at the site. Specifically, the picture you provided showed Baker tanks parked by a fence line, in an area where Tetra Tech did not store their tanks. Tetra Tech did not know which contractor was responsible for the tanks in your picture.

In your second e-mail to Tetra Tech , you stated that a metal bin truck had departed HPNS at a time when the VPM was not in operation. The inspector reviewed the applicable licensee procedure for the VPM, titled "Final Hunters Point Shipyard Project, Standard Operating Procedures, Gamma Screening of Trucks Using the Skid-Mounted Portal Monitor," Revision 3, dated December 3, 2008. The inspector noted that the procedure did not require all trucks to be screened prior to leaving site. Rather, use of the VPM was required only for trucks that were loaded with soils and debris, to ensure the contents were not contaminated. Tetra Tech's investigation concluded that the truck referenced in your e-mail appeared to be a metal recycling truck, which would not have been required to pass through the VPM . The inspector also viewed the picture of the truck, and agreed it did not appear to be a soil truck. Specifically, the inspector noted that soil trucks are open on the top, whereas your picture showed a closed truck, similar to a recycling truck.

NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC was unable to substantiate your concern that trucks and tanks were hauling dirt and contaminated water from HPNS through the streets of San Francisco and the Bay Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point.

1 OFFICIAL RECORD copif

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 flCT l 4 2014 Mr. Elbert G. Bowers Rl-2014-A-0045

Subject:

Concern You Raised Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Dea~ Mr. Bowers The NRC Region I Office has completed its follow up in response to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which we identified one concern under NRC regulatory jurisdiction related to radiological controls. Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern and describes our review and conclusions regarding that concern .

Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission, and as such , we take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. We believe that our actions have been responsive. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRG receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusion should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warranted. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRG 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,

£LL/ta.__

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0045 Concern:

In December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdown, you took photos of what you asserted as trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard through the streets of San Francisco and the Bay Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point. You stated you detailed your findings in e-mails to Tetra Tech managers.

Response to Concern:

NRC Assessment During an inspection conducted at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS) on July 21 - 22, 2014, an NRC inspector reviewed procedures and records and interviewed personnel familiar with activities that occurred in the 2010 time frame. Included in the records reviewed by the NRC inspector were two e-mails dated December 21 , 2010, which you referred to in your concern, and the records associated with the investigation that was performed by Tetra Tech based on the information that you had provided to them .

In your first e-mail you stated to Tetra Tech that "Baker" tanks had left the site without the use of the vehicle portal monitor (VPM). Based on discussions with Tetra Tech personnel during the inspection, the inspector determined that, at the time of your e-mails, Baker tanks were being utilized by various on-site contractors at HPNS, not just Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech performed an .

investigation into the picture you had taken, and concluded that the three Baker tanks shown in the picture were not associated with any activities they were performing at the site. Specifically, the picture you provided showed Baker tanks parked by a fence line, in an area where Tetra Tech did not store their tanks. Tetra Tech did not know which contractor was responsible for the tanks in your picture.

In your second e-mail to Tetra Tech, you stated that a metal bin truck had departed HPNS at a time when the VPM was not in operation. The inspector reviewed the applicable licensee procedure for the VPM, titled "Final Hunters Point Shipyard Project, Standard Operating Procedures, Gamma Screening of Trucks Using the Skid-Mounted Portal Monitor," Revision 3, dated December 3, 2008. The inspector noted that the procedure did not require all trucks to be screened prior to leaving site. Rather, use of the VPM was required only for trucks that were loaded with soils and debris, to ensure the contents were not contaminated. Tetra Tech's investigation concluded that the truck referenced in your e-mail appeared to be a metal recycling truck, which would not have been required to pass through the VPM. The inspector also viewed the picture of the t ruck, and agreed it did not appear to be a soil truck. Specifically, the inspector noted that soil trucks are open on the top, whereas your picture showed a closed truck, similar to a recycling truck.

NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRG was unable to substantiate your concern that trucks and tanks were hauling dirt and contaminated water from HPNS through the streets of San Francisco and the Bay Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point.

1

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 1:35 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: RI-2014-A-0045 *sensitive afllegation information - do not disclose*

Attachments: 20140045clo.docx; 20140046clo.docx From: Warnek, Nicole Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 1 :34:39 PM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Cc: Ferdas, Marc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Rl-2014-A-0045 *sensitive allegation information - do not disclose*

Auto forwarded by a Rule Hi Orysia ,

I have a short-turnaround item I need yo:ur help with. The closure letter for allegation 2014-A-0045 is due next Thursday ( 10/16). I need some additional Information from you to fully close the allegation. Can you review the attached and answer the highlighted questions?

If you have any questions please call. Otherwise, we need the input by COB Tuesday to support the closure letter going out on Thursday.

I also attached -0046 so you can see the changes I made to that letter.

Thank you!

Nicole S. Warnek Allegation & Enforcement Specialist Region I Office of the Regional Administrator

!,:E,10-337-6954 f°tfi~)

celll

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:44 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Closeout Writeup for -045 & -046 WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Attachments: Rl 2014-A-0045.docx; Rl-2014-A-0046.docx From: Ferdas, Marc Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:43:32 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Closeout Writeup for -045 & -046 WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION Auto forwarded by a Rule

• • WARNING ALLEGATION MATERIAL -DO NOT DISCLOSE**

Attached are input for the enclosure to the closeout letter for Allegations -045 and -046

?Kc.te s. ';w!M Chief, Decommissioning & Technical Support Branch (NRC/Reglon 1/DNMS)

Marc.Ferdas@nrc.gov 610-337-5022 (wj

'-----~'(ct From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:03 AM To: Ferdas, Marc

Subject:

WARNING CONTAINS ALLEGATION INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0045 Concern:

Response to Concern:

NRC Assessment

NRG Conclus,on (b)(5)

I*

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:00 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: RI-2014-A-0045 & 0046 *sensitive allegation information - do not disclose*

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:42 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: RI-2014-A-0045 & 0046 *sensitive allegation information - do not disclose*

From: Warnek, Nicole Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:42: 19 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: Rl-2014-A-0045 & 0046 *sensitive allegation informat1ion - do not disclose*

Auto forwarded by a Rule Per Orysia's email , we can close the "inspection" action in AMS for the subject allegations . Inspection was completed 7/22/14.

From: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:01 PM To: Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

RE: RI-2014-A-0046 *sensitive allegation information - do not disclose*

The inspection was done July 21-22, 2014.

JUN 1 6 2014 Mr. Elbert G. Bowers Rl-2014-A-0045 l(b)(~(C)

Subject:

Concern You Raised Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard I ,

Dear~r. Bowers*\

This letter refers to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which you raised several concerns regarding Hunters Point. Based on our review of the article, we have determined that the NRC previously addressed and closed most of the concerns you raised . However, we have identified one new concern under NRC regulatory Jurisdiction related to radiological controls.

Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concern. If the description of your concern as documented in the enclosure is not accurate, please contact this office so that we can assure it is appropriately described prior to the completion of our review.

We have initiated actions to examine your concern. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns with in six months, although complex issues may take longer. However, after evaluating the information in the news article, we have determined that we would benefit from additional information in order to perform a more effective review of your concern. If you can provide the photographs or e-mails referenced in the news article, such information would help us focus our review effort. If you can provide this information, please contact this office within 1O days of receipt of this letter. If no additional information is received within 1O days, we will proceed with our review based on the information currently available. Additionally, we plan to conduct an on-site visit to Hunters Point later this summer. If you have additional concerns that you have not previously raised to the NRC, please contact us as soon as possible so we can ensure timely review and follow-up.

Typically, the NRC takes all reasonable efforts not to disclose an alleger's identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. However, as previously described in our letter to you dated June 2, 2014 (regarding Allegation Rl-2011-A-0019), because you notified the news media of your concerns, we could not protect your identity as the source of those concerns. Similarly, because your current concern appeared in a news article, we cannot protect your identity as the source of this concern.

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 help;u1 in understanding our process for reviewing safety concerns.

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Bert Bower~ 2 Rl-2014-A-0045 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 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. You may also communicate with us by e-mail if you so choose. Please be advised that the NRC cannot protect the information during transmission on the Internet and there is a possibility that someone could read your response while it is in transit. The e-mail address for the Region I Allegations Office is R1Allegations.Resource@nrc.gov Sincerely, Ortateai It

~ I):

Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator Enclosures* As Stated OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Mr. Bert Bowers 3 Rl-2014-A-0045 Distribution:

Allegation File No. Rl-2014-A-0045 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\ACK\20140045ack.docx To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachrnenVencloswe "E" = Copy with attachrnenVenclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE DNMS:BC I Rl :SAC /I/Y I I I NAME MFerdas INIL /'--~,- R Urban I 7 DATE 06/ I 1- /2014 06!/~!20'f 4 OFFICIAL RECORD copy

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0045 Concern:

In December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdown, you took photos of what you asserted as trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard through the streets of San Francisco and the Bay Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point. You stated you detailed your findings in e-mails to Tetra Tech managers.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD.

KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 JUN 1 6 2014

'Mr. Elbert G. Bowers Rl-2014-A-0045

Subject:

Concern You Raised Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Dear Mr. Bowers.

This letter refers to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which you raised several concerns regarding Hunters Point. Based on our review of the article, we have determined that the NRC previously addressed and closed most of the concerns you raised . However, we have identified one new concern under NRC regulatory jurisdiction related to radiological controls.

Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concern. If the description of your concern as documented in the enclosure is not accurate, please contact this office so that we can assure it is appropriately described prior to the completion of our review.

We have initiated actions to examine your concern. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer. However, after evaluating the information in the news article, we have determined that we would benefit from additional information in order to perform a more effective review of your concern. If you can provide the photographs or e-mails referenced in the news article, such information would help us focus our review effort. If you can provide this information, please contact this office 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 the information currently available. Additionally, we plan to conduct an on-site visit to Hunters Point later this summer. If you have additional concerns that you have not previously raised to the NRC, please contact us as soon as possible so we can ensure timely review and follow-up.

Typically, the NRC takes all reasonable efforts not to disclose an alleger's identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. However, as previously described in our letter to you dated June 2, 2014 (regarding Allegation Rl-2011-A-0019), because you notified the news media of your concerns, we could not protect your identity as the source of those concerns. Similarly, because your current concern appeared in a news article, we cannot protect your identity as the source of this concern .

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.

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0045 Concern:

In December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdown, you took photos of what you asserted as trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard through the streets of San Francisco and the Bay Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point. You stated you detailed your findings in e-mails to Tetra Tech managers.

1,.J , vJO/"'t IC t,-L\ -Z.O lY At.~

No-te - Ac/L c-t,- {zoH -A-oo4-S) {2.a Ilf -A -oo'+~

\J 1 ~ LV{

1

/VVV)v-Jr) \;v'ift1-S w~ ye V)C)V.)\Y) ~V/2 MJ.~r~d 0) ~ .

. - co0L R/'Y\) -- *,n a.-r--huLe I \/_0i._!_:_J;!-i ($ ) ~ f'\

- -4=or - OolfS > revi,~f~ '°~tiSl.eAv\~*1\s

( pro Vi' cl\e. J2_ U ~ lo~ .e,fY\a,,; I ?j

.- ~ - Q Q i..j(o > ~ $ ll. f -t-0J 6~S vJ e....e_ 'na.."'J 1 s c__~~

( r(;""Vv i cl.t._ R v<'oelA-1 e.A'Y\o-.,i \ )

(b)(5)

- D.f..k.v \Jv { v-11 \ \ b.e CUY\.d.vv-h~ n>i - S / +e v.s, +

\o-:tc.r ~d - 5vm~, f~vtuU ~t\*I s o ~

60--t"\ \ &\---- \)~ \UAot-J \ f ~ {).r-- C4tq

(!)~ (}J'yt~r 5* ( R.:J_ f\ \ '-tJ,_.._ ti 0>-1 U2.rJ'DJ'U)

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20140045arb1 .docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2014-A-0045 Branch Chief (AOC): Ferdas Site/Facility: Hunters Point, CA (Navy BRAG site) Acknowledged: No ARB Date: June 4, 2014 Confidentiality Granted: N/A Concerns Discussed: Multiple concerns were described in the news report. All, but one concern for this Concerned Individual (Cl), were closed in previous allegation files: Rl-2011-A-0019, Rl-2011-A-0113, and Rl-2012-A-0022 . This concern was brought to the NRC's attention through a California news report quoting the Cl.

The Cl stated that, in December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdown(b~took photos of whaLJl~describes as trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard through the streets of San Francisco and the Bay Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point.U:t~stated[be}etailed§ 0 findings in emails to Tetra Tech managers.

Does alleger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? N/A ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES l(b)(7)(C)

Chair: Marshall Branch Chief: Hammann SAC: Urban 01:

RI Counsel: Klukan Others: Masnyk Bailey, Richard Chang HQ, Warnek , Clifford, Stephen Lloyd, HQ DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet, If Applicable)

RFI Inspection X_ _ Investigation N/A DISPOSITION ACTIONS

1. Acknowledgment Letter to Cl. Ask for additional info (pictures, emails)

Responsible Person: Urban ECO: June 18, 2014 Closure Documentation: Completed:

2. Perform inspection at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard with focus on truck surveys; coordinate with California and document inspection. The inspection is tentatively scheduled for the week of July 21, 2014.

Responsible Person: Ferdas ECO: August 20, 2014 Closure Documentation: Completed:

SAFETY CONCERN: Potential for contam inated soil and water to have left Hunters Point dispersed to public landfills and bodies of water, sewers, etc.

PRIORITY OF QI INVESTIGATION:

RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE:

NOTE: Trucks leaving Hunters Point Naval Shipyard have to exit via a radiation portal monitor. If the radiation portal monitor alarms. the contents of the truck are hand surveyed in accordance with a Tetra Tech procedure.

The inspector will review these survey records and interview personnel. In addition, the inspector will request any and all records from the Navy for their site visits to Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to verify if the Navy also reviewed truck surveys.

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20140045arb 1.docx DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:54 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Tetra tech - add'I background info Attachments: ttREVIEW.docx From: Modes, Kathy Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:53:46 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Subj.ect: Tetra tech - add'I background info Auto forwarded by a Rule Background info if anyone asks about the other previous concerns.

OFFIOIAL USE OP~LV SEP~SITl\'E IHFORM,icTIOP4 This is a summary of the concerns contained in the 5/19/2014 article about Hunters Point (Naval Shipyard) Cleanup. The majority of the concerns were addressed by the NRC in R1-2011-A-0113 in response tq Susan Andrew's ~oncerns R1-2011 -A-0019 in response t~ Bert Bowers, and R 1-2014-A-0028 for both.

There is one new concern from each Concerned Individual (see bolded text below for new concerns) :

Attributed to" two high-level former technicians in the article:

1. Remediation is not being conducted properly.

2. Cleanup is being botched and that the health and safety of the public is at risk because of it.

NRC evaluation for 1&2:

The NRC, as well as State of California, inspectors and representatives of the Navy, have conducted multiple visits to Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to observe the remediation process. The NRC did not identify any safety concerns or violations.

3. Failure of workers to properly secure potentially radioactive access.

NRC response in R1-2011-A-0019:

"The inspector many posted areas during the inspection All areas appeared to be properly posted." and "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."

Also, during NRC inspections conducted on March 29-30, 2011 , January 9-12, 2012, and April 7-8, 2014, the inspectors noted that the licensee maintained adequate control of radiologically impacted areas.

4. Promotion of unqualified personnel to senior, safety sensitive roles NRC response in R1-2011-A-0113:

In response to this concern , during a January 2012 inspection of Tetra Tech at Hunters Point, the NRC evaluated the training program and qualifications of radiation workers working under the Tetra Tech materials license at Hunters Point. 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 noted that Tetra Tech was utilizing two types of radiation workers at Hunters Point. Specifically, there was Radiation Control Technicians (RCTs) (i.e., Health Physicists) and support staff like laborers, drivers, construction workers, etc., all of whom received training . Tetra Tech also provided site and task specific training for the work each radiation worker would be performing and had morning "tailgate" briefings during which radiation protection concerns were discussed. In their license application, Tetra Tech had committed to ensuring that radiation workers were

OFFl1AL l!j&E OHL¥ SEH&ITIVE n*rORMATIOt~

trained in accordance with Appendix Hof NUREG-1556, Volume 18, Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Service Provider Licenses," dated November 2000. During the inspection it was verified that the training given meets the requirements of Appendix H.

The inspectors noted that competency of RCTs was demonstrated through written tests and practical examinations; and radiation workers were found to be trained in accordance with NRC requirements and guidance. The inspectors reviewed the training records of the individual named above, and found that the individual was trained in accordance with Tetra Tech's commitments and NRC requirements.

Attributed to/ Susan Andrews:

1. Trucks leaving the site must pass through a portal monitor to get screened for radiological contamination. The sensors would determine whether the soil was clean or radioactive, and ujtimately where the dirt was to be disposed of. The sensitivity of the portal monitor was decreased below the manufacturer's specification. The detector alarm set point was raised to 8.5 deviations above background in 2011 from the original 6 deviations above background in 2008, lowering the amount of radiation the portal monitor would detect.

2. "They can't be shipping potentially contaminated soil as clean landfill into the City of San Francisco. Documented trucks that left the site with potentially radioactive material that never passed the portal monitor. In one week in October 2011 more than 70 trucks failed the portal monitor but were still released to go off site.

(NOTE: NEW CONCERN)

NRG response in R1-2014-A-0028:

Tetra Tech implemented the use of a portal radiation monitor at HPS. The inspector found that the monitor was properly installed, calibrated, daily source checked , and operated in accordance with Tetra Tech's "Standard Operating Procedure, HPO-Tt-021 , Gamma Screening of Trucks Using the Stationary Portal Monitor", DCN:ECSD-RAC-05-1230, as required by Section 4.1.8 of the Base-wide Radiological Work Plan. The portal monitor is a Ludlum Model 3500-1000RMW portal monitor and is set not to exceed 8.5 deviations above background. If the truck sets off the portal monitor, the truck is scanned by hand using a portable 2X2 sodium iodide detector. Incoming trucks also pass through the portal monitor.

The monitor is used to prevent the entry or exit materials containing elevated radiation levels. None of the soil from Parcel C was rejected at the portal monitor.

The specificity of #2 , in that 70 trucks left the site in October 2011 is a new concern and the NRC will perform an inspection regardi ng truck surveys in July 2014.

3. Raised questions to one oltle!]superiors and was told to hush up and take the money and go home when the project is complete.

0 1conducted review of management treatment of Cl .

OFFIQIAL W&E OHL¥ SEHSITIVE IHFORMAllOH

6FFlelAL l:fSE 8f4LY = BEP4BITl'rE IP4FORM1'TION

4. Feels betrayed by the NRG because/sne\believed the agency has the authority to put a halt to violations'sh;]says she witnessed.

Provide Cl NRG IG contact info.

5. rl(,XC) 01 conducted review of management treatment of Cl.

Attributed to@ert Bowers:,

1. Most egregious violation of standard protocol.

Not enough specificity to evaluate. During NRC inspections conducted on March 29-30, 2011, January 9- 12, 2012, and April 7-8, 2014, no violations were identified by the NRG.

2. Improper storage of radiation detection devices.

I think that this was a typo since there is no NRC requirement concerning the storage of detection devices. I thin r ,eant to say radioactive sources.

NRC response in R 1-2011-A-0113:

In response to this concern , during a January 2012 inspection of Tetra Tech at Hunters Point, the NRC noted that "All RCTs 1nterviewed demonstrated a good understanding of the necessity of properly securing the source used to check the monitor and of the process for retrieving and replacing the source in the storage locker. Tetra Tech's source lockers were assessed and found to be properly posted and secured."

3. Inadequate signage and barriers to keep the public away from potentially radioactive areas that hadn't been cleared Someone from the general public could walk in.

unabated, get it (contaminants) on their clothes. their person, eat the food. They could have had an intake of radioactive contaminants and it would never have been caught or avoided.

Response to R1 -2011-A-0019:

"The inspector many posted areas during the inspection. All areas appeared to be properly posted." and "the NRG confirmed that there have been breaches in the perimeter fence, but the NRG 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" Also , during NRG inspections conducted on March 29-30, 201 1, January 9-12, 2012, and April 7-8, 2014, the inspectors noted that the licensee maintained adequate control of radiologically impacted areas.

OFFlOlsltL UBE OP4LY BEH91TIVE INFORM,itTl8f~

Ofl11'1CIAL US! er~LY !Eff!l'flVE U4FSRMATl6ff

4. Trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from San Francisco and through the Bay Area without being tested for radiation or cleared for disposal.

Baker Tanks (water) were posted with radiological contents and radioactive water.

Anything that leaves the site of that magnitude is supposed to go to a radiation detection device. (NOTE: NEW CONCERN)

Although the issue of soil leaving the site has been addressed, the rssue of potentially contaminated water has not. This is a new concern .

5. Company culture changed from one in which safety was paramount to one that favored production and cost savings.

NRC response in R1 -2011 -A-0113:

In response to this concern , during a January 2012 inspection of Tetra Tech at Hunters Point, the NRC staff reviewed this concern and determined that you did not identify any specific noncompliance with NRC requirements or regulations .

6. Public can 't be confident that soil leaving Hunters Point and the remain ing soil to be used as backfill underneath the planned development is radiation free.

During NRC inspections conducted on March 29-30, 2011 , January 9-12, 2012, and April 7-8, 2014, the inspectors noted that soil leaving radiologically controlled zones at Hunters Point, and the Hunters Point site itself, was remediated in accordance with approved site procedures.

l

7. !3f1believes that the NRC did not investigate his claims thoroughly enough.

Give Cl NRC 's IG contact info.

8

• 1(b)(7)(C) 0 1evaluated management's treatment of the Cl.

QliiliilCIAI. Viii QNbY Si~JSITIVE IHFQRMATIOU

Fromi: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:00 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; M cLaug hlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: OFFICIAL USE ONLY - SENSITIVE INFORMATION: TT Attachments: TTarbTrucks.docx; TTarbWater.docx; TTallegWater.docx; TTallegTruck.docx From: Modes, Kathy Sent Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:00:24 PM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia

Subject:

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - SENSITIVE INFORMATION: TI Auto forwarded by a Rule I am acting for Marc Ferdas and am forwarding you the documents Orysia prepared based on the California news report.

Let Orysia and I know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Kathy

G :\ora\alleg\receipt\201 40045rcv. docx Allegation Receipt Report Date Received : 5/19/2014 Allegation No. Rl-2014-A-0045 Received via : [X] from an Individual during a news report Employee Receiving Allegation : Orysia Masnyk Bailey Source of information: [X] former licensee employee Alleger Name! Bert Bowers.. Work Address.

Cell Phone: City/State/Zip:

Alleger's Employer:

Alleger's Position/Title:tEormer T etra Tech Radiation Technician Facility: Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, CA License/Docket No.: 29-31396-01/03038199 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? N/A If H&I was alleged, was alleger Informed of DOL rights? N/A Did they raise the issue to their management and/or ECP? Unknown Does the alleger object to having their issue(s) forwarded to the licensee? Unknown Provide alleger's verbatim response to this question: - - - - - - - - - -

Was confidentiality requested? N/A Was confidentiality initially granted? NIA Individual Granting Confidentiality:

Allegation Summary:

Multiple concerns were described in the news report. All, but one concern for this Concerned Individual (Cl),

were closed in previous allegation files: Rl-2011-A-0019, Rl-2011-A-0113, and Rl-2012-A-0022.

This new concern was brought to the NRC's attention through a California news report quoting the Cl.

The Cl stated that, in December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdownQi!Jtook photos of what he describes as trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard through the streets of San Francisco and the ~y Area without being properly surveyed for radiation prior to exiting Hunters Point.[Hjstates tha~~ detailed his findings in emails to Tetra Tech managers.

Functional Area: [X] Decommissioning Materials Discipline For Concern: [X] Health Physics

G :\ora\alleg\receipt\20140045rcv .docx Detailed Description of Allegation:

1) WHAT is the allegation? Failure to survey trucks leaV1ng Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

2) WHAT Is the requirement/violation? 10 CFR 20.1501(a) and 10 CFR 20.1402

3) WHERE is it located? Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

4) WHEN did it occur? 2011

5) WHO is involved/witnessed? Tetra Tech local radiation safety officer

6) WHAT EVIDENCE can be examined? Tetra Tech records

7) WHAT is the status of the licensee's actions? Ongo.ing remediation/decommissioning

8) HOW/WHY did it occur? Not sure.

9) HOW did the alleger find out about the concern(s)? Cl observed activity.

10) WHO ELSE can the NRC contact for additional information? Other Tetra Tech employees and State of California regulators/inspectors.

11) WHAT RECORDS can the NRC review? Tetra Tech records and procedures.

12) WHAT is the reason you have contacted the NRC? Cl contacted news reporter.

13) WHAT is the alleger's preference for method and time of contact? Through Cl attorney or in writing .

Copy of news report; From: Screnci, Diane Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 20 14 8:27 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

Taxpayers have spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on the toxic cleanup of Hunters Point, a prime piece of land along the southeastern shore of San Francisco. The former naval shipyard, which was once used as a research and testing lab for nuclear weapons, is now undergoing a renaissance.

The city plans to turn the 800-acre site into a development mecca complete with new parks, retail stores and homes.

It is a massive project that's decades in the making, but two high-level former technicians with Intimate knowledge of the remediation effort say the cleanup is being botched and that the health and safety of the public is at risk because of it. Both say they wouldn't live in or even visit the development planned for the site. In February, the Investigative Unit exposed that current workers also question the radiological cleanup of Hunters Point.

• Workers Allege Hunters Point Dirt Needs to be Screened for Radiation "It's playing Russian Roulette with the health and wellbeing of the general public, the people that handle it, and the environment," said Bert Bowers, a former radiation safety officer hired by Tetra Tech, the Navy contractor overseeing the cleanup of Hunters Point. He was tasked with maintaining compliance with federal mandates relevant to radiation protection and the management of radioactive materials.

Bowers has worked at nuclear plants and radiological remediation sites across the country, and even worked as a rad iation protection officer with the U.S. Department of Energy. He said compared to other projects, what he experienced at Hunters Point "was the most egregious violation of standard protocol" he had encountered in his 35-year career.

Bowers claims he witnessed violations including the improper storage of radiation ~etection devices and inadequate signage and barriers to keep the public away from potentially radioactive areas that hadn't been clea red.

r1someone from the general public could walk in, unabated, get It [contaminants] on their clothes, their person, eat the food ," Bowers said. "They could have had an intake of radioactive contaminants and it would never have been caught or avoided."

In December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdown, Bowers took photos of what he says are trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from San Francisco and through the Bay Area without being tested for radiation or cleared for disposal. He

G: \ora\alleg\rece ipt\2014004 5rcv.docx detailed his findings in emails to Tetra Tech managers.

"Those Baker Tanks were posted with radiological contents and radioactive water," Bowers said.

"Surveys of water resu lts had never come across my desk for release . Additionally, anything that leaves the site of that magnitude is supposed to go to a radiation detection device as part of a base wide procedure requirement established by the Navy."

He said company culture changed from one in which safety was paramount to one that favored production and cost-savings. Ultimately, Bowers said the public can't be confident that soil leaving Hunters Point and the remaining soil to be used as backfill underneath the planned development- is radiation-free.

"It's been botched," he said. "It's been botched."

Standard operating procedure dictates that before a truck leaves the job site it must pass through a "portal monitor to get screened for radiological contamination. The sensors would determine whether the soil was clean or radioactive, and ultimately where the dirt was to be disposed of.

Portal monitor at Hunters Point.

Internal manuals obtained by the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit show that the sensitivity of the portal monitor was decreased below the manufacturer's specifications. The "detector alarm set point" was raised to "8.5 deviations above background" in 2011 from the original "6 deviations above background" in 2008.

Susan Andrews, a radiation safety technician who worked at Hunters Point under Bowers, claims that change in protocol lowered the amount of radiation the portal monitor would detect.

"It says they are trying to get dirt out that's contaminated that should never have left Hunters Point,"

Andrews said. "It's not right. They can't be shipping potentially contaminated soil as clean landfill into the City of San Francisco. This can't be done."

Even with the decrease in the sensitivity of the portal monitor, Andrews said she documented trucks that left the site with potentially radioactive material that "never passed the portal monitor." She began

G:\ora\alleg\receipt\20140045rcv.docx tracking the trucks that left Hunters Point in a logbook, which she shared with the Investigative Unit.

According to her journal, in just one week in October 2011 more than 70 trucks "failed the portal monitor" but were still "released to go off site."

Both Andrews and Bowers say they witnessed other questionable behavior from the failure of workers to properly secure potentially radioactive areas from public access to the promotion of unqualified personnel to senior, safety-sensitive roles.

Andrews said she raised questions to one of her superiors but he told her to "hush up" and "take the morney and go home when the project" is complete.

"I don't care where I live," Andrews said. "Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. We're all Americans. It shouldn't be done."

After sharing their concerns within the company, they took them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and submitted 30 formal complaints between them to the agency.

The Investigative Unit obtained NRC reports that indicate regulators traveled to Hunters Point for three days in March 2011 and January 2012 to investigate Bowers' and Andrews' claims. The reports show that in each instance, inspectors were unable to substantiate the allegations.

• Docs: How Trucks are Screened for Radiation at Hunters Point Bowers believes that the NRC did not investigate his cla1 ims thoroughly enough. Andrews says she feels betrayed by the NRC because she believed the agency has the authority to put a halt to the violations she says she witnessed.

"As an American, I believed in the NRC," she said. "I'm not so sure I believe in them anymore."

Shortly after Bowers reported his concerns to the NRC in January 2011 , he lost his job with Tetra Tech. Andrews also lost her job after she contacted federal regulators in October 2011. Both claim it was retaliation.

Bowers and Andrews along with two other former workers at Hunters Point are suing Tetra Tech because they content they were fired for raising concerns. Tetra Tech has filed an answer denying those allegations.

Both Tetra Tech and the NRC declined interview requests by the Investigative Unit. Navy representatives also declined interview requests saying it is "inappropriate for the Navy to comment on ongoing litigation between third parties."

Read the Navy's statement here.

When asked if they would live at Hunters Point in the future, both Bowers and Andrews responded that they believe the site can be cleaned up correctly eventually but the way it stands now, "absolutely not."

"I wouldn 't go there, I wouldn't take my grandchildren there, I wouldn't walk my dog there," Andrews said. "It's a beautiful area and it can be beautiful once it's cleaned up, but it's not being cleaned up right. "

From: RlALLEGATIO N RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:38 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: revised to include more details Attachments: TTallegTruck.docx; TTallegWater.docx; TTarbTrucks.docx; TTarbWater.docx From: Modes, Kathy Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:3816 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

revised to include more details Auto forwarded by a Rule THANK YOU !

Kathy Modes Sr. Health Physicist Decommissioning and Technical Support Branch US NRC Region I DNMS 2100 Renaissance Blvd, Suite 100 King of Prussia, PA 19406-2713 phone: 610-337-5251 fax: 610-337-5269 email: kathy.modes@nrc.gov

~ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent; Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:54 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

F rom: Warnek, Nicole Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:53 :32 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE Cc: Modes , Kathy Subject; FW: Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

Auto forwarded by a Rule Sharon - for the file, for the new tetratech allegations Kathy is going to be re-sending. The article was scrubbed by Orysia and 2 new concerns were identified.

N ~ $. WO--Yll\...k.

Allegation & Enforcement Specialist Region I Office of the Regional Administraor 610- 337-6954 (orfice)

!(b)(6) Jcell)

From: Screnci, Diane Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:27 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Assuming we can make them pubUc allegers, now?

Taxpayers have spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on the toxic cleanup of Hunters Point, a prime piece of land along the southeastern shore of San Francisco. The former naval shipyard, which was once used as a research and testing lab for nuclear weapons, is now undergoing a renaissance . The city plans to turn the 800-acre site into a development mecca complete with new parks, retail stores and homes.

It is a massive project that's decades in the making, but two high-level former technicians with intimate knowledge of the remediation effort say the cleanup is being botched and that the health and safety of the public is at risk because of it. Both say they wouldn't live in or even visit the development planned for the site.

In February, the Investigative Unit exposed that current workers also question the radiological cleanup of Hunters Point.

• Workers Allege Hunters Point Dirt Needs to be Screened for Radiation "It's playing Russian Roulette with the health and wellbeing of the general public, the people that handle it, and the environment," said Bert Bowers, a former radiation safety officer hired by Tetra Tech, the Navy contractor overseeing the cleanup of Hunters Point. He was tasked with maintaining compl iance with federal mandates relevant to radiation protection and the management of radioactive materials.

Bowers has worked at nuclear plants and radiological remediation sites across the country, and even worked as a radiation protection officer with the U.S. Department of Energy. He said compared to other projects, what he experienced at Hunters Point "was the most egregious violation of standard protocol" he had encountered in his 35-year career.

Bowers claims he witnessed violations including the improper storage of radiation detection devices and inadequate signage and barriers to keep the public away from potentially radioactive areas that hadn't been cleared.

"Someone from the general publ1ic could walk in, unabated, get it [contaminants] on their clothes, their person, eat the food," Bowers said. 'They cou ld have had an intake of radioactive contaminants and it would never have been caught or avoided."

In December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of.a two-week shutdown, Bowers took photos of what he says are trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from San Francisco and through the Bay Area without being tested for radiation or cleared for disposal. He detailed his findings in emails to Tetra Tech managers.

"Those Baker Tanks were posted with radiological contents and radioactive water," Bowers said. "Surveys of water results had never come across my desk for release. Additionally, anything that leaves the site of that magnitude is supposed to go to a radiation detection device as part of a base wide procedure requirement established by the Navy. "

He said company cu lture changed from one in which safety was paramount to one that favored production and cost-savings. Ultimately, Bowers said the public can't be confident that soil leaving Hunters Point and the remaining soil to be used as backfill underneath the planned development-is radiation-free.

"It's been botched," he said. "It's been botched. "

Standard operating procedure dictates that before a truck leaves the job site it must pass through a "portal monitor" to get screened for radiological contamination. The sensors would determine whether the soil was clean or radioactive, and ultimate! where the dirt was to be dis osed of.

Portal monitor at Hunters Point.

Internal manuals obtained by the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit show that the sensitivity of the portal monitor was decreased below the manufacturer's specifications. The "detector alarm set point" was raised to "8.5 deviations above background" in 2011 from the original "6 deviations above background" in 2008.

Susan Andrews, a rad iation safety technician who worked at Hunters Point under Bowers, claims that change in protocol lowered the amount of radiation the portal monitor would detect.

"It says they are trying to get dirt out that's contaminated that should never have left Hunters Point," Andrews said. "It's not right. They can't be shipping potentially contaminated soil as clean landfill into the City of San Francisco. This can't be done."

Even with the decrease in the sensitivity of the portal monitor, Andrews sa id she documented trucks that left the site with potentially radioactive material that "never passed the portal monitor. " She began tracking the trucks that left Hunters Point in a logbook, which she shared with the Investigative Unit. According to her journal, in just one week in October 2011 more than 70 trucks "fai led the portal monitor" but were still "released to go off site."

Both Andrews and Bowers say they witnessed other questionable behavior from the failure of workers to properly secure potentially radioactive areas from public access to the promotion of unqualified personnel to senior, safety-sensitive roles.

Andrews said she raised questions to one of her superiors but he told her to "hush up" and "take the money and go home when the project" is complete.

2

"I don't care where I live," Andrews said. "Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. We're all Americans . It shouldn't be done. "

After sharing their concerns within the company, they took them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and submitted 30 formal compla1ints between them to the agency.

The Investigative Unit obtained NRC reports that indicate regulators traveled to Hunters Point for three days in March 2011 and January 2012 to investigate Bowers' and Andrews' claims. The reports show that in each instance, inspectors were unable to substantiate the allegations.

• Docs: How Trucks are Screened for Radiation at Hunters Point Bowers believes that the NRC did not investigate his claims thoroughly enough. Andrews says she feels betrayed by the NRC because she believed the agency has the authority to put a halt to the violations she says she witnessed.

"As an American , I believed in the NRC," she said. "I'm not so sure I believe in them anymore."

Shortly after Bowers reported his concerns to the NRC in January 2011, he lost his job with Tetra Tech.

Andrews also lost her job after she contacted federal regulators in October 2011. Both claim it was retaliation.

Bowers and Andrews along with two other former workers at Hunters Point are suing Tetra Tech because they content they were fired for raising concerns. Tetra Tech has filed an answer denying those allegations.

Both Tetra Tech and the NRC declined interview requests by the Investigative Unit. Navy representatives also declined interview requests saying it is "inappropriate for the Navy to comment on ongoing litigation between third parties."

Read the Navy's statement here.

When asked if they would live at Hunters Point in the future, both Bowers and Andrews responded that they believe the site can be cleaned up correctly eventually but the way it stands now, "absolutely not."

"I wouldn't go there, I wouldn't take my grandchildren there, I wouldn't walk my dog there," Andrews said. "It's a beautiful area and it can be beautiful once it's cleaned up, but it's not being cleaned up right."

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 3

From: Jarriel, Usamarie Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 11:12 AM To: Urban, Richard; Vito, David Cc: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

RE: Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

Ok.

1

§usan Andrews, and Bert Bower~an both be treated as widely known allegers for the specific concerns they raise below that they also raised to us. Let's discuss further any concerns not discussed in the article below that they may have also raised.

Btw, did they file discrimination concerns with us too?

LL Jarriel

---

Original Message-----

From: Urban, R*ichard Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:51 AM To: Vito, David Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Jarriel, Lisamarie

Subject:

RE: Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

They both are allegers.

---

Original Message--

From: Vito, David Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:46 AM To: Urban, Richard Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE; Jarriel, Lisamarie

Subject:

RE : Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

I thought it was just one individual. Are both of the individuals named in the article Region I allegers?

If either or both of them are your alleger(s), then I would assume Lisa will agree that he/she/they are widely known with respect to this issue. Pretty sure she will be in shortly.

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:39 AM To: Vito, David; Jarriel, Lisamarie Cc: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

FW: Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

I suppose now we can call them widely known allegers? We need to discuss actions going forward. When are you available for a call?

From: Screnci, Diane Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:27 AM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

Assuming we can make them public allegers, now?

Taxpayers have spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on the toxic cleanup of Hunters Point.c::http://www.bracpmo. navy _mil/brac_bases/california/former_ shipyard_hunters_point. html>, a prime piece of land along the southeastern shore of San Francisco. The former naval shipyard, which was once used as a research and testing lab for nuclear weapons, is now undergoing a renaissance. The city plans to turn the 800-acre site into a development<http://www.oewd.org/media/docs/Joint%20DevelopmenUHPS-CP/Design%20for%20Development%20-%20Shrpyard%20-%20Final(66072528_ 1_1ow-res). pdf> mecca complete with new parks, retail stores and homes.

It is a massive p roject that's decades in the making, but two high-level former technicians with intimate knowledge of the remediation effort say the cleanup is being botched and that the health and safety of the public is at risk because of it. Both say they wouldn't live in or even visit the development planned for the site In February, the Investigative Unit exposed<http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/VVorkers-Allege-Hunters-Polnt-Dirt-Needs-to-be-Screened-for-Ra,diation-247689791.html> that current workers also question the radiological cleanup of Hunters Point.

~ Workers Allege Hunters Point Dirt Needs to be Screened for Radiation<http://www. nbcbayare a. com/news/loca I/Workers-Allege-Hunters-Point-Dirt-Needs-to-be-Screened-for-Radiation-24 7689791. html>

"It's playing Russian Roulette with the health and wellbeing of the general public, the people that handle it, and the environment," said Bert Bowers, a former radiation safety officer hired by Tetra Tech<http://www.tetratech .com/>, the Navy contractor overseeing the cleanup of Hunters Point. He was tasked with maintaining compliance with federal mandates relevant to radiation protection and the management of radioactive materials.

Bowers has worked at nuclear plants and radiological remediation sites across the country , and even worked as a radiation protection officer with the U.S. Department of Energy. He said compared to other projects, what he experienced at Hunters Point "was the most egregious violation of standard protocol" he had encountered in his 35-year career.

Bowers claims he witnessed violations including the improper storage of radiation detection devices and inadequate signage and barriers to keep the public away from potentially radioactive areas that hadn't been cleared.

"Someone from the general public could walk in, unabated, get it [contaminants] on their clothes, their person, eat the food," Bowers said. "They could have had an intake of radioactive contaminants and it would never have been caught or avoided."

In December 2010, when the project was supposed to be in the middle of a two-week shutdown, Bowers took photos of what he says are trucks and tanks hauling dirt and contaminated water from San Francisco and through the Bay Area without being tested for radiation or cleared for disposal. He detailed his findings in emails to Tetra Tech managers.

Those Baker Tanks were posted with radiological contents and rad ioactive water," Bowers said. "Surveys of water results had never come across my desk for release. Additionally, anything that leaves the site of that magnitude is supposed to go to a radiation detection device as part of a base wide procedure requirement established by the Navy."

He said company culture changed from one in which safety was paramount to one that favored production and cost-savings. Ultimately, Bowers said the public can't be confident that soil leaving Hunters Point and the remaining soil to be used as backfill underneath the planned development-is radiation-free.

"It's been botched," he said. "It's been botched."

Standard operating procedure dictates that before a truck leaves the job site it must pass through a "portal monitor' to get screened for radiological contamination. The sensors would determine whether the soil was clean or radioactive, and ultimately where the dirt was to be disposed of.

[cid:imageOO 1.jpg@01CF7405.477811 AO]<http://media.nbcbayarea.com/images/DSC07206.jpg>

Portal monitor at Hunters Point.

Internal manuals obtained by the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit show that the sensitivity of the portal monitor was decreased below the manufacturer's specifications. The "detector alarm set point" was raised to "8.5 deviations above background" in 2011 from the original "6 deviations above background" in 2008.

Susan Andrews, a radiation safety technician who worked at Hunters Point under Bowers, claims that change in protocol lowered the amount of radiation the portal monitor would detect.

2

"It says they are trying to get dirt out that's contaminated that should never have left Hunters Point," Andrews said. "It's not right. They can't be shipping potentially contaminated soil as clean landfill into the City of San Francisco. This can't be done."

Even with the decrease in the sensitivity of the portal monitor, Andrews said she documented trucks that left the site with potentially radioactive material that "never passed the portal monitor." She began tracking the trucks that left Hunters Point in a logbook, which she shared with the Investigative Unit. According to her journal, in just one week in October 2011 more than 70 trucks "failed the portal monitor" but were still "released to go off site. "

Both Andrews and Bowers say they witnessed other questionable behavior from the failure of workers to properly secure potentially radioactive areas from public access to the promotion of unqualified personnel to senior, safety-sensitive roles.

Andrews said she raised questions to one of her superiors but he told her to "hush up" and "take the money and go home when the project" is complete.

"I don't care where I live," Andrews said. "Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. We're all Americans . It shouldn't be done."

After sharing their concerns within the company, they took them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission<http://www.nrc.gov/> (NRC) and submitted 30 formal complaints between them to the agency.

The Investigative Unit obtained NRC reports that indicate regulators traveled to Hunters Point for three days in March 2011 and January 2012 to investigate Bowers' and Andrews' claims. The reports show that in each instance, inspectors were unable to substantiate the allegations.

• Docs: How Trucks are Screened for Radiation at Hunters Point< http://www. nbcbayarea.com/brchannel/How-Trucks-Are-Screened-For-Radiation-at-Hunters-Point-259873071. html>

Bowers believes that the NRC did not investigate his claims thoroughly enough. Andrews says she feels betrayed by the NRC because she believed the agency has the authority to put a halt to the violations she says she w itnessed .

"As an American, I believed in the NRC," she said. 'Tm not so sure I believe in them anymore."

Shortly after Bowers reported his concerns to the NRC in January 2011 , he lost his job with Tetra Tech.

Andrews also lost her job after she contacted federal regulators in October 2011 . Both claim it was retaliation.

Bowers and Andrews along with two other former workers at Hunters Point are suing Tetra Tech because they content they were f ired for raising concerns. Tetra Tech has filed an answer denying those allegations.

Both Tetra Tech and the NRC declined interview requests by t he Investigative Unit. Navy representatives also declined interview requests saying it is "inappropriate for the Navy to comment on ongoing litigation between third parties. "

Read the Navy's statement here.<http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/NAVY+STATEMENT+HP. pdf>

When asked if they would live at Hunters Point in the future , both Bowers and Andrews responded that they believe the site can be cleaned up correctly eventually but the way it stands now, "absolutely not."

"I wouldn't go there , I wouldn't take my grandchildren there, I wouldn't walk my dog there," Andrews said. "It's a beautiful area and it can be beautiful once it's cleaned up, but it's not being cleaned up right. "

Diane Screnci Sr. Public Affairs Officer USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 3

OCT 1 4 2014 Ms. S Rl-2014-A-0046 (b}(7)(C)

Subject:

Concern You Raised Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear\Ms. Andrews:

The NRC Region I Office has completed its follow up in response to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which we identified one concern under NRC regulatory jurisdiction related to radiological controls. Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern and describes our review and conclusions regarding that concern.

Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety m ission, and as such, we will continue to take our safety responsibility to the public seriously within the bounds of our lawful authority. We believe that our actions have been responsive. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives additional information from another source that suggests that our conclusion 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, Richard J . Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL AE60RO copy_

~s. Susan Andrews 2 Rl- 2014-A-0046 Distribution:

Allegation File No. Rl-2014-A-0046 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORA\ALLEG\CLOSE\20140046clo.docx Non-Public Designation Category: MD 3.4 Non-Public A.1 D Non-Sensitive D Publicly Available 0 SUNS! Review 0 Sensitive 0 Non-Publicly Available OFFICE DNMS:NMS83 ORA:SAC J)j;fI NAME M Ferdas l< 'i 'f R Urbaci /"f"

• DATE 10/ /0 /2014 10//~ /201~

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0046 Concern:

You asserted that you tracked trucks leaving Hunters Point without being properly surveyed for radiation in a logbook. According to your logbook entry for a week in October 2011 , you recorded more than 70 tru1cks had failed the portal monitor but were still released to go off-site without being properly surveyed.

Response to Concern:

NRC Assessment During an inspection conducted at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS) on July 21 - 22, 2014, an NRC inspector reviewed procedures and records and interviewed personnel familiar with activities that occurred in the 2011 time frame . In October 2011 , the site procedure that governed the use of the vehicle portal monitor (VPM) was "Final Hunters Point Shipyard Project, Standard Operating Procedures , Gamma Screening of Trucks Using the Skid-Mounted Portal Monitor," Revision 3, dated December 3, 2008. The procedure required that the VPM be used to perform gamma radiation screening of trucks loaded with non-contaminated soils and debris prior to leaving HPNS. The procedure also required that, when a truck caused an alarm or "failed" the VPM screening, it needed to be sent through the VPM a second time. If a second alarm was received, the truck and its contents were subjected to a manual survey using a hand held survey instrument.

Based on a review of records, the inspector determined that in October 2011 , 11 O trucks received second alarms and required a manual survey. In addition to performing a manual survey, Attachment 1, "Radiological Truck Survey Form for Portable Instrument," of the above referenced procedure was completed . The attachment required the following information to be recorded: date, time, truck identification, survey instrument (model number, serial number, calibration due date, and background), locations surveyed, and survey results . The inspector reviewed these records and confirmed that 109 trucks were released in October 2011 , after a manual survey was performed and release requirements were met. One truck did not successfully pass the manual survey and was returned to the site to have its contents (soil) searched. A radium-226 device was subsequently identified and removed. The insp ector determined that the licensee appeared to be following their internal procedures for the release of trucks from HPNS, and t here was no indication that trucks were released from the site inappropriately.

NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRG was able unable to substantiate your concern that more than 70 trucks were released from HPNS without being properly surveyed. Although 110 trucks failed the initial portal monitor survey, they were all subsequently manually surveyed with a hand held instrument in accordance w ith procedures.

OFFICIAL RECORD GOP\"

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 OCT 1 4 2014 Ms. Susan Andrews Rl-2014-A-0046 (b)(?)(C)

Subject:

Concern You Raised Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Dear~s-~ ndrews_;_

The NRC Region I Office has completed its follow up in response to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which we identified one concern under NRC regulatory jurisdiction related to radiological controls. Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern and describes our review and conclusions regarding that concern.

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. We believe that our actions have been responsive. If, however, you can provide new information, or the NRC receives addrtional information from another source that suggests that our conclusion should be altered, we will evaluate that information to determine whether further action is warranted. Should you have any additional questions or if the NRG 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,

~/ZL-Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0046 Concern:

You asserted that you tracked trucks leaving Hunters Point without being properly surveyed for radiation in a logbook. According to your logbook entry for a week in October 2011 , you recorded more than 70 trucks had failed the portal monitor but were still released to go off-site without being properly surveyed.

Response to Concern:

NRC Assessment During an inspection conducted at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS) on July 21 - 22, 2014, an NRC inspector reviewed procedures and records and interviewed personnel familiar with activities that occurred in the 2011 time frame. In October 2011 , the site procedure that governed the use of the vehicle portal monitor (VPM) was "Final Hunters Point Shipyard Project, Standard Operating Procedures, Gamma Screening of Trucks Using the Skid-Mounted Portal Monitor," Revision 3, dated December 3, 2008. The procedure required that the VPM be used to perform gamma radiation screening of trucks loaded with non-contaminated soils and debris prior to leaving HPNS. The procedure also required that, when a truck caused an alarm or "failed" the VPM screening, it needed to be sent through the VPM a second time. If a second alarm was received, the truck and its contents were subjected to a manual survey using a hand held survey instrument.

Based on a review of records, the inspector determined that in October 2011 , 11 O trucks received second alarms and required a manual survey. In addition to performing a manual survey, Attachment 1, "Radiological Truck Survey Form for Portable Instrument," of the above referenced procedure was completed . The attachment required the following information to be recorded: date, time, truck identification, survey instrument (model number, serial number, calibration due date, and background), locations surveyed, and survey results. The inspector reviewed these records and confirmed that 109 trucks were released in October 2011 , after a manual survey was performed and release requirements were met. One truck did not successfully pass the manual survey and was returned to the site to have its contents (soil) searched. A radium-226 device was subsequently identified and removed . The inspector determined that the licensee appeared to be following their internal procedures for the release of trucks from HPNS, and there was no indication that trucks were released from the site inappropriately.

NRC Conclusion Based on the above, the NRC was able unable to substantiate your concern that more than 70 trucks were released from HPNS without being properly surveyed. Although 110 trucks failed the initial portal monitor survey, they were all subsequently manually surveyed with a hand held instrument in accordance with procedures.

From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:09 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: RI-2014-A-0045 *sensitive allegation information - do not disclose*

Attachments: 20140045clo.docx; 20140046cl o.docx From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 1:35 PM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; McLaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: RI- 2014-A-0045

• sensitive allegation information - do not disclose*

From: Warnek, Nicole Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 1 :34:39 PM To: Masnyk Bailey, Orysia Cc: Ferdas, Marc; R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

Rl-2014-A-0045 *sensitive allegation information - do not disclose*

Auto forwarded by a Rule Hi Orysia, I have a short-turnaround item I need your help with . The closure letter for allegation 2014-A-0045 is due next Thursday (10/16). I need some additional information from you to fully close the allegation. Can vou review the r hte uestions?

(b)(5)

If you have any questions please call. Otherwise, we need the input by COB Tuesday to support the closure letter going out on Thursday.

I also attached -0046 so you can see the changes I made to that letter.

Thank you!

Nicole S. Warnek Allegation & Enforcement Specialist Region I Office of the Regional Administrator 610-337-6954 (offic~

!(b)(6)  ! (cell)~

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0046 Concern:

(b)(5)

Response to Concern:

NRC Assessment (b)(5)

NRC Conclusion (b)(51

JUN 1 6 2014 Ms. Susan A Rr-2014-A-0046 (b)(5)

Subject:

Concern You Raised Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This letter refers to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which you raised several concerns regarding Hunters Point. Based on our review of the article, we have determined that the NRC previously addressed and closed most of the concerns you raised. However, we have identified one new concern under NRC regulatory jurisdiction related to radiological controls Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concern. If the description of your concern as documented in the enclosure is not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure it is appropriately described prior to the completion of our review.

We have initiated actions to examine your concern. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer. However, after evaluating the information in the news article, we have determined that we would benefit from additional information in order to perform a more effective review of your concern. The information being requested is noted in the enclosure. If you can provide the requested information, please contact this office 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 the information currently available. Additionally, we plan to conduct an on-site visit to Hunters Point later this summer. If you have additional concerns that you have not previously raised to the NRC.

please contact us as soon as possible so we can ensure timely review and follow-up Typically the NRC takes all reasonable efforts not to disclose an alleger's identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. However, as previously described in our letter to you dated June 2, 2014 (regarding Allegation Rl-2011-A-0113) , because you notified the news media of your concerns, we could not protect your identity as the source of those concerns . Similarly, because your current concern appeared in a news article, we cannot protect your identity as the source of this concern.

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.

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Ms Susan Andrews 2 Rl-2014-A-0046 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 this office toll-free via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, extension 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4: 15 pm. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at P.O. Box 80377, Valley Forge, PA 19484. You may also communicate with us by e-mail if you so choose. Please be advised that the NRC cannot protect the information during transmission on the Internet and there is a possibility that someone could read your response while it is in transit. The e-mail address for the Region I Allegations Office is R1Allegations.Resource@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, o~i~r.~1 Signed B,*

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosures:

As Stated SFFICIAL RECORD GOPV

Ms. Susan Andrews 3 R 1-2014-A-0046 Distribution:

Allegation File No. Rl-2014-A-0046 DOCUMENT NAME: G :\ORA\ALLEG\ACK\20140046ack.docx To receive a copy of this document, in dicate in the box: "C" =Copy without attachment/endosure "E" =Copy with attachment/enclosure "N"=No copy OFFICE DNMS:BC I Rl :SAC n11Y I I I NAME MFerdas lv'<( /l. 1-vv R Urban /<'Jl'-'1..-

DATE 061 / Z../201 4 06/i~ /201~

O FFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0046 Concern:

You asserted that you tracked trucks leaving Hunters Point without being properly surveyed for radiation in a logbook. According to your logbook entry for a week in October 2011, you recorded more than 70 trucks had failed the portal monitor but were still released to go off-site without being properly surveyed.

Additional Information Request:

Please inform us whether the trucks were hand scanned after the portal monitor alarmed. This information would help us focus our assessment and allow us to conduct a more effective review of your concern.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD.

KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2745 JUN 1 6 2014 rMs,(5) Susan Andrews Rl-2014-A-0046

Subject:

Concern You Raised Regarding the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Dear IMs. Andrews:

This letter refers to a news article published on May 19, 2014, in which you raised several concerns regarding Hunters Point. Based on our review of the article, we have determined that the NRC previously addressed and closed most of the concerns you raised. However, we have identified one new concern under NRC regulatory jurisdiction related to radiological controls.

Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concern. If the description of your concern as documented in the enclosure is not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure it is appropriately described prior to the completion of our review.

We have initiated actions to examine your concern. The NRC normally completes evaluations of technical concerns within six months, although complex issues may take longer_ However, after evaluating the information in the news article, we have determined that we would benefit from additional information in order to perform a more effective review of your concern. The information being requested is noted in the enclosure. If you can provide the requested information, please contact this office 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 the information currently available. Additionally, we plan to conduct an on-site visit to Hunters Point later this summer. If you have additional concerns that you have not previously raised to the NRC, please contact us as soon as possible so we can ensure timely review and follow-up.

Typically the NRC takes all reasonable efforts not to disclose an alleger's identity to .any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. However, as previously described In our letter to you dated June 2, 2014 (regarding Allegation Rl-2011-A-0113) , because you notified the news media of your concerns, we could not protect your identity as the source of those concerns. Similarly, because your current concern appeared in a news article, we cannot protect your identity as the source of this concern.

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 .

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2014-A-0046 Concern:

You asserted that you tracked trucks leaving Hunters Point without being properly surveyed for radiation in a logbook. According to your logbook entry for a week in October 2011 , you recorded more than 70 trucks had failed the portal monitor but were still released to go off-site without being properly surveyed.

Additional Information Request:

Please inform us whether the trucks were hand scanned after the portal monitor alarmed. This information would help us focus our assessment and allow us to conduct a more effective review of your concern.

G:\ora\alleg\panel\20140046arb1 .docx ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ARB CHAIR Allegation No.: Rl-2014-A-0046 Branch Chief (AOC): Ferdas Site/Facility: Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, CA (Navy BRAG site)Acknowledged: No ARB, Date: June 4, 2014 Confidentiality Granted: NIA Concern Discussed: Multiple concerns were described in the news report. All, but one concern for this Concerned Individual (Cl), were closed in previous allegation files: Rl-2011-A-0019, Rl-2011-A-0113, and Rl-2012-A-0022. This concern was brought to the NRC's attention through a California news report quoting the Cl.

The Cl stated during the news cast tha* sneltracked trucks leaving Hunters Point Naval Shipyard without being properly surveyed for radiation in a logbook. According to her fogbook entry for a week in October 2011, the Cl recorded more than 70 trucks had failed the portal monitor but were still released to go off-site without being properly surveyed.

Does alleger object to providing concerns to the licensee via an RFI? N/A ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD ATTENDEES Chair: Marshall Branch Chief: Hammann SAC: Urban Others: Masnyik Bailey, Richard Chang HQ, Stephen Lloyd, HQ, Warnek, Clifford 01:

(b)(7)(C)

RI Counsel: Klukan DISPOSITION METHOD (See Attached RFI Worksheet, If Applicable)

RFI Inspection X_ _ Investigation N/A DISPOSITION ACTIONS

1. Acknowledgment Letter to Cl . (Ask if trucks were hand scanned after portal monitor alarmed.)

Responsible Person: Urban ECO: June 18, 2014 Closure Documentation: Completed:

2 Perform inspection at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard with focus on truck surveys; coordinate with California and document inspection. The inspection is tentatively scheduled for the week of July 21 ,

2014.

Responsible Person: Ferdas ECO: August 20, 2014 Closure Documentation: Completed:

SAFETY CONCERN: Potential for contaminated soil to have left Hunters Point Naval Shipyard dispersed to public landfills.

PRIORITY OF QI INVESTIGATION:

RATIONALE USED TO DEFER 01 DISCRIMINATION CASE:

NOTES:

Trucks leaving Hunters Point Naval Shipyard have to exit via a radiation portal monitor. If the radiation portal monitor alarms, the contents of the truck are hand surveyed in accordance with a Tetra Tech procedure. The inspector will review these survey records and interview personnel. In addition, the inspector will request any and all records from the Navy for their site visits to Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to verify if the Navy also reviewed truck surveys.

DISTRIBUTION: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons

Urban, Richard From: Urban, Richard Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:30 PM To: Urban, Richard

Subject:

FW: revised t o include more details Attachments: TTallegTruck.docx; TTallegWater.docx; TTarbTrucks.docx; TTarbWater.docx From: RlALLEGATION RESOURCE Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:38 AM To: Urban, Richard; Johnson, Sharon; Mclaughlin, Marjorie; Bickett, Brice; Bearde, Diane; Crisden, Cherie; Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

FW: revised to include more details From: Modes, Kathy Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:38 : 16 AM To: R1ALLEGATION RESOURCE

Subject:

revised to include more details Auto forwarded by a Rule THANK YOU !

Kathy Modes Sr. Hea lth Physicist Decommissioning and Technical Support Branch US N RC Region I DNMS 2100 Renaissa nce Blvd, Suite 100 King of Prussia, PA 19406-2713 phone : 610-337-5251 fax: 6 10-337-5269 email: kathy.modes@nrc.gov

~ Pl ease consider the en vi ro n ment before printing this e-mai l.

CONCERNS REGARDING TETRA TECH, INC., AT THE HUNTERS POINT DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT Submitted by~Elbert G. Bowers Submittal date : April 26, 2011

MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Richard Urban, Nuclear Regulatory Commissions, Senior Allegation Coordinator From: Bert Bowers, Tetra Tech, Radiation Safety Officer Date: April 26, 2011

Subject:

Concerns Regarding Tetra Tech, INC., at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project Mr. Urban, In reference to the subject line above - and as detailed in the most recent email to you dated April 12, 2011, enclosed is a cross section of supplemental information which should help further identify circumstances which have occurred during the course of 2010 (and early 2011} and which I feel have contributed significantly to the unanticipated events with my employer as they unfolded beginning January 12, 2011 to present.

To summarize the infonnation within, I feevi't Important to emphasize that every effort has been mad, during the course of my Hunters Poinf RSO(tenure to adhere to job title expectations/ obligations as detailed byJMr. Carl J. Paperiello in his publication titled So You're the New RSOI

• While radiQlogical contaminants Identified at the project site would In general be best categorized as "residual trace amounts", there's nevertheless remained the personal commitment to emphatically emphasize the expectation of "conscientiously correct" work practice approaches from the management level down to the front line worker. In particular for anyone associated with an intrusive activity- and most Importantly that conducted In a site location Identified by the Navy's Historical Radiological Assessment document as "lmpactedn. Accordingly, when administering radiological orientation and awareness teviews to visitors, VIP's, and general site staff, the reminder has been repeatedly emphasized that all should fully appreciate potential hazards associated with defined radionuclldes of concern. Specifically, the rationale behind the existing system of "checks and balances" used to ensure that no one is subjected to unnecessary risk. Such efforts over the course of eight plus "project yearsH have generally proved successful. Representatives within the Navy appear comfortable and understanding of the philosophy behind the views presented and controls established. However, since beginning employment at the site through Tetra Tech In 2009, the single most "detrimental" obstacle that's encountered involves person' s who align themselves purely with a construction driven "mentality". The idea of incorporating without prior discussion concepts that may commonly exist on a traditional construction site but which simply do not go "hand in hand" with what's expected on a radiological project. Upon discovery, such "flags" traditionally relate to time critical issues (and likely as driven by the type of contract In effect with the Navy). Often times, such "flags" conflict with the recommended "mindset" provided during RAD review orientations - the need to remember that "what may take 15 minutes to do in your world of expertise, will probably take 25-30 minutes In the RAD world... not to hold you up or upset you, .but to ensure through periodic checks and verifications the Page 1 of 7

continued safety of the environment, the general public, and the work forcen. Progressively, each "flag" has tended to indicate what appears to be a systematic breakdown in "conscientiousR communication.

The year 2010 began as planned with traditional dosimetry change outs and the posting of ..Project RSO Representative" and "Authorized User" documentation (reference 1), etc. However, on into the year after repeated RAD field staff and supervisory reminders to walk down active work areas to ensure RAD safety Integrity at shifts end, discrepancies and findings nevertheless increased in frequency. As a result, th~(b)(7)(C) ~n Norfolk, Virginia was repeatedly updated during routine calls on growing "culture concerns "of a declining nature. The Tetra Tech!(b)(?)(C) Iwere personally briefed as well. I began to sense a growing concern for the RAD supervisory staff as a whole (and ultimately the RAD field technicians as a group) and their ability to not cave in solely to construction driven priorities/mindsets but "stand behind the license as aiticaJ field based "eyes and ears" - to do tasks and assignments "right the first time". *Read and Sign>> documents addressing "Project Specific Reference/ Guidance Documents for the Conduct of Radiologically Based Tasks" (reference 9) and "Collection of 'Beta/Gamma; Static Measurements (and Representative Background Data)" (reference 10) were issued, in part, to continuously emphasize the need to report discrepancies/concerns. (Additionally, the above documents were supplemented with RASO generated position views as detailed in reference 11 and as related to site areas of responsibility subject to Tetra Tech's NRC issued license).

During shift and/or prior to leaving site for the day (usually 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after quitting time for the field hands), I would routinely complete an end-of-day RAD integrity field check. Discrepancies were commonly observed/ corrected which often times appeared avoidable - assuming end-of-day RAD checks were being performed by the field hands (references 2, 3,4, S, 6, 7, 14, 18, 25 and 30). RAD r integrity field checks conducted throughout the day also revealed escalating discrepancies associatedd,i, with other licensees - and of a nature which resulted in calls to my office from observant field hantts:-,;. *,,.

voicing concern (and subsequent corrective actions involving site RSO Representatives, the Tetra Tech (b)(7)(C) and/or RASO - and as captured in references 8, 12, 15, and 22). In summary fr<:>m the position o (b )(7)(C) all of the escalating "challenges" appeared to involve communication deficiencies and a chosen lack of simple interface by specific RAD supervisors within reliable and expected time intervals. Indications of "resistance" to expected RAD protocol appeared to be reflected even more by graffiti discover,ed on the project RSO's vehicle during the last quarter of 2010 (references 13 and 21).

In the latter part of the year toward scheduled holiday stand downs, increased "response incidents" resulting from trespassers, vandalism, and storm effects occurred and often times required interface with representatives of the Navy and/or Internal and external entities. Discrepancies involving "Baker" tank and "scrap metar' bin activities conducted without first confinning through the project RSO any need for RAD support (i.e., use of portal monitor screening as preferred by RASO) were likewise identified/reported over the course of the stand down (references 19, 20, and 25). In parallel, coordination specific to the 2011 dosimetry monitoring program was underway (and the securing of a new service vendor per reference 16); as was the scheduling of RAO support needs for external entities leading up to (and during) the stand down and including the new year (references 17, 22, and 24).

Page 2 of 7

Field activities resumed after the holiday stand down and progressed smoothly through January 12, 2011, (references 26, 27, and 29) as did the fulfilling of commitments to outside entities (reference 28).

However, events beginning the morning of January 13, 2011 signaled - most importantly to me

• a significantly negative change at the project management level and a defiant, confrontational attitude displayed by a RAO field supervisor (as described in the contents of references 32 and 33). Shortly thereafter, th (b)(l)(C) was notified of the events and my personal intent to internally address /

resolve existing issues. Th (b)(?)(C) rrived in San Francisco from Norfolk, VA and was at Hunters Point the following Monday. A drive through of the project site was conducted with th (b)(7)(C) during the early morning hours of Monday, January 17, 2011. Upon its completion, the (b)(7)(C) asked directly to play "devil's advocate" and " punch holes'" in my mindset/ line of thinking on the morning ofJanuary 13th - nothing erroneous was noted. (It was afso durin this timeframe that the incident detailed in reference 30 was identified.) At that time, the (b)(?)(C) nfirmed that-contrary to first addressing/investigating the " issues at hand,, intemaUy, the Tetra Tech !(b)(7)(C) ~d already informed Corporate HR of his actions as well as RASO - his exact words at that time were " I can't believe he did that . I replied that I was upset as a result but would continue to attempt resolution of existing issues through internal avenues until/unless advised otherwise. That same morning (as a result of the hostile1 threatening environment experienced when last there per reference 33), I was able to access my office while in the presence of the!(b)(?)(C) !to safely retrieve my laptop for use from home. I then left the project for my temporary California resi dence. Later the following day I received the request from the!(b)(7)(C) !as detailed In reference 31.

The following day (Tuesday, January 18, 2011) and upon the advice of th~(b)(l )(C) l I attempted to contact - and later heard from the Tetra Tech !(b)(l )(C) !as described in reference 34 (i.e.,

for the first time since the events of January 13, 2011 as detailed in reference 33). That same day I received electronic correspondence from Hunters Point field administration that my name had been removed from the weekly Navy NAVFAC/Tetra Tech meeting roster. Another notification came later that I was also removed from the project phone tist. later in the week I met with the !(b)(l )(C) l at the project site in my office to discover all cabinets and furniture with locks had been breached and the integrity of corresponding 6 1ock and key" items compromised (reference 35).

I continued to work from my temporary califomia residence ttie rest of the week {January 17*21, 2011).

During that time I received cal ls from project technical staff voicing license based concerns. I posed the question, "'who is defined on the 'Right to Know' posting board as the~ PS RSO representativi )as well as "what's the 'after hours' contact plilone number listed on the Tetra Tech project RAD signs in the field" ? I was informed that in both instances the desi nated person remained me and re-confirmed as such prior to a scheduled meeting with the (b)(?)(C) and !(b)(7)(~) !in my office on Friday, January 21, 2011. Upon the day of that meeting ("'0915 hrs), the name of the project RSO representative had been changed on the 'Right to Know' posting board t~(b)(?)(C) ~nd the document backdated to reflect an effective date of January 18, 2011 (reference 36); all of the observed project RAD field signs still continued to reflect my personal "after hours" contact number. I was later informed by the!(b)(7)(C) !atthe existing need for me to provide support at Alameda. I asked if that assignment was a condition of employment at which point I was told "no" . I then asked if - after the Alameda assignment - I would be considered for re*assuming mv original role at Page3of7

Hunters Point at which point I was told I would. f agreed as stJch as a sign of good faith and ,n support of what all referred to as a "cooling off period". Later that same day, I re-ronfirmed with project technical staff the posting which now addre (b)(?)(C) as project RSO representative. I received the adamant reply that my name was reflected as s he morning of January 21, 2011. Later that same day I met again (after hours) with the!(b)(?)(C) !at Hunters Point He seemed somewhat weary and resigned to himself. He suggested that I take the position at Alameda and move on from Hunters Point.

He then suggested that I could "work out of Alameda" and "act as a mentor for Hunters Point and any other projects that might kick off'. Somewhat surprised, I questioned why the change in position. I was essentially answered with words to the effect that " ultimately, construction management decides who stays and who goes on a project". I promptly advised of my opposition to that position; then followed with the direct question of "what did I do wrong-9? The response .as he shrugged his shoulders was "I don't know, some of the Sup's say you got into an argument with them" . I replied with "that's simply not true... I called that meeting to discuss a communication concern invotving Authorized User's*.. it didn't even last 2-3 minutes..*. there wasn't even enough time for an argument... It wa (b)(?)(C) who was all of a sudden shouting*.* even while in the presence of th (b)(7)(C) .. and (b)(?) let him keep on doing It.... and then he said he could arrange to have my name removed from the license" Again the!(b)(7)(C) !shrugged his shoulders in what appeared to be a defeated gesture and at which point f realized continuing the conversation was fruitless...

On arrival at Alameda for the first week of my assignment, I was furnished an outline tltle~rt Bowers Goals ot Alameda Project (reference 3~ For the ~rst time I observed an indication that I am apparently being presented as prone to arguments (line 9 in~ rence 3~ However, I was not required to sign the document and therefore chose not to object any of its contents - again In a good faith effort to move forward. I was also informed at that t ime of my title as supervisor and my direct report being the Alameda RSO representative. While at Alameda, I continued to attempt mentor follow-up at Hunters Point as suggested by the!(b)(?)(C) !through phone call attempts then direct email (reference 39). I then began to focus on the remaining goals defined for me at Alameda including the establishment of new working relationships (reference 40). During my time at Alameda, It was announced that during the week of March 28 through April 1, 2011, the NRCwould be conducting inspections at both Hunters Point and Alameda. It was during that week that I was Interviewed b Ins ctors !Cb)(7)(C) !The day following the NRC interview, I received a call from the (b)(l )(C) He advised that funding for my role at Alameda was no longer available and at dose of business on April 1, 2011 my assignment there would end as would corresponding per diem benefits. I promptly followed up the conversation with an email to him and the!(b)(7)(C) !confirming the same (reference 41). Turnovers and advisement that my role would be completed by week's end were distributed (references 42, 43, 44, 45 and 49) and feedback received (reference 46). I also followed up with the!(b)(7)(C) ~egarding the status of my role at Hunters Point and received the response as detailed in reference 47. Steps for retrieving a copy of an "all inclusive.. Alameda assignment letter were also pursued (reference 48).

Since completing my assignment at Alameda, on April 1, 2011, I have been directed to draw upon my earned "time off with pay" account. I have since returned my project assigned vehicle. As detailed in reference 50, Hunters Point RAD signs posted in the field no longer reflect my "after hours contact Page 4of7

numbers (or anyone else's), but instead direct one to use the direct line to the Terra Tech switchboard (a number which is not manned after hours).

In closing1 the photos provided within were originally intended for use as "lessons learnedn examples to be used during training presentations, performance reviews, etc. I personally believe that Tetra Tech is comprised of good, well intentioned persons through all ranks and levels. While a select few - as with other organization worked with on occasion in the past - may likely find it to their advantage to better understand the expectations and seriousness associated with a NRC license, I feel all are generally receptive to correction and in doing what's right in the final analysis.

As always, feel free to contact me If additional information or feedback is needed to fill In any identified gaps, etc. I look forward to hearing from you after your review of the material provided.

Regards, Bert Bowers, Radiation Safety Officer Representative Direct: rXlXC) I l(b)(7)(C)

/ Main: 864.483.1789 / Alternate:.__ _ _ __.

Page 5 of 7

FromJ(b)(l)(C)

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:59:23 EDT Subject Re: FW: Your Concerns To: Richard.Urban@nrc.gov CC: jjn@nrc.gov 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, tnc., at the Hunters Point Decommissioning Project" (Rl-2011-A~019)

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 10 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, 2011 , I've been placed by Tetra Tech in an unwarranted and disadvantaged position by being forced tci!) hastily vacate my RSOR role / office at Hunters Point, then relocate

• immediately to assume a supervisory field role at Alameda where - upon conclusion of the recent NRG visit to both "Bay Area" sites, I was advised the following day that the field role was unavailable as well (i.e., a one day notice as of weeks end on April 1, 2011 ).lhus, the majority of what is needed for the stated follow up effort is packed in boxes~ged here in the security of my locked garage.)

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 (b)(7)(C)

UNITED STA.TES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 475ALLENOALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19405-1415 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)

2 Rl-2011-A-0019 (b)(5)

~ r. Elbert Bowers 3 Rl-2011-A,0019 (b)(5)

Sincerely, J original signed by:

Richard J. Urban Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As stated

ENCLOSURE 1 Rl-2011-A-0019 (b)(5)

ENCLOSURE 1 Rf--2011-A-0019 (b)(5) 2

i 1~

RSO Responsibilities Your license requires that-senior management designate an individual as Radiation Safety Officer (RSO).

This individual will establish, maintain, enfore&and oontrol the company radiation safety program and act as the contact person for the r:egulatory agency. When the company is contacted or inspected by the regulatory agency they will want to speak with the RSO.

Senior management is required to supply the RSO with the necessary means. including training, to carry out the position of RSO and should wor1< with the RSO to make sure that all conditions and oompliance of the license are met The RSO will maintain complete, accurate and organized records. The RSO is responsible for making necessary amendments and notifying the regulatory agency of these amendments. The RSO will keep the safety program updated as to any changes in the regulations.

When a new RSO is designated the licensee must immediately notify the regulatory agency. If allowable, the company should also designate an assistant RSO. This person should be readily trained and authorized to speak for the company as well as carry out aH RSO responsibilities.

Do you really want to be the RSO?

You must ask yourself that question before you accept the responsibilities of the position. The spotlight will be on you. You cannot cut comers or attempt regulatory *end-arounds". The regulatory agency is delegating the responsibility of *protecting public and property" to your shoulders. Your actions will be viewed and scrutinized by everyone around you. The "Notice to Employees* poster tells your workers about their rights and how to notify the regulatory agency if they see you or your radiation safety program in violation of the regulations. If you let them see you skimp on a rule or regulation today you may regret It in the future. Today's happy employee may be tomorrow's disgruntled employee, one who is looking to '

get back at you or the company at a later date. Don't give them a reason to *exercise" their employee rights.

You must also not let senior management compromise your duties and authority. The followin,g article gives a reality check to those considering the RSO position.

So You're the New RSOI What la a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and what are his/her duties?

The RSO is the person responsible for radiological safety in conjunction with the use, handling, and storage of radioactive materials in a program licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or Agreement State. It is the duty of the RSO to ensure that all licensed activities are carried O:ut in compliance with the requirements of the license and the applicable rules and regulations. :

The following excerpts of an articulated article of relevance offers insight into what the NRO or Agreemenl State expects of an RSO. (From the March 1993 issue of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Licensee Newsletter) i

What does It mean. if you agree to be named as the new Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) on an NRC or Agreement State license?

It means you have the knowledge and skill, the resources and time, the will, and the clout in your organization to ensure that activities involving radiation and radioactive materials are conducted safely, and all license requirements, both in the regulations and those specific to your license, are being met Although you can delegate tasks, you have the ultimate responsibility.

How much knowledge do you have to have?

It depends. You don't need an advanced degree in nuclear physics if your responsibility Is lhnitect. On the other hand, an RSO for a major broad-scope university, medical center, environmental project, or manufacturer wfll probably need a falrty good scientific background, including substantial knowledge of radiation characteristics and methods of detection.

There is a skill set frequently over1ooked in the selection of an RSO: Can you manage? If there is a large program under your license (i.e., a lot of users, diverse places of use, and/or branch offices) can you establish a management system that ensures you know everything that has to be done Is beJng done?

For example, if your license involves a lot of gauges at diverse locations used by numerous employees, the knowledge of dose calculations, shielding or biological effects is not much help tf you don't know if your users are properly trained, wearing the proper dosimetry, and transporting and storing gauges.

correctly.

Most of the civil penalty enforcement actions have resulted from the failure of a licensee to manage the radiation safety program correctly. The major management shortcoming is the failure to know whether activities are being conducted in accordance with NRC and Agreement State requirements. (f fail to understand why a business that knows how to audit its financial activities does not conduct an annual audit of its Radiation Safety Program and safety and operating procedures.)

Do you have the time*and resources to be an RSO?

This can be a problem, particularly if the RSO function is an ancillary assignment. It can generally work well for a small program in which the RSO is a user and has day-to-day contact with the other users. On1 geotechnical office with a few gauge operators is such an example. Others might include a small paving operations company with one office and several gauge operators, or a smaff testing services company.

Problems usually arise when a small business grows, particularty when it adds branch offices, anq the part-time RSO can no longer keep track of activities at other locations.

Do you want to be an RSO?

An RSO can be unpopular. You have to be a cop. Sometimes you have to say no. Don't let your name g~

on the license just because you have a Ph.D. and a desire to teach or do research but not to be a snoop!/

(I know the feeling. I originally wanted to teach, too. I suppose, in a way, that is what I am doing now, by writing this article. As an RSO, you are a regulator just like me. A regulator has to have the wiJI to regulate.)

e. Wait for instructions or arrival of emergency response In the event of theft:

a. Contact the RSO

b. Call the regulatory agency

c. Immediately contact the police

d. Consider issuing a reward through the media Investigations and conections Investigate all unusual occurrences involving the event (accident, damage, theft, oversights).

determine the cause, identify corrective actions and implement such actions.

Enforcement actions and employee misconduct

-:*:: ".'0 ~~ 11 tCC1L:1'"r.,1rcr~ts c: t'"'-:;. --=r.. ~:? ~*"':! st,::.1 J'"/ n,--i. t cs thJt arc cJ*1s *1,- 1 ,.*tJ Ll!'1,sc1ft-, o

• l'ec;i.'-1 fc1,o:ccr.::1uc! t:*1 a:1*1 f* ,*,*c.. -:-~ c;".- ,'*1 ::;: r'i,::*,,1~*,:.*~*'=-: ::i*,d c:irr*:::t,ve o:::,ons taken Self-Reporting An important requirement of your license is for the RSO to self-report any violations of the radiation safety program or conditions of the license. No one is perfect and your regulatory agency understands this. Self corrections are an important learning tool.

Self corrections will show the regulatory agency that you conscientious and committed towards the radiation safety program. Self corrections ra~y subject you to a fine, whereas *hidden" violations are far more likely to result in a fine.

Self corrections should include a report of the violation and corrective steps to ensure that the violation will not be repeated.

The FIie Drawer and Original Coples The RSO should designate a file drawer for maintaining all of the documents required for the license. This file drawer should hold all of the original documents and be kept under lock and key. If you have to remove an original, make a photocopy and immediately retum the original to the file.

There is nothing more helpful during an inspection than a neat tidy, complete and accurate file of all of your records and it will go a long way towards a successful inspection.

Do you have the clout in your organization?

Or, are you so low in your organization that no one tistens to you? Does the senior gauge operator or job foreman write your perfonnance appraisal or control your salary bonus? If so, you may have a problem.

You must have the authority to stop an unsafe activity or an activity in violation of NRC or i reement State uirements. Or must at least have read access 1D someone who can sto iL *~

am10mw;.u.,&W1u+a@*EAIMMMM*ill*@aa.;mn,111£9'11.I RSO Requirements Recordkeeping FIie Designate a file drawer for maintaining all of the documents required for the license. This file drawer should hold all of the original documen1s and be kept under lock and key.

RSO Training and Your License The RSO should have the proper training and experience to cany out the position. This training should qualify the individual to perfonn the duties of the RSO.

Training The RSO must have practical experience in the area of license application and must introduce and instruct workers to the safety and operational aspects that are unique to the application.

All workers.must pass a Radiation Safety Certification Class. Completion of this class will aid the RSO and further the understanding of safety, security and compliance requirements for every person in the organization. Remember, your safety program is only as good as your least trained person.

The RSO will oversee the training and monitor the test that is required of company employees and will ensure that he/she has received training. Company employees should be trained in all safety and emergency procedures and possess a copy of the company radiation safety program.

Training for the employees should Include:

• Radiation safety training

• HAZMAT training

• Annual refreshers Topics of training include:

• Principles and practices of radiation protection

• Radiation measurement and monitoring

• Biolocial effects of ractration It is important for the RSO or an authorized user to spend time with new workers in the basics of radiation safety and operation.

The certificate issued for successful completion of Radiation Safety Training will include a confirmation and signature line for the RSO to acknowledge that the employee has received hands on training with the radioactive material in use by the company subject to license control.

The training course oovers the safe use and handling of radioactive materials.

The RSO will authorize and ensure that only proper1y trained individuals will work with radioactive materials subject to license control including the preparation and transport of such materials. All training certificates are to be kept on file.

Personnel Monitoring/Dou Rates The RSO will ensure that dosimetry use is considered for all workers subject to monitoring for occupational radiation exposure. Train and practice the concepts of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) to ensure minimal exposures. When not in use all employee dosimeters should be kept with the control badge, at ~ distance free from high background exposure areas.

Store badges In a temperate environment The annual dose limit for workers is 5,000mRem. Declared {in writing) pregnant workers are limited to 500mRem for the tenn of the pregnancy. Workers under the age of 18 are limited to 500mRem/yr (some states limit their exposure to 50mRem).

Storage areas should have limited access to the general public and ensure that public exposure Is less than 10PmRem/yr or the exposure at 3 feet is ~ than 0.2mRem/hr. A general rule of 15 feet from a full-time work station should ensure compliance but areas with multiple gauges will need to be evaluated.

Reciprocity Operations lnvoMng license controlled quantities of radioactive material can only be conducted within the state under the licensee's regulatory agency. Sources will be kept in a licensed storage area or approved work site temporary storage. Use in another state will require reciprocity (pennission from the NRC or Agreement State).

Storage/Security When not in use radioactive material subject to license control will be stored behind double-locked security that prevents unauthorized access or removal. The RSO must authorize and approve any operators before they can remove items from storage. Any item or package removed from storage must be inspected and logged out with the operator's name, date, any serial number and place of use.

Radioactive material subject to license control can never be left unattended at the work site.

Items left in vehicles should be double-locked and concealed with appropriate bill of lading and emergency response sheets left on the driver's seat Radioactive material subject to license control cannot be left unsupervised with 2nd or 3rd party personnel. If you nave an Individual from a service company visit your site to calibrate, service or repair equipment using check sources, you must have one of your authorized .users accompany the individual at all times. They cannot be left alone with your equipment nor can they be left alone in a secured storage area. The service individual is not employed by your company and you have not transferred the equipment to their ownership.

You cannot let the individual remove equipment or packages to take to their vehicle Without supervision. If an Item is removed from storage you must *adhere to all requirements of the radiation safety program.

If you are in possession of radionuclide quantities of concern (Risk Significant Radioactive Material aka RSRM) you are not allowttd to let 2nd or 3rd party individuals access the package or source unless they have regulatory background clearance. Look in the Appendices/Attachments for the NRC Notice.

Leak Testing Check sources (including exempt quantities as a good practice} should be leak tested for contamination every 6 months and documentation placed on file.

Inventory Hands on source inventory will be laken every 6 months and documentation kept on file.

Emergency procedures Employees who work with radioactive materials subject to license control will be trained in aspects of emergency precautions and emergency response. In the event loss of control occurs at a work site trained and qualified radiation worker will respond In the following order:

a. Attend to anyone that may have been injured.

b. Determine the location of radioactive sources

c. Take control and deny access to the area (15 feet in all directions)

d. If a vehicle Is involved keep it on site until it is*determined that it is not contaminated

e. Gather details about accident and damage - if possible, perform radiation survey

f. Stay at the site but contact RSO with details

g. If necessary, the RSO will contact the regulatory agency, any manufacturer and/ or police

h. The RSO will give guidance on whether to move radioactive sources L The RSO should travel to the site with a radiation survey meter In the event of damage in an auto accident

a. Attend to injuries

b. Deny access

c. Gather details

d. Contact the RSO and/or emergency response number

RSO Recordkeeplng Checklist These documents and procedures are discussed In the Training Manual.

Specific License The Regulations Employee Training Records Radiation Safety Class Certification Radiation Wofk Field Training U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Training RSO Training*

Employee Annual Refresher Notice to Employees Poster Personnel Radiation Exposure Records - Dosimetry Records Inventory and Receipt Records Receipts Inventory Leak Test Reports Daily Use Logs Special Form Certificate required by IAEA - Certificate of Competent Authority Sealed Source and Device (SSO) Sheets Original License Application Package Extra Labels Type "A* Package Test Results Radiation Safety Program Annual Audits Transport Documents

Field Operating Procedures Emergency Procedure Documents/Procedures/Plans Documents Package for File In Summary A. The RSO will emphasize the ALARA philosophy to workers, instruct personnel on current procedures and provide guidance on relevant changes to reduce exposures.

B. The RSO will review dosimetry reports for all monitored personnel to determine if unnecessary exposures are being received. The RSO will investigate within 30 days the cause of any dose considered f.o be excessive. If warranted, the RSO will take corrective actions to prevent recurrence. A report of each investigation and the actions taken, if any, will be recorded and maintained for inspection purposes.

C. At least annually, the RSO will conduct a formal review of the radiation protection program's content and implementation. The review wfll include an evaluation of equipment. procedures, dosimetry records, inspection findings, and incidents. The RSO will assess trends in occupational exposures as an index of the program's success and determine if any modifications to the program are needed. A summary of the results of each annual review, including a description of actions proposed and taken (if any) will be documented by the RSO, discussed with management and signed and dated by both. A report on each audit will be maintained on file for 3 years from the date of the review.

D. The RSO will provide written notifications of annual radiation exposures to all monitored personnel and will be available to respond to any questions regarding the exposure reports.

REFERENCE 1 I

'I 0

11: TETR.ATECH MEMORANDUM (b)(7)(C)

Date: January 20, 2010 From: (b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Twin Oaks I, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wright Drive, Norfolk, VA 23502 (757) 466-4906 To: All TtEC Radiation Safety Program Personnel

Subject:

Designation of Radiation Safety Officer Representative

• Hunters Point As determined by the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer, Bert Bowers has the necessary training and experience described in Appendix Hof NUREG 1556, Volume 18 to act in the position of Hunters Point Radiation Safety Officer Representative. This designation is in accordance with Materials License Number 46-27767-01, Docket Number 030-36414, Condition 11.A, as issued to Tetra Tech EC, Inc. through and subject to oversight by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As the Hunters Point R adiation Safety Officer Representative, Mr. Bowers has the vested authority and responsibility to ensure radiological safety and compliance with the TtEC radioactive materials license as it is used at the Hunters Point Shipyard.

cc: RSO file, Hunters Point RSOR (rsor/nrdhps file/0 12010)

Page 1 of l

J' TETRA TECH MEMORANDUM Date: January 20, 20 JQ ?c:

l(b)l7)(C)

From:

To: All TtEC Radiation Safety Program Personnel

Subject:

Personnel Authorized for Use of Radioacthe Materials at Hunters Point Tn reference to the subject line above, a review has been conducted of TtEC personnel qualifications antl experience. In I.hat regard. the following individuals are hereby authorized to use, and supervise the use of, radioactive materials at the Hunters Point Shipyard in accordance with NRC License# 46-27767-01:

l. l(b)(7)(C)

2. Bert Bowers

3. (b)(7)(C) 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Licensed radioactive material shall only be used by, or under the supervision of, the RSO or one of the designated personnel listed above.

All users of licensed radioactive material are responsible to ensure such materials are handled and maintained in strict adherence to the requirements of the License and the Radiation Safety Program.

All supervised use of the radioactive materials requires direct cognizance of such use by the RSO or one of the individuals listed above. Any questions in regard to the authorized use of radioactive materials are to be directed to the Radiation Safety Officer.

cc: RSO file, Authorized Personnel (rsolnrc/hps fi1e10 12010)

Page 1 of 1

REFERENCE 2 HPS Parcel Bat Building 271 RAD Waste Storage Area: "As Found" byfRSO representative1during end-of-day RAD Integrity field check (generator left unsecured; side door to building open; entire building posted as an RCA) 03.17.10

REFERENCE 3 Panoramic of HPS Parcel E Site Perimeter: Construction Site referred to as #UCSF Access Road Detour" (Inside Site RCA Facing General Public Properties), March 18, 2010

HPS Parcel E Site Perimeter: HAs Found" b~SO Representativelduring End of Day "RAD Integrity Field Check" at Construction Site referred to as "UCSF Access Road Det.o ur" {Inside Site RCA Facing General Public Properties), Angle 1, March 18, 2010 HPS Parcel E Site Perimeter: "Corrective Action" RCA Posting Established b~O Representativ!lduring End of Day HRAD Integrity Field Check" at Construction Site referred to as "UCSF Access Road Detour" (Inside Site RCA Facing General Public Properties), Angle l, March 18, 2010

HPS Parcel E Site Perimeter: #As Fourn:t" bv[_RSO Representativ~ during End of Day *RAO Integrity Field Check" at Construction Site referred to as *ucsFAccess Road Detour" (Facing Site RCA from General Public Property), Angle 2, March 18, 2010 HPS Parcel E Site Perimeter: *corrective Action# RCA Posting Estabfished by~ SO Representativ~ uring End of Day "RAO Integrity Field Check" at Construction Site referred to as "UCSF Access Road Detour" (Facing Site RCA from General Public Property), Angle 2, March 18,2010

REFERENCE 4 I

Parcel D at Radiological Screening Yard 2 (RSY2): Active soil characterization work area: RAD deficiency (RAD sign/rope not re-established across locked gate) as noted during end-of-day RAD Integrity field check, 4.7.10 Parcel D at Radiological Screening Yard 2 (RSY2): Active soil characterization work area: RAD deficiency (RAD sign/rope not re-established across locked gate) as corrected during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 4.7.10

REFERENCE 5

~ :.

~ ',

HPS Parcel Bat Building 271 RAD Waste Storage Area: "As Found" b~O representativ;Jduring end-of-day RAD Integrity field check (table staged under open window; entire building posted as an RCA) 04.23.10

REFERENCE 6 View 1 of Parcel E Overtook at "Utility Corridor" RCA: Prior Event - PG&E Staff Present w/ No Authorized User (After Hours/No Notification)

View 2 of Parcel E Overlook at #Utility Corridor" RCA: Prior Event

• PG&E Staff Present w/ No Authorized User (After Hours/No Notification)

REFERENCE 7 HPS Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area (View A): Safety deficiency as noted during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area (View A): Safety deficiency as corrected

("Caution" tape re-established) during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10

HPS Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area (View B): Safety deficiency as noted during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area (View B): Safety deficiency as corrected ("Caution" tape re-established) during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10

HPS Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area (View C): Safety deficiency as noted during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area (View C): Safety deficiency as corrected ("Caution" tape re-established) during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10

HPS: Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area Perimeter {View D): Safety deficiency as noted during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS: Parcel D "Pickling Tank" Active Construction Area Perimeter (View D): Safety deficiency as corrected ("Road Closed" sign re-established) during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10

HPS: Entrance to "Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel" Active Construction Area (View A): Safety deficiency as noted during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS: Entrance to "Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel" Active Construction Area (View A): Safety deficiency as corrected "Caution" tape re-established) during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10

HPS: Inside "Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel" Active Construction Area (View B): RAD deficiency (uncollected/

unused RAD rope strewn along fence panel) as noted/collected during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS: Inside to "Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel" Active Construction Area (View C): RAD deficiency (downed RAD rope) as noted/re-established during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10

HPS: Inside "Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel" Active Construction Area (View D): Safety deficiency as noted during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS: Inside "Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel" Active Construction Area (View D): Safety deficiency as corrected during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10

HPS: Inside "Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel" Active Construction Area (View D): Safety deficiency (shovel on ground to right of stop sign and in area accessible to public, scoop end facing up) as discovered/

corrected during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 5.14.10 HPS Parcel Bat Building 271: Active RAD Waste Characterization Work Area (View A): RAD deficiency (pad lock unsecured) as noted/corrected during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 3.23.10

REFERENCE 8 From: Bowers, Bert

"'Sent: Wednesda ne 30, 2010 11:21 AM To (b)(7)(C)

SUbject: Hunters Point Parcel E RCA Boundaries Subject to Shaw/Tetra Tech Jurisdiction (b)(7)(C)

H I'll attempt to give you a call in a bit to discuss the attached photographic outline specific to Parcel E ...

Bert

=

REFERENCE 9 TE'T RA TECH EC, INC.

MEMORANDUM To: Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS) - Radiological Control Technical (RCT) Slaff From: Bert Bowers, TtECI Radiation Safety Officer Representative Da1c: August 19, 2010

Subject:

Project Specific Reference / Guidance Documents for the Conduct of Radiologically Based Tasks at BPS A component ofTtECI's expected level ofRCT perfonnance during the conduct of ANSJ defined skill sets includes un ongoing familiarity with established programs, procedures, and reference resources- by which all technical support actions are ba.c;ed<1>. In regards to rndiolo *cal a lications that correspond to this pro'ect, a site man.a ement team consisting of RAD supervision, th (b)(7)(C) and the TtECJ b 7 C have identified the following active documcntc; - c contents .o r w uc I you are expected to routine y re erence and implement us appropriate:

• Department of the Navy - Hunters Point Shipyard, Historical Radiological Assessment (HRA) Manual

• Corporate Tier, ESQ - Radiological Protection Procedures

+ NLP As Low As Reasonably Achievable Program (ALARA) Program

+ NLP Radioactive Material Accountability

+ NLP Sealed Radioactice Source Control

+ NLP Radiological Entry Control Program

+ NLP Radioactive Contamination Control

+ NLP Managing Radiological Emergencies

+ NLP RadiologicaJ Protection Records

+ NLP Radiation Protection Program Audits

+ NLP Radiological Protection Nonconfonnance report~

+ RP 1 Radiological Protection Program

• Tetra Tech EC - Basewide Radiological Protection Plan (RPP), Hunters Point Shipyard

• Hunters Point Shipyard Standard Operating Procedures

+ HPO-Tt-002 - Issue and Use of Radiation Work Pennits

+ HPO-Tt-004 - Project Dosimetry

+ HPO-Tt-006 - Radiation and Contamination Surveys

+ HPO-Tt-007 - Preparation of Portable Radiation and Contamination Survey Meters and Instruments for Field Use

+ HPO-Tt-008 - Air Sampling and Sample Analysis

+ HPO-Tt-009 - Sampling Procedures for Radiological Surveys

+ HPO-Tt-0 JO - Radiologically Restricted Areas Posting and Access Control

+ HPO-Tt-011- Control of Radioactive Material

+ HPO-Tt-012- Release of Materials from Radiologically Controlled Areas

+ HPO-Tt-016- Decontamination of Equipment and Tools

+ HPO-Tt-017-Radiological Respiratory Protection Policy

+ HJ>O-Tt-021- Gamma Screening for Trucks Using the Screening Portal Monitor

+ HPO-Tt-022- Radiological Protective Clothing Selection, Monitoring and Decontamination

+ HPO-Tt-026- Gamma Screening of trucks Using Portable Survey Instrumentation

+ HPO-Tt-027- Operation of Conveyor systems Using the Ludlum4612 Detector Array System

+ HPO-Tt-270-Back:fill Review and Acceptance Procedure (Internal Distribution Only)

The intent of this memorandum is to document your understanding that the above referenced resources exist, that direct supervision is responsible for ensuring access to the listed resources is readily available, and that you will maintain full compliance with radiological protocol as established for this project - including the timely reporting of observed discrepancies and any needs for corrective action(s). To indicate your unden.'tanding as such, please complete the appropriate sections beside your name on the attached sign-off fonn.

As always, feel free to stop by my office or cont.act me af 415 216-2742lif additional information or feedback is needed.

0>Additional and equally important "task specific" field programs, work inslIUCtions, pr0<:e0ures, and ret&ence resources will likely apply to your assignmcots and require the same level or familiarity as dctcnoincd by project management and administered through your supervisor.

TETRA TECH EC, INC.

Subject:

Pro ject Specific Reference/ Guidance Documents for the Conduct of Radiological Based Tasks at IIPS Date: August 20, 20 I 0 In regards to the subject line above and as indicated by my signature below, l understand that reference resources exist for the conduct of radiologically based tasks, that direct supervision is responsible for ensuring access to such resources is readily available, and that I will maintain full compliance with radiological protocol as established for this project - including the timely reporting of observed discrepancies and any needs for corrective action(s):

Name - Company: Signature: Date:

(b)(7)(C) 1- NWE (b)(7)(C) ~NWE Andrews, Susan - NWE (b)(7)(c:, 1-RSRS (b)(7)(C) 1- RSRS (b)(7)(C) -NWE (b)(7)(C) r RSRS (b)(7)(C) -NWE (b)(7)(C) 1-NWE (b)(7)(C) - NWF.

(b)(7)(C) 1- NWE (b)(7)(C)

- NWE (b)(7)(C) -NWE (b)(7)(C) 1-NWE (b)(7)(C) RSRS (b)(7)(C) - NWE (b)(7)(C)

- RSRS RSRS (b)(7)(C)

-NWE (b)(7)(C) - RSRS NWE (b)(7)(C) ~NWE (b)(7)(C) 1- NWE (b)(7)(C) NWE

-NWE

- RSRS

REFERENCE 10 j(

To: Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS) - Radiological Control Technical (RCT) Staff From: Be11 Bowers, TtECI Radiation Safety Officer Representative Date: September 15, 2010

Subject:

Collection of "Beta/Gamma" Static Measurements {and Representative Backgiound Data)

During the conduct of ANSI defined skill sets, a major component ofTtECI's expected level of RCT perfonnance includes the correct use of established protocol for field data collection. Specific to surveys involving "beta/gamma scans and statics" (i.e., those unique to open area locations, building/stmctural/equipment surfaces, etc), it is important to con:finn in advance with your supervisor the technique(s) required unique to your assigned task - and implement as such to ensure the validity of data collected. To that effect, demonstrating the ability to reliably detennine and apply the correct backgrnund selection methodology for "beta/ganuna scans and statics" is essential (i.e., use of "ambient or like material methods, etc" as defined in corresponding work instructions and/or as tasked by direct supervision).

To fm1her emphasize this point, excerpts with data results from five selected field smvey reports follow (names and locations are omitted). In all examples, reference the column titled "Fixed+ Removable (NET)", specifically the data entered under the header "Beta/Gamma dpm/100 CM2". Assess the "beta/gamma" smvey results (along with conesponding information for "Instrumentation Used"). Identify on each example if you would APPROVE 01* RE.JECT the results. For any rejections, list the basis for your decision along with any identified need for required con-ective action(s). Review this infonnation thoroughly prior to making your final determination. Once completed, return the examples with comments to your supervisor for follow*up discussion and feedback.

Note: While reviewing the examples, keep in mind that a vast majority of data collected from the field is ultimately transferred into survey reports. Sw*vey documents are often times incorporated into information which is submitted to regulators and other outside entities. In these instances, the information includes names/locations and in part reflects on the entire staff retained by Tetra Tech and its perceived level of expertise in performing technically oriented work. In that regard, attention lo detail, constant contact with supervision, and the correct use of established protocol go "hand*in-band" with generating a quality product and in doing our job right the first time. In parallel, discrepancies encountered while in the field (work document errors, difference of opinion, etc) which prevent the correct and smooth performance of technically oriented work need to be brought to the attention of project management - in both a timely fashion and at the appropriate level.

EXAMPLE 1 Exposure R*t. (pR/hr)

Fixed. RcmOYable (NET)

Removable (NET)

Location Comments Contact I 1 Meter Gamma (cpm)

Alpha dpml100cm2 B1ta1Garnma dpml100cm2 Alpha dpm1100cm2 Beta/Gamma dpm/100cm2 1 3.60 -147.46 1.70 7.60 NIA 2 i~ -0.90 -310.33 -0.54 7.60 NIA 3 -5.40 -222.29 -0.54 -2.90 NIA 4 8.10 -376.36 -0.54 -0.80 NIA 5 3.60 -217.89 1.70 1.30 NIA 6

I I I -5.40 -160.67 -0.54 13.89 NIA I

7 8.10 -222.29 1.70 7.60 NIA 8 -0.90 -182.68 1.70 3.40 NIA 9 -0.90 -310.33 -0.54 *0.80 NIA 10 -5.40 -266.31 -0.54 9.69 NIA 11 12.60 *297.12 -0.54 -0.80 NIA I

12 -0.90 -138.66 3.93 -2.90 NIA 13 -0.90 -548.03 -0.54 -2.90 NIA 14 8.10 -486.40 -0.54 9.69 NIA NIA

-.1,' - 3.60 -482.00 -0.54 -0.80 1b 8.10 -552.43 -0.54 5.50 N/A 17 -5.40 -389.56 -0.54 9.69 NIA 18 3.60 -464.39 -0.54 3.40 NIA 19 8.10 -323.53 -0.54 1.30 NIA 20 -0.90 -424.76 -0.54 1.30 NIA INSTRUMENTATION USED M(!d*I Serial C1llbr1don tnatrument Total *.4 MOC/MOA+ Background +

ln11J01t Number Duo D*tt  % Efficiency Effleltncy (doml100cm2) Id om/100cm21 193637 a 35.26'A. a 6.82% a 36.44 C 5.40 2360 10/2112010 (ly 36.06% Ov 9.02% Ov 355.40 ()y 1230.31 43*68 216849 a 59.72% Q 14.93% a 10.80 a 0.54 Prolean 0615068 7/912011 O*, 63.55% B-t 15.89"k llv 15.54 llv 2.90 D Approve D Reject (Reason and corrective actions - if rejected: _ _ _ _ _ __

EXAMPLE2 Removable (NET)

Exposure Rate (pRlhr) Flx~d + Removable (Nl;T)

Location Commanli3 Contact l 1 Meter Gamma (cpm)

Alpha dpml100cm2' Beta/Gamma dpmlt0Dcm2 Alpha dpm/100crn2 Beta/Gamma dpml100cm2 1 21.03 -157.69 -0.47 6.15 NIA 2 11.69 -144.66 -0.47 -0.15 NIA 3 7.01 -192.44 -0.47 1.95 N/A 4

5 6

7 ,,

f 2.34

-2.34 30.38 2.34

-179.41

-248.91

-192.44

-140.31 1.76

-0.47

-0.47

-0.47

-2.24

-0.15

-2.24 1.95 N/A N/A NIA NIA 8 II 11.69 -131.62 4.00 4.05 NIA 9 7.01 -114.25 1.76 4.05 NIA 1,

10 21.03 -122.94 -0.47 4.05 NIA *-

1. -2.34 -62.12 1.76 -2.24 N/A

- 2.34 -166.38 -0.47 1.95 NIA 13

- 2.34 -183.75 1.76 1.95 N/A 14 7.01 -209.82 -0.47 12.44 N/A 1~ 7.01 ~205.47 -0.47 -0.15 NIA INSTRUMENTATION USEO Model Serial Calibration Instrument Total Y. MOCJMOA+ Background +

Due Date  % Efficiency Efficiency (dom/100cm2) ld11m1101k:m2) lnatJDet. Number

. a 40.64 a 7.01 2360 164692 a 33.96% a 8.49%

6/2312011 43-68, PR216842 BY 36.54% l)y 9.14% l)y 314.88 lh 970.02 (l 59.72%, a 14.93% a 10.54 u 0.47 Protean 0615068 7/912011 Rv 63.55% lh 15.89% Ov 17.62 llv 4.34 D Approve D Reject (Reason and corrective actions - if rejected: - - - - - - - -

,I EXAMPLE3 Exposure Rate (l,IR/hr) Fbced + Removable (HET) Removable (NEl j LocaUon Comments Gamma Contact j 1 Meter.

(cpm)

Alpha Beta/Gamma Alpha Beta/Gamma dpm/100cm2*' dpml100cm2 dpm/100cm2 dpm/100cm2 1 14.38 -45.50 -0.40

• 1.80 NIA 2 r* -4.18 -161 .50 -0.40 -3.90 NIA 3 0.46 -241 .80 -0.40 8.69 NIA 4 -4.18 -103.50 -0.40 0.29 NIA 5 -4.18 3.57 -0.40 -3.90 NIA 6 -8.82 -72.27 -0.40 2.39 N/A 7 5.10 -103.50 -0.40 -1.80 N/A 11 8 9.74 97.25 -0.40 10.78 N/A  :

9 5.10 8.03 1.83 *1 .80 NIA I 10 5.10

• 103.50 -0.40 0.29 NIA

11 -4.18 -223.95 -0.40 0.29 NIA 12 -8.82 -139.19 -0.40 -1.80 NIA 13 II 0.46 -103.50 -0.40 2.39 NIA 14 0.46 -76.73 -0.40 10.78 NIA 15 -8.82 -99.04 -0.40 -1.80 NIA I

16 -4.18 8.03 -0.40 2.39 N/A 17 1L

- -4.18 9.74

-174.88 12.49 4.06 4.06 2.39 4.49 NIA NIA 19 5.10 -125.81 1.83 4.49 N/A 20 0.46 83.87 6.30 2.39 NIA 21 5.10 43.72 -0.40 8.69 N/A 22 -8.82 8.03 -0.40

• 1.80 NIA 23 -8.82 -9.81 -0.40 -1.80 N/A 24 9.74 83.87 -0.40 0.29 N/A 25 !I . - --* -4.18 3.57 1.83 8.69 N/A INSTRUMENTATION USED Modal Serial Callbrallon Instrument Total % MOCIMOA+ B ackground +

Inst/Del Number Due Data %ElflcJency Efficiency (dprn/100cm2) (d pm/100cm2) 2360 251039 a 34.21% a 8.55% a 50.66 Cl 13.46 9/10/2010 43-68 216838 Br 35.56% py 8.90% Dr 340.20 py 1107.27 Protean 0615066 7/9/2011 a 59.72% a 14.93% a 10.25 a 0.40 Or 63.55% 13*, 15.89% (ly 17.03 lh 3.90 O Approve O Reject (Reason and corrective actions - ifrejected: _ _ _ _ __ _

Exposuro Rate 1':XAMPLE 4 Fbied + Removable (NET}

Re~bl&(N~

Sample hWGamma e,woamm:i Number

(µR/hr)

Contact 11 Meter G,-~

(cpm) *~ Alpha dpmffOOcm2 dpm/100cm2 dpm110Dcm2 dpm/100cm2 Sample IC>

-'"' .- 1 5566 -14.86

-150.39

- .1l

• • -o.41 11.73

.2.96 r Tss"' ~I ii 5927 *40.37 1.76 3 I

- 7769 -14.86 150.39 - - -1*

1.76 1.24 r*

I- .,

4 6456 -9.91 274.61 4.00 1.24

- 5 5609 *14.86 3.99 1.76 5.43 f~ --

' 6 ,- 6613 132.64 -0.47 3.34 r . - ,

~

L - 9.91

. 7 6

I J 7190 6108 4.95

-4.95 97.15 132.64

-0.47

-0.47 5.43 3.34 t.

l.

9 .. ~- 5687 *9.91 . 1-45.95 -0.47 7.53 )

10 ~

6625 0.00 119.34 -0.47 7.53 ll 11 ,* ( 5402 -14.86 429.88 -0.47 7.53 II -

12 ' . I -[ 6362 0.00 558.53 1.76 7.53 - *,1 13

. 5595 -4.95 159.26 *0.47 -2.96 14 5826 -9.91 398.82 -0.47 1.24 ~-

15 5175 0.00 443.18 -0.47 1.24 16 ~83 -9.91 8.43 -0.47 18.02 17 4691 4.95 336.71 1.76 15.92 I I

-- 18 19 20

.l

-* .l,'~

4431 4923 4714 19.82

-9.91 0.00 48.36 83.85 163.70

• 0.47 4.00 4.00 1.24 1.24 11.73 ll I J 1

~

. i

--- 21 22 I 4776 4539 r 4.95 29.72 199.19

-66.99 1.76 1.76 1.24 5.43 -

23 4437 19.82 -102.48 1.76 -2.96

• 24

' 4731 203.63 -0.47 5.43 I 0.00 ---

25 4704 -9.91 66.10 6.23 1.24 . -~*

26

• 27

"' 5247 9.91 9.91 270.17 43.92

• 0.47

-0.47

-0.86 9.63

'I 6260 -

28 4162 14.86 -58.12 1.76 9.63 29 4602 4.95 208.06 -0.47 3.34

- ~

I I

""'"'3o 119.34 -0.47 -2.96 L I--

I - - 4615 9.91 1N8TRUM~NTA110N USED "' ,!:-* *- w Model Sertal Calibration Instrument Total% MDC/MCA+ Background +

Inst/Del. Number Due Dato % Efficiency Efficiency (dpml100cm2) (dpml100cm2) 2360 259744 a 32.04% a 8.01% ex 60.94 a 19.82 6/1412011 43-68 PR16011 py 35.78% jlyB.95% py391.50 jly 1491.03 a 59.72% u 14.93% u 10.64 a 0.'47 Protean 0615068 7/9/2011 py 63,55% py 15.89°A, Jly15.64 j3y 2.96 2350-1 95355 4.92 6/22/2011 44-10 PR249926 Kcpm D Approve D Reject (Reason and co1Tective actions - if rejected:

r I r ht I I

Subject:

Collection of "Beta/Gamma Static" J\lf95111*emepls (nnd R l!f!l'esentntive Background Datnl Date: September 15, 2010 Iu reference to the subject line above and as indicated by my signature below, an understanding is acknowledged that standard protocol exists for the consistent collection of"beta/gamma static" measuremenis (and representative background data), that direct supervision is a resource to use in ensuring the correct protocol is satisfactorily selected and consistentJy implemented, !llld that full compliance will be m11int11ined witb data collection steps es established for this project- including the timely reporti:ng of observed discrepancies and any needs for corrective action(s):

Name

• Company:

- Signature: Date:

Andrews, Susan

• N\VE (b)(?)(C) - RSRS (b)(?)(C) RSRS (b)(?)(C) -NWE (b)(?)(C) 1- NWE (b)(7)(C) F NWE (b)(?)(C) 1-N\VE (b)(?)(C) 1-NWE (b)(?)(C) -NWE (b)(?)(C) j- N\VE (b)(?)(C) 1- RSRS (b)(?)(G:I -NWE (b)(?)(C) RSRS (b)(7)(C)

~RSRS (b)(7)(C) RSRS (b)(?)(C) -RSRS (b)(7)(C) l* N\VE (b)(?)(G) -NWE (b)(7)(C) I*N\VE (b)(?)(C) N\VE NWE

- RSRS

I 11 t I EXAMPLE 5

) 1p

- r-p u,

.,. tilnf)

-- ...*- . - Fl , d

• RMnovab t ~ q= - ~--!tnJO'......rib"",

Ul fltrn,*,1"1 AJph.l l3etatGa111m.a -~pt

. Hf *1

',,. I I n lumh ., L. - Sa tr I I I c ontact It llatar (CPffll dpml100cm2 dptnl100cm2 : d'pmffODcm~ dp111110Ucm2 1 ~-, ,, '111../" 6729 13.82 -990.25 -0.27 5.56 2 JI"-"':,,; , ** ~ 8008 5.92 -837.16 -0.27 13.95 I r.

3 4 ft..a.,I:"' ='r ..

6671 6.529 9.87 6.92 I

-736.44

-817.02 1.96 4.20 1.36 1.36 I 5 II """ 7354 1.97 -865.36 -0.27 -0.73 I - I

"' 6 7611 -1.97 -599.47 -0.27 1.36 I -

IN.BTBU~~NTAT{QH US~

Model Serial CallbraUon Instrument Total% MDC/MOA+ Background+

lnsvi>et. ~~m~e~. Ou_, Dale % Efficiency Efficiency (dpm/100cm2) (dpm/100cm2) 2350 185776 ~/4/2011 a 40.20% a 10.0So/o a 40.8~ u 9.87 43-88 095522 Oi S9.40% fly9:8$% -py 448.14 J3y 2182.74 a 69.72% a 14.93% a 9.60 a 0.27

• Protean 0615068 719/2011 Dy 63.55% j3y15.89% j3y 15.44 J3y 2.83

- :*.i,.,

l ___

98517 211137 I ,. --* ~

10 .;!)/2010 7.76 Kcpm D Approve D Reject (Reason and corrective actions - if rejected: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

The intent of this memorandum js to document your understanding of the content within, that direct supervision is a resource to use in ensuring correct survey protocol is satisfactorily and consistently implemented, and that you will maintain fol~ compliance with such data collection steps as established for this project - including the timely reporting of observed discrepancies and any need for corrective action(s). To indicate your understanding as such, please complete the appropriate sections beside your name on the sign-off form provided.

As always, feel free to stop by my office or contact me a~ 5 216-274~ if additional info1mation, feedback, or discussion is needed.  ::J

REFERENCE 11 From:

SAnt:

Lowman, Laurie L CIV SEA 04 04N [laurie.lowman@navy.mil) ., _ _

Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:40 AM pxixq ] Slack, Matthew L CIV SEA 04 04N

'- Bowers, Bert; Whitcomb, James H CIV NAVFAC SWl(bXJXC)

Subject:

RE: RADIOLOGICAL AREAS UNDER CONTRACT I,__- - - - - -

Signed By: laurie.lowman@navy.mil I am trying to show the areas of responsibility for each of the contractor's at the time the MOU will be signed. If TtEC is responsible for all areas that are not covered by another contractor then that can be stated on a map but that would mean that it is your responsibility under your license to cover all those areas for any and all work performed in those areas whether or not it is radiological work. If there are areas that you are speci'fically contracted to perform radiological investigations then those need to be shown separately because you would be performing "intrusive work". Looking at the map you forwarded, I am not sure that all areas where you are contracted to perform radiological investigations are covered. It is more a matter of responsibility than radiological postings. I am trying to delineate areas of responsibility to eliminate problems not create them - all though it may seem otherwise at this point.

Also, I am concerned about the area of "joint TtEC/Shaw" jurisdiction. If RSY-2 is functioning then it would be TtEC's area. I can ' t see how the jurisdiction can be shared -

particularly in regards to licensins .

Please take another look at the map - we can talk today if need be. I just need this signed

'er rather than later - especially with Shaw starting work.

Than)s, LLL'

---

Original Message-----

From: r )(J)(C)

Sent: ~M~on~a~a~y~,.....,..

o~ ct~o~b~e~r- 0~4r,~ 1~0~1~0~2~0~:~0~3------------------~

To: Lowman, Laurie L CIV SEA 04 04N; Slack, Matthew L CIV SEA 04 04N Cc: Bowers, Bert; Whitcomb, James H CIV NAVFAC SW; e ixc>

Subject:

FW: RADIOLOGICAL AREAS UNDER CONTRACT L--~~~~~~~---'

Hi Laurie, Matt told me you wanted TtEC to include a map of our areas in the revised MOU.

Maybe I'm over thinking t his but there are several possibilities:

1) The attached figure overlays project specific locations/boundaries on the Basewide Rad Impacted map. The MOU would state that all areas not specifically shown fall under TtEC's NRC License

~, Another option is to show only the Shaw and EMS areas and state that everything else falls under TtEC?

1

REFERENCE 12 From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2: 18 PM To: 'Schul, Raymond' SUbject: RE: Hunters Point: Field RAD Posting

... sometime between 9 & lO AM yesterday morning.

BB From: Schul, Raymond [mallto:raymond.schul@shawgrp.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:01 PM To: Bowers, Bert " ~

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point: Field RAD Posting

Bert, What time did you see this? It was reported to the RCS earlier to fix this.

Ray From: Bowers, Bert [10]

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:51 PM To: Schul, Raymond

Subject:

Hunters Point: Field RAD Posting

Ray, Just a friendly FYI "heads up" observation from the field while on the roadway between Dry Dock 4 and Gun Mole Pier.... as would be the case with me, I thought you'd want to know. Feel free to contact me if more information or feedback is needed,

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Direct:r )(*XCJ I 415.21......,........._..--

Alternatef x1ll:c; 11Main: 416.671 .1990 I Mobile: i..l(b_)(S_) _ __..I, Fax:

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

REFERENCE 13 HPS: Graffiti "As Found" - Management Parking Lot RSOR Project Vehicle (October 2010)

Note: Only Affected Vehicle In Entire Parking Lot

REFERENCE 14 Tetra Tech Project RSO, Bert Bowers, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard -July 2010 (establishing RAD posting configurations)

ELBERT "BERT" G. BOWERS l(b)(7)(C)

Work: (415) 216-2742 L...-----------------' Cell: .__

I ____

l(b)(7)(C)

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICAIIONS Over 30 years of progressive experience in radiological surveilJance and control, emergency preparedness, accredited training, and the supervision and management of safety oriented work Highly developed management and control skills with a demonstrated ability to effectively train, supervise and direct a fluctuating technical staff with diverse backgrounds. Effectively manages and accomplishes multiple tasks with competing priorities. Reliably demonstrates an in-depth knowledge relevant to radiatian safety and radioactive materials management, regulations. and standards as -promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, OCCtJpational Safety and Health Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Competent in the oversight of radiologically oriented tasks subject to regulatory requirement& and practices unique to nuclear power plants, transuranic sites, CERCLA sites, and source and special nuclear materials facilities. Expertise in the oversight of contracts and work product while supporting the successful completion of project goals.

Superior training/teaching skills with the ability to effectively communicate complex concepts to both technically and non-technically oriented groups. Strong analytical and problem-solving abilities augmented with persuasive written and verbal skills while demonstrating a high degree of proficiency in conflict-resolution and consensus building.

WORK HISTORY 2002 to Present Project Manager - Radiological Field Operations New World Environmental, Inc., Livermore, CA

Responsibilities: Currently vested with management of the Hunters Point field project consisting of 44 employees, and implementation of contracts currently reflecting a combined annual worth of $7.9 millionUladiological Safety Officer Representative (RS0R1 tasked with regulatory compliance and oversight related to radiation and radioactive materials management and associated work activities at impacted sites (including naval facilities at Hunters Point and China Lake in California and Picatinny in New Jersey). Managing and directing NRC license compliance requirements including field implementation, support and oversight ofMARSSIM based survey technologies and standards. Implement and administer the Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD) program and enforce NRC license mandated protocols. Account for the implementation and enforcement of project-oriented contract clirectives and recommended corrective actions. Identify radiation safety issues, and initiate corrective action and follow-up activities.

Review and apply radiation safety programs and practices to ensure adherence to Non Responsive

Non Responsive 3

RELEJIANT PROJECT EXPERIENC£ Non Responsive 4 th 472238

TETRA TECH INTERIM LICENSE RSO C*o- rv......~.y ,

\..

":r'

) ~

J UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV 612 EAST LAMAR BOULEVARD, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125 July 27, 2009 Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

ATTN: Elbert G. 89wers Radiation Safety Officer

.3200.G~rgeWashiAgten-Way- - * -* *-* ---.-- - - -

Suite G Richland, Washington 99354

SUBJECT:

LICENSE AMENDMENT Please find enclosed Amendment No. '05 to NRC License No. 46-27767-01 naming Elbert G.

Bowers as Radiation Safety Officer:)An environmental assessment for this action Is not required, since Ulls action Is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 61.22(c)(14)(xvQ. You should review this llcense carefully and be sure that you understand ell conditions. You can contact me at 817-860-8189 If you have any questions about this license.

NRC's Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2005-31 , provides criteria to Identify security-related sensltiv.e Information and guidance for handling and marking of such documents. This ensures that potentially sensrtlve Information Is not made publicly available through ADAMS, NRC's offlclal electronlc do~ument repOsitory. The RIS may be located on*the NRC Web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/readin~-rm/doc-collecllons/gen-comm/reg-lssues/2005/. Pursu<ant to NRC's RIS 2005-31, th'e enclosed materials license will not be made publicly available In ADAMS.

Please nottl that the enclosed lloense will have the marking "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information". You are eneolilraged to limit distribution of this license to t~ose lndlviduals with a

"'eed to know and to protect your license from public disclosure.

• NRC ~xpects licensees to conduct their programs with meticulous attention to dete1il and a high standard of compliance. Because of the serious consequences to employees and the public that can result from failure to. comply With NRC requirel'nents, you must conduct your radiation safety program according to the conditions of your NRC flcense, representations made In your license application, and NRC regulations. In partic1,1lar, note that you must:

1. dperate by NRC regulation~ 10 CFR Part 19, "Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations," 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," and other applicable regulations.

2. Notify NRC In writing of any change In mailing address.

3. In accordance with 10CFR 30.36(d), notify NRC; promptly, In writing within 60 days, and request termination of the license:

a. When you decide to tenninate all activities involving materials authorized under the license whether at the entire site or any separate building or outdoor area;

b. If you decide not to acquire or possess and use authorized material; or

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

c. When no principal activities under the license have been conducted for a period of 24 months.

4. Request and obtain a license amendment before you:

.... Change Radiation Safety Officers;

-0 Order-byprod1:1ct materia~ In excess*ofth*ecmroont;"l'adt6f'lUtl@eoflorm authorized on the license;

c. Add or change the areas or address(es) of use Identified In the license application or on the license; or

d. Change the name or ownership of your organization.

5. Submit a complete renewal appllcatJon or termination request at least 30 days_before the expiration date ()n your license: You will receive a reminder notice approximately 90 days before the expiratJon date. Possession of radioactive material after your license expires Is a violation of NRC regulations.

NRC Vlill periodically Inspect your radiation safet)' program. Failure to conduct your ptogram according to NRC regulations, license conditions, and representations made In your llcense appllcatlon and supplemental correspondence with NRC rnay result In enforcement action agJ1lnst yqu. This could Include Issuance of a notice of violation; Imposition of a clvll penalty; or an order suspending, modifying, or revoking your license as specified In the NRC Enforcement Polley. The NRC Enforcement Policy Is available on the following Internet address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enfoicemenV.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be availab!e electronically for public Inspection in the NRC Puplio Document Room or from the NRC'e dQCUment system (ADAMS). ADAMS Is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://WWoN.mc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Roberto J. Torres. Senior Health Physicist Nuclear Materials Safety Branch B Docket: 030-36414 License: 46-2n67-01 Control: 472238

Enclosure:

As *stated

PROJECT RSO - HPS Apri l 15, 2009

Subject:

Tetra Tech EC1 me.

Designation of Project Radiation Safety Officer Hunters Point Shipyard Materfals License No. 46-27767-01 Docket Numt>er: 030-36414

- *- - -* In accordance with license condition I I .A, the radiation safety officer has detennined that Bert Bower~as the necessary training and experience described in App~ndix Hof NU.REG otf 1556, Volume 18 to hold the position Project Radiation Safety Officer for the Hunters Point Ship yard project.

As the Project Radiation Safety Officer, Bert Bowers has the authority and responsibility to ensure r~diological safety and compliance with the TtEC radioactive materials license for the Hunters Point Shipyard project.

(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

3200 Geor-ge Washington Way. Suite 0 Richland, WA 99354

RESUME

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers, Ill Radiation Safety Officer - Hunters Point Project EXPERIENCE SUMMA.RY Over 30 years of progressive experience in radiological surveillance and control, emergency preparedness, accredited training, and the supervision and management of safety oriented work. Highly developed :managerial and control skills with a demonstrated ability to effectively train, supervise and dire.ct a fluctuating technical staff with diverse backgtoUl}ds. Proficient in high profile deniands involving the oversight and completion of multiple tasks and competing priorities. Reliable demonstration of an in-depth irnowledge relevant to radiation safety and radioactive materials m;magement, r~gulations, and standards as promuJgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, Departinent of Energy, Department of Defense, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Competent in the oversight of radiologically oriented tasks subject to regulatory requirements and pr~ctices unique to nuclear power plants, transuranic sites, CERCLA projects, and source and special.

nuclear materials facilities. Expertise in the oversight of contracts and work product while supporting the successful completion of project goals. Superior training/teaching skills with the ability to effectively communicate complex coocep1"$ to both technically and non-technically oriented groups. Strong analytical and problem-solving abilities augmented with persuasive written and verbal skills while demonstrating a high degree of proficiency in conflict-resolotion and consensus building.

EDUCATION Non Responsive CORPORATION PROJECT EXPEijl~NCE Project Radia_tion $afdy Officer, March 2009 - Present Bunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, CA Responsibilities; Vested with radiologi~l management ofthe Hunters Point field project. Tasked with

~gulatoty co~pliance and oversight related to nldiation and radioactive ro11terials management and associated work activities at impacted sites. Managing and directing NRC license compliance requirements including field imp1e¢e11tation, support and oversight ofMARSSIM based survey technologies and standards. ImpJementlng and administering the Thermoiumihescent Dosimetry (TLD) program and enforcing NRC license mandated protocols. Responsible for implementation and Page J of 5

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers, Ill Radiation Safety Officer - Hunters Point Project enforcement of project-oriented contract directives and recommended corrective actions as related to ongoing field activities. Resolve radiation safety issues, and conduct follow-up reviews to detennine Jessops learned effectiveness. Review and apply industry recognized radiation s;lfety programs and practices to ensure adherence to ALARA {as low as reasonably achievable) concepts and principles.

Assigned as interim Corporate License Radiation Safety Officer until identification / assignment of a permanent incumbent is complete.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Project Manager - rutdh>logical Field Operations, Novem her 2002 - March 2009 New World Environmental, Inc., Livermore, CA Responsibilities: Vested witµ. management of the Hunters Point field project consisting of 44 employees, and lll\pletnentation of conµ-acts reflecting a combined annual worth of $7.9 million. Radiological Safety Officer Representative {RSOR) tasked with reguJatory compJiance and qversight related to radiation and ra<lioactive materials management and associated work activities at impacted sites (including naval facilities at Hunters Point and China Lake in CaUfomia and Picatinuy in New Jersey). Managed and directed NRC license compliance requirements including field implementation, support and oversight of MARSSIM based survey technolo~es and standatds. lmplemented and administered the ThermoJuminescent Dosimetry (ILD) program sod enforced NRC license mandated protocols.

Accounted for the implementation and enforcement of project-oriented contract directives and recommended corrective actions. Identified radiation safety issues, and initjated COJTective action and follow-up ac:tivities. Reviewed and applied ta4iation safety programs and practices to ensure adherence to A.LARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concepts and principles.

Non Responsive Page2 ofS

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers, Ill Radiation Safety Officer - Hunters Point Project Non Responw..se age 3 of5

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers, Ill Radiation Safety Officer - Hunters Point Project Non Re,pousf..-e Page4 ofS

Mr. Elbert G. Bowers, Ill Radiation Safety Officer - Hunters Point Project Non Responsive RELATED COMPANY INFORMATION Payroll Number. !(b)(?)(C) I Employment Starus: Full Preferred First Name: Bert Office Location: Hunten Point (San Francisco, CA) Field Office Hire Date: March 30, 2009 Years with Other Finns: >30 Years with Current Firm: 1 Total Years Experience: 31 Supervisod (b)(7)(C) I Office Phone: 415 216-2742 Cell Phooe:!(b)(7)(C) I Fax; 415 216-2743

&mail Address: Bert.Bowers~.com Other E-mail Address [tf any}q]b)(7Tii:

i.:..

(i,::b.)::.;.: :;,.:.:.

(7)~(C~):~============:

Resume Last Revised: May 29, 2009 Page SofS

1' NEW WORLD

New World Environmental Inc., d.b.a.

New World Technology Brlnglno you the Technology ofthe New World Phone: 925-443-7967 Fax: 925-443-0119 January 26, 2004 l(b)(?)(C)

New World Technology 448 Commerce Way Livennore, CA 94551

Subject:

Hunters Point Radiation Safety Office Representative Doc, As required in section 1.D.4 ofthe New World Technology Radiological Health Program Manual, I would like to designate Mr. Bert Bowers as the on-sit~ Radiation Safety Office Representative (RSOR). ~Mr. Bowers would be responsible for administering the Radiological Health Program for the Hunters Point field site.

Mr. Bowers has over 25 years of experience in the nuclear industry. He has previously worked at the Hunters Point site and is familiar with the radiological aspects of the site.

Please cowtesy copy Mr. Bowers on all license and radiological health program issues. Mr.

Bowers email is!(b)(7)(C)  !

. . wwn If you have any questlons or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me at!LQL_J

!(b)(7)(C)  !(work) or!(b)(7)(C)  !(mobile). Mr. Bowers can be reached at (415) 216-2742 (b)(?)(C)

Hunters :Point Project (b)(7)(C) cc:

BBowers (b:(7)(C) 448 Commerce Wny, Livermore, CA 94551-5215

,--- - - - -- ...... **-*, _......... __ .... -*** .. **-*~----**"

New World Environmental Inc.. d.b.a.

New World Techn~logy Bringing you the Technology of the New World Phone;.925-443-7967 Fax: 925-443-0119 January 26, 2004 Mr. Bert Bowers, Radiation Safety Officer Representative Hunters Point NSY Project New World Technology 448 Commerce Way

.Livermore, CA 94551

Subject:

Project Radiation Safety O~cer Representative, letter of designation Mr. Bowers, At the request ofthe Hllllters Point fi:oj~ct Ma,iager, ~ have reviewed your Radiation Safety Program qualifications.* In accordance ~th sectiOD; l.D.4 of the New World Technology Radiological }lealth Program Manuafyou are found qualified to perform as an RSOR.

Therefore, you are hereby designated as the on-site Hllllters Point Radiation Safety Officer Representative (RSOR).

In the capacity of RSOR you are directly responsible to the Corporate RSO for the administration ofthe Radiological Health Program at the Hunters Point field site. All program and license related correspondence is to be directed thr~ugh the office of the CO'rporate RSO.

All licensed activities are to be conducted in accordance with the NWT RHPM and NRC Radioactive Materials License# 04-Z7745-0l. The.proper administration of the Radiation Safety Program requires thorough understanding and cooperation from all personnel performing under our license conditions. It is our mponsi'bility as the program managers to ensure this is achieved.

should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you for your willingnass to 1ake on mis responsibility and Welcome Aboard'\

(b)(7)(C)

Y.

'1..__---;::;:::::;;::::;;===============:;-------'\ I cc: l,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __..RSO File (b)(7)(C) 448 Commerce Way, Livermore, CA 94551-5215

RESUME *

- N<W W~ld Bn,mm-,.J Jnc,d.b.*.

New World Technology Bringing you thl!; Teclrnology ottha New World Phone:lrbl(7)(C1 l Fu: 925-443-0119 Bowers, Elbert G. Non Responsive Project Manager; Radiological Field Operations New World Environmental, Inc. d.b.a. New World Technology Livermore, CA NWT Hire Date: 1/ 28/ 02 Employment Work History New Wor1d Environmcnta1, Inc., Livermore, CA January 2002 - present rHunteNi Point / China Lake/ Picatinnv Naval Facilities)

Non Responsive 448 Comm.e rce Way, Livermore, CA 94551-5215

New World Environmental Inc., d.b.a.

New World Technology Stinging you the TechnologyoftheNewWorld Con't Elbert Bowers Non Responsive 448 Commerte*'!Vay, Lh>:ermore, CA 94S5l-S21S 2

,u the Technotowofthe Naw World Con't Elbert Bowers Non Responsive 448 Commerce Way, Livermore, CA 94551-5215 3

New World Environmental Inc., d.b.a.

New World Technology Bringing you the Technology of the New World Con't Elbert Bowers Non Responsive 448 Commerce Way, li".'ermore, CA 94551-5215 4

APPLICATION

S1111c of C:ilifornla-l lc:11111 :1111! 1111111:in Sen*ices J\jlcncy Ocparrmcnr or llcalrh Scn'iccs STATE.M~NT OFTRAlNlNG AND EXPERIE]'ICE (Use additional shee!s as necessary)~

los1nic1ioos: Each individual proposing 10 use radioactive rna1eri:il is required to submit a S1a1emcn1 or Training and Experience in dupllcalc 10 R:idlologic llcullh Branch, 714n 44 P Slrcct, MS 178, P.O. Dox 942732, Sacramento, CA 94234-7320. Physicians

• '-n" 1,1 .........,... fnrm RH 2000 A when a r,n) vin" for human-use au1horizat1ons. Radio11raohcrs should rccuesl form RH 2050 1R .

Non Responsive RH 1ll5U ,\ ( 11.'>'J)

'"; 1 : ~,,t:r 1 ('Jh.'l.' 'to - , .,..,~~ 0 ) { - I

~\Jon Responsrve Non Responsive d . 12@3 Date RH 2050 A ( 11/99)

Non Responsive REFERENCE 15 From: Bowersr Bert Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 3: 10 PM To: thom@emshq.net Cc: 'Jeremy Whatley' subject: Hunters Point: RAD Integrity Field Check, 110510 Hi Thom*

. * * (b)(7)(C)

Just a heads up m reference to the subJect line above... ,and I conducted a field check at shifts end last Friday .... while driving past t e ~ A near Bldg 211/253 we observed a weathered posting attached to the fence on the back side of your area. There are also multiple "old vintage" interior signs attached to rad rope that display that terrible word

" Caucion" instead of "Precaucion". Thought you' d want to know ... picture's are attached for reference if needed. (FYI, Tetra Tech is in the process of transitioning from tho "old vh1tage11 RAD signs to new ones lhat reflect lhe word "Precaucion - as preferred by the Navy).

As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Directr )(7XCJ 415.216.2743 IAlternate:D)

Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety ~ fficer Representative Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile:

l(b)(7)(C)

II Fax.

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124) www.tetratech.com

=

HPS: EMS RCA Posting 1 "As Found" on 11.5.10 (EMS Management Notified)

HPS: EMS RCA Posting 2 "As Found" on 11.5.10 (EMS Management Notified)

Hunters Point: RSOR RAD Integrity Field Check- November 2010 Lklauthorized Water Station staged 1/ s RCA Nov2010 Parcel E at Mill Peninsula Import Pile "as found".... angle #1 Mallg,eci RAD Sign "Asfou'ld' Nov 2010 Parcel Eat Mill Peninsula Import Pile "as found" .... angle #2

REFERENCE 16 From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:33 AM To~l(b)(?)(C)

Cc:/1,___ _ _ _ ___,

I I

Subject:

1~0 ~---,i current Charging Discrepancies to Tetra Tech CC for Services Rendered Non Responsive Regards, Bert

=

REFERENCE 17 From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Wednesday, November 17. 2010 9:20 AM To:t'Susan Andrews'

Subject:

RE: ITSI at Portal Monltor-11-18-10

... thanks Susan From~ Susan Andrews (mailto:susana@newworld.org)

Sent: Wednesday November 17 2010 9:06 AM To: Bowers Bert' (b)(7)(C)

Cc: (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

rrsr at Portal Monltor-11-18-10 Hello, l(b)(7)(C) I1phoned me at 08:56 today and informed me that he had 2 bins coming out of the Shaw Gunmole Pier area tomorrow. The truck would arrive at the Portal Monitor at 0800 on 11-18-10.

Thanks, Susan Andrews fo~...(b_)(_7)(_c_) _ __.

REFERENCE 18 2010 11:59 AM

... for reference / discussion as needed.

Bert

=

View 1 of 6: Parcel E Impacted Area "As Discovered" - Unauthorized Water Station Staged Inside RCA (w/ RAD Slgnage Compromise) 11.18.11

'iew 2 of 6: Parcel E Impacted Area "As Discovered" -unauthorized Water Station Staged Inside RCA (w/ RAD Signage Compromise) 11.18.11

View 3 of 6: Parcel EImpacted Area "As Discovered" - Unauthorized Water Station Staged Inside RCA (w/ RAD Signage Compromise) 11.18.11 View 4 of 6: Parcel E Impacted Area uAs Discovered" - Unauthorized Water Station Staged Inside RCA (w/ RAD Slgnage Compromise) 11.18.11

View S of 6: Parcel E Impacted Area NAs Discovered" - Unauthorized Water Station Staged Inside RCA (w/ RAD Slgnage Compromise) 11.18.11 lew 6 of 6: Parcel E Impacted Area "As Discovered" - Unauthorized Water Station Staged Inside RCA (w/ RAD Signage Compromise) 11.18.11

REFERENCE 19 From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:44 AM To* l(b)(?)(C)

Cc: L . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .

Subject:

Hunters Point: Parcel E Fire Inside Established RCA at MDR Shoreline In reference to the subject line above - and for your consideration regarding pre-established RASO notifications, pictures of observed conditions involving the shoreline fire are attached. The observations were made at ...0710 hrs. A summary of events follows:

This morning at - 0705 hrs during the safety tailgate, Shaw personnel under the direction of (b)(?)(C) informed Tetra Tech of a burning fire Inside the RCA along the MOR shoreline. Upon respon 1ng o e

!b !ready at the location along with members of his staff.!(b)(?)(C) I and (b)(7)(C) responded along with me for Tetra Tech. As detailed in the attached photos, it appears essed the shoreline area with the intent of burning Insulation from observed copper cable present with other shoreline rubble (see photo a).

According 1o (b) Shaw water truck driver Informed him of smoke originating from the shor e l l ~ t

- 0655 hrs. (b)( arranged for the staging of a water truck and the fire was doused at - 7015 hrs.~

(b)(?)(C)

.......,_ _......1 was asked to secure equipment necessary to pull an air sample from the Immediate area as Likewise, spot checks were performed to ensure radiological integrity in the area (see photo b) and periodic visual checks for trespassers will continue throughout the day. Once results of the air sample become available, you will be advised accordingly.

(Note: Later this morning at - 0900 hrs, !(b)(?)(C)  ! arrived to inquire about the fire at which point I escorted him to inspect the area. The fire was completely out at that time [see photo c].)

As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed, Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative II Direct.._

415.216.2743 f_

xix_c:*_ _ _! Atternate:

r

)(lXC)

Main: 415.671. 1990 I Mobile: l(b)(?)(C) 11 Fax:

Bert. Bowers@tteci.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard. 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.ttecl.com

<http://www.tteci.com/>

=

HPS: Photo "1 of 3" to EA re: Parcel E Shoreline Fire Event 112410 HPS: Photo "2 of 3" to EA re: Parcel E Shoreline Fire Event 112410

HPS: Photo "3 of 3" to EA re: Parcel EShoreline Fire Event 112410 REFERENCE 20 From~Bowers, Bert Sent: Wednesda November 24, 2010 12:13 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Cc:

---

~

Sub ect: Hunters Point: Follow-Up to Parcel E Fire Inside Established RCA at MOR Shoreline (b)(7)(C) ln reference to the subject line above - and as follow up to our last conversation, representatives of the San Francisco FD arrived at Hunters Point at "'1115 hrs to assess areas along the affected shoreline (currently submerged In water~ (b)(7)(C) to this e orf are attached.j I confirmed that the earlier fire was completely extinguished. (Two photos related Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed..... and Happy Thanksgiving!

Regards, blished RCA at MOR Shoreline In reference to the subject line above - and for your conslderaUon regarding pre-established RASO notifications, pictures of observed conditions involving the shoreline fire are attached. The observations were made at -0710 hrs.

A summary of events follows:

X7XC)

This mominp at - 0705 hrs during the safety tailgate, Shaw personnel under lhe direction ofl ,iJ)formed Tetra Tech of a burning fire Inside the RCA alona the MOR shoreline. Upon responding to the area; . 1w as already at the location along with members of his staffJ hX7XCJ !respon ed along with me for Tetra Tech. As detailed In the attached photos, lt appears trespassers accessed the shoreline area with the Intent of bumIng Insulation from observed copper cable present with other shoreline rubble (see photo a),

Acco,dlng ,_IWrl Shaw wate, truck dO,e, lnfom,ed him of smoke originating from ~ 'lbomlirle "'}: at - 0655 h"

~ arrang~e staging of a water truck and the fire was doused at - 7015 hrs. _ xci _ as asked to

- secure equipment necessary to pull an air sample from the immediate area as well. '

Likewise, spot checks were performed to ensure radiological integrity in the area (see photo b) and periodic visual checks for trespassers will continue thtoughout the day. Once results of the air sample becomes available, you will be advised accordingly.

(Note: Later lhis morning at - 0900 hrJ bX1XC> !arrived to inquire about the fire al which point I escorted him lo inspect the area. The fire was completely out at that time [see photo c].)

As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative f X1XC} I

_ _ _ _ __.Altematei..l~_

Direct ._ x,_xc_}_ ____.h Main: 415.671.1990 I Mobile:.. xc_>_ __.h Fax: 415.216.2743 rx_*_

Bert.Bowers@tteci.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 1www.tteci.com<http://www.t1eci.com/>

=

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Wednesda November 24, 2010 3:39 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Sub ect:

(b)(7)(C)

Thanks for your pro-active approach today in getting the shoreline event under control. In order to put final closure on the event and document all actions taken to do so, please forward over the results of the air sample pulled from the shoreline area (when available from the lab).... will also need the survey report covering what was extracted from the affected area ( cable and anything else removed, "in and out" check of the equip used, etc).... see hlghllghted sections below.

Thanks again for the effort and have a great Thanksgiving break!

Bert Here is a summary of the events that Tpieced together from several sources concerning tJ1c burning wire rope along the MDR shoreline:

0655 A Shaw water truck driver informedl(b)(?)(C) llhat smoke was originating from the MOR shoreline. *-----------'*

0705 (b)(?)(C) nformed Tetra Tech of a fire Inside the RCA along the MOR shoreline.

l(b)(l)(C) I 0710 Tt arrived on scene a n d h a d the Shaw water truck dousing the fire, it was extinguished by 0715.

. . (b)(7)(C)

Due the presence of smoke from the smoldering wire, ecured the equipment necessary to pull an air sample from the Immediate area. We will orwar

• e atrsample results once available.

l(b)(7)(C) l 0 9 0 0 r r i v e d to inquire about the fire at which point Bert Bowers escorted him to inspect the area. The fire was completely out at that time.

1000 TtEC was directed to contact the SF Fire Department and request that they respond.

1115 The San Francisco FD arri ved at Hunters Point to assess areas along the affected shoreline ( currently submerged in water) . !!b)(l)(C)  ! SFPD, confirmed that the earlier fire was completely extinguished.

1150 l was Informed that unidentified individuals approached the MOR shoreHne jn a boat when they observed the Tt staff they immediately departed the area. I directed the Tt !(b)(7)(C) !to frisk the burnt wire rope out of the RCA and to secure the material.

We can place the metal it in the CSO metal bin next week.

I appreciate Shaw's help with this matter, let me know if you have any questions.

~ends . ..

l(b)(7)(C)

Dlrec1j'""

(b-)(7)

- (C

_1_.....,, I Cell: l(b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C) I Tetra Tech I Remediation 200 Fisher Avenue I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside infomiation. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, 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: Bowers, Bert se~t; Wednesday November 24 2010 To: (b)(7)(C) 12*18PM

Subject:

FW: Hunters Point: Follow-Up to Parcel E Fire Inside Established RCA at MOR Shoreline Gentlemen, FYI per existing MOU protocol .... feel free to contact me if additional in.tbrmation or feedback is needed.

Bert B ~ *on Safety Officer Representative

( )(J~)

Direct I Alternate.l (b)(l)(C) !1Main: 415.671 1990 I Mobile:!(b)(7)(C) !1Fax 415.216.2743 ,___ _ __,

Bert.8owers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Wednesda , November 24, 2010 12:13 PM To: (h)(7)(C)

Cc: _ _ _ _ ___,

Subject:

Hunters Point: Follow-Up to Parcel E Fire Inside Established RCA at MOR Shoreline (b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above - and as follow up to our last conversation, representatives of the San Francisco FD arrived at Hu11ters Point at "'1115 hrs to assess areas along the affected shoreline (currently submerged in water)~b)(?)(C) ~SFPO, confirmed that the earlier fire was completely extinguished. (Two photos rela o to mis ettort a attached.)

Feel free to contact me if addltlonal Information or feedback Is needed..... and Happy Thanksgiving!

Regards, From: Bowers, Bert se

• ovember 24, 2010 10:44 AM To (b)(7)(C)

Cc:, (b)(7)(C)

Su6 lshed RCA at MOR Shorelfne (b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above - and for your consideration regarding pre-established RASO notifications, pictures of observed conditions involving the shoreline fire are attached. The observations were made at -0710 hrs. A summary of events follows:

(b)(JXCl This morning at - 0705 hrs during the safety tailgate, Shaw personnel under the direction ot ...____. l informed Tetra Tech of a burning fire inside the RCA along the MOR shoreline. U on res ondin to the area l 0

XC)

,was already at the location along with members of his staff.1 XCJ esponded along with me for Tetra Tech. As detailed int ea ac e p otos, it appears trespassers accessed the shoreline area with the intent of burning insulation from observed copper cable present with other shoreline rubble (see photo a).

According t ~ a Shaw water truck driver informed him of smoke originating from the shoreline area at

- 0655 hrs1~rranged for the staging of a water truck and the fi1re was doused at - 7015 hrs! jtGx7xCJ I r xixc> hvas asked to secure equipment necessary to pull an air sample from the immedJate area as well.

likewise, spot checks were performed to ensure radiological integrity in the area (see photo b) and periodic visual checks for trespassers will continue throughout the day. Once results of the air sample becomes available, you will be advised accordingly.

(Note: Later this morning at - 0900 hrs, r )()XC) 1arnved

• about the fire at which point I to inquire escorted him to inspect the area. The fire was complefety out at that time (see photo c].)

As always, feel free to contact me If additional information or feedback ls needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers f Radiation Safety Officer Representative l ib)(l)(C', I 1 Direct:,,,._......,,,.,..._ _... Alternatef l< Xc) IMain: 415.671. 1990 I Mobile:

p )(l)(C) l I Fax:

415.216.2743 .....- - - - - ' * ....- - - - - '

• Bert.Bowers@tteci.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tteci.com

<http://www.tteci.com/>

=

Hunters Point: Parcel E "Post Shoreline Fire" Inspection by SFFD (Photo 1 of 2)

(b)(?)(C)

Hunters Point: Parcel E "Post Shoreline Fire" Inspection by SFFD (Photo 2 of 2)

REFERENCE 21 HPS: Graffiti "As Found" - Management Parking Lot RSOR Project Vehicle (November 2010)

Note: Only Affected Vehicle in Entire Parking Lot

REFERENCE 22 HPS Parcel E "Non-Impacted" Throughway: "As Found" by TtEcf RSO Representativq after re~elpt of field call concerning- Shaw's "IR-02" Construction Site and the staging of "clean" import fill inside established RCA (no RAD technician present to control work/ monitor equipment going in/out of RCA), Shaw RSO Representative notified / corrective actions instituted; Angle 1, December 1, 2010 HPS Parcel E "Non-Impacted" Throughway:

• As Found* b'4 TtEC RSO Representative/after receipt of field call concerning Shaw's "IR-02" Construction Site and the staging of *ctean" import fill insloe established RCA (no RAD technician present to control work/ monitor equipment going in/out of RCA), Shaw RSO Representative notified/ corrective actions instituted; Angle 2, December l, 2010

HPS Parcel E " Non-Impacted" Throughway: " As Found" by TtEC(RSO Representative/after ~ecelpt of fleld call concerning Shaw's "IR-02" Construction Site and the staging of "clean" import fill inside established RCA (no RAD technician present to control work/ monitor equipment going in/out of RCA), Shaw RSO Representative notified I corrective actions instituted; Angle 3, December 1, 2010 HPS Parcel E "Non-Impacted" Throughway: "As Found" by TtEc/ RSO RepresentaS,jYe\after receipt of field call concerning Shaw's "IR-02" Construction Site and the staging of "dean" import fill inside established RCA (no RAD technician present to control work/ monitor equipment going In/out of RCA), Shaw RSO Representative notified/ corrective actions instituted; Angle 4, December 1, 2010

REFERENCE 23 From: Nelson, Glen A CTR OASN (El&E), BRAC PMOWest(mailto:glen.nelson.ctr@navy.milj Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11 :00 AM To~b)(7)(C)

Su 1ect: Film Shoot at RP on 12-13-2010 Hi~ Bert, r b)(7)(C)

Flight 33 Productions will be filming at HP on 12-13-2010 in buildings 8411, 9251 , 8302 and 8231 -None of which I find RAD issues. Tetra-Tech may need to have an escort on site. Your call. They arrive at 0700.

Film Crew...

(b)(7)(C)

Thanks,

-Glen Hello... I'm a documentary producer with Flight 33 Productions -

the company behind The History Channel's LIFE AFTER PEOPLE Special - the Emmy nominated and high,est rated show ever for The History Channel.

Flight 33 continued the success of that show with two full seasons of LIFE AFTER PEOPLE The Series.

You were very kind to help us out with that series and we were hoping to do it again.

This time around, we will be producing one of the first series for the new Discovery Channel 30 Network - called Abandoned Planet.

Much like Life After People , this new show will take its viewers to places forgotten by time... buildings, compounds and even entire cities abandoned by humans for years. Each location is a real site - once mobbed by people, now empty. We'll find out why the place once boomed -

and why everyone left. Survivors and former residents will return... to walk the empty streets and explore the abandoned hallways... and explain

why the place is now empty. We'll visit the empty streets of the city of Chernobyl, Russia ... the lost city of Kolmanskop in the Namibian desert... the 'geological instability' of Balestrino. Italy, and the surprising number of America's abandoned cities and ghost towns. From all over the world, ABANDONED PLANET will reveal cities devoid of humanity.

For this new show. we are looking to visit Hunters Point, once again. and possibly other decommissioned bases in the area. Most likely, we'll be working on a schedule to shoot there late November, early December.

At your earliest convenience. can you get back t me to start a dialogue on this request? I've also emailed.(b)(7)(C) n this subject I look forward to possibly working w*"",.......y""*-u- g"""

a""'

m-. _ __.

Best.

rb)(7J(C)

REFERENCE 24 From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda December 16 2010 1:26 PM To: (b)(7)(G)

(b)(7)(C)

, unters Point: Upcoming Ho I ay Stand Down...

All, Regarding the subject line above, 2010 end-of-year field activities - including those subject to radiological support under TtRCT's NRC Material License# 29-31396-01, are scheduled to wrap up on Friday, December J7, 2010. A planned two week stand down will be in effect thereafter for the holidays.

Before beginning the stand down, it is important that all personnel with dosimetry assigned under TtECT's monitoring program* place their "4th quarter 2010" devices on a designated badge rack. Dosimetry badge racks recognized for this purpose are located just inside either of the two entrances to the TtEC management trailers; another is available at the Building 400 meeting area O-ust inside the main access door).

During the stand down, dosimetry will be changed out to meet protocol specific to the upcoming "l st Quarter 201 1" wear period. After the holidays and upon return to the project (Monday, January 3, 2011), new dosimetry can be picked up at the same badge rack where "4th quarter 201 O" dosimetry was left.

Thanks in advance for your help in ensuring the aforementioned needs are met, thus providing for a smooth transition into 2011. As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Bert

• TtEC, RSRS, NWE, Shaw, Kleinfelder, ERRG and ITS! personnel (including subcontractors) using dosimetry devices issued by TtEC Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative DirecrXlXC) 415.21 6.2/43 IAlternate: D XC' I Main: 415.671.1990 I Moblle:l(b)(?)(C) 11 Fax:

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tteci.com

=

[-n:) TETRA TECH EC. INC.

HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD Emergency Contact List December 18, 2010 - January 2, 2011 (b)(7)(C)

Name I Position I Contact Number l(b)(7)(C) ICell Bert Bowers f Rad. Safety Officer Rep.

Home (b)(7)(C)

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda December 16 2010 2:39 PM To: (b)(7)(C) bl 7 C

Subject:

llEO, Hunters Point: Upcoming Holiday St.and Down.*.

All, This notification is for informational purposes and in support of the Hunters Point Memorandum of Understanding dated October 7, 2010. Specific to the su~ject line above, 20 JO end-of-year field activities - including those subject to radiological support under TtECI's NRC License#

29-3 1396-01, will wrap up on Friday, December 17, 2010. A planned two week stand down will be in effect thereafter and last through the New Year's holiday weekend.

Dwing the stand down, "on-call" response staff will be available for various needs - including requirements Lo periodically monitor areas of the Hunters Point site which remain subject to Tetra Tech 's NRC license and jurisdiction. If, during the stand down period, a situation is identified which results in the need to contact "on-call" Tetra Tech staft: (e.g., observed compromises resulting from vandalism, passing storms, and simiJar unanticipated events), please refer to the attached contact list for appropriate notification opt.ions. In any instance, feel free to notify me directly as I plan to be in the immediate area for the duration of the stand down.

As always, contact me if additional information or feedback is needed and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Bert Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Directr Si'iKC) ~ AltemateD ' C} I Main: 415.6711990 I Mobiler )(l)(C) 1, Fax:

415.216.2743 ..___ _ _....

Bert Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tteci.com

=

. (b)(7) J

.... thanks for confinmng (C) "HAPPY HOI .IDAYS" to you and yours! 1 BB (b)(7)(C)

From:

Sen.t: '='Fr-.-i'T"a-y-, ;D

'e__ce rn.,..-r- -1

-,:7::-,-:::2~0':":

10~9:~1',::'

2-=A":'.

M: - - - - - - =

I I To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point: End-of-Year Plans Hello1Bert - CF.2/K leinfelder will be onsite through Wednesday, Decemeber 22"d . I do not anticipate needing any RCA access between now and then. Our site activities will shut down ti-om Dec 23rd through January th. W,: will be back onsitc starting January I 011', 20 I I Thanks, (b)(?)(C)

All, As a follow-up to Tetra Tech 's schedule for the upcoming holiday season , do plans exist for anyone within your organiz.atiou to be on site at Hunters Point between December 18,2010 and January 2, 20 11 - and if so, to what portion(s) of the site would access be needed (e.g., MD impacted areas subject to Tetra Tech NRC license control, etc)?

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

Bert BLJ oR X>'.XC) i i n Safety Officer Representative I

Direct: Alternate:Db Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile: !(b)(?)(C) !1Fax:

41 5.21 . ...__ _ ___,

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

From: l (b)(7)(C) i . . . ._ _ _ _ _ ,

Sent: Thursday. December 16. 2010 2:54 PM To; !(b)(7)(C)

!(b)(7)(C) c : (b)(7)(C)

;"~b)(7)(C)

I  !

Subject:

Change of Point-of-Contact for Basewide Radiological Support All-As of Monday, 3 Jan 2011 Bert Bowers, Project Health Physicist for Tetra Tech, will be the primary Point-of-Contact for the scheduJing and coordination of radiological field support for the various contractors bere at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

1t has been a pleasure being of service to you.

Happy Holidays!

l(b)(7)(C)

Direct f (b)(l J(C) !1Main ' 415.6711990 I Fax: 415 .671 19951 Cell * (b)(l)(C)

---=====~-- ._______,

l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I Health Physics 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system

,A Think Green - Not every email needs to be printed.

=

l From: Bowers, Bert sent: Frida December 17, 2010 9:24 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

Sul> e :  : un ers Point: End-of-Year Plans

... thanks for confirmin(b)(?)(C)

I From :! 7)(C)

(b)(

Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:06 AM To* Bowers, Bert ,

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point: End-of-Year Plans We'll be out, but only in Parcel B. I did everything I needed to do in E-2 this week.

thanks (b)(?)(C)

[

From: Bowers, Bert [11] \

Sen f& _: Fridav._ December

_ 17 2010

_ 8:02 AM________, )

(b)(7 )(C)

To:l__

SubJect:~Hunters Point: End-of-Vear Plans -

I All, As a follow-up to Tetra Tech's schedule for the upcoming holiday season, do plans exist for anyone within your organization to be on site at Hunters Point between December 18, 2010 and January 2, 2011 - and if so, to what portion(s) of the site would access be needed (e.g., RAD impacted areas subject to Tetra Tech NRC license control, etc)?

I Thanks in advance for clarifying.

Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative t Alternate(b)(?)(C) l Oirect:exc 415.216.2743 Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management 1,

Main: 415.671.1990 I Mobile: l(b)(?)(C)

.______,I Fax:

l Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.tetratech.com

From:1Bowers, Bert Sent: Frida December 17, 2010 12:13 PM To. (b)(7)(C)

Cc; (b)(7)(C)

Sul;Je : ater - Wednesday storm event Thanks for confirming,Ryan .... have a safe and "Happy Holiday Season" as well!

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Direj~NC) 415.2,S.~743 I Altemate:l(bXJXC>

I Main: 415.671 1990 I Mobile: (b)(?)(C)

I Fax:

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 Fromil(b)(?)(C)

Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:32 AM To~ w rs Bert Cc; (b}(7)(G)

Suti  : un ers Point Storm Water - Wednesday storm event Ben, The California General Industrial Stonn Water Permit only requires that we observe and sample during "scheduled facility operating hours" and with Tetra Tech scheduled to shut down operations and access to the Rad controlled landfill for the next two weeks, there won't be "scheduled facility operating hours" so we will not be sampling the landfill area. I spoke with rnyl(b)(7)(C) land he is in agreement.

Have a great break and Happy Holidays.

l(b)l7)(C) I MACTEC Engineering and Consulting I San Diego. Ca Office 868 278-3600 Fax 858) 278-5300 Emall (b)(7)(C) Web www.mactec.com

From: Bowers, Bert [12]

Sent: Frida December 17, 2010 7:49 AM To: (b)(7)(G)

Cc: _ _ _ __.

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point Storm Water - Wednesday storm event (b)(7)(C)

As a follow-up to!(b)(l)(C) ~esponse, doe5 MACTEC have plans to be on site at Hwiters Point the last half of December 2010 - and ifsJ, what portion(s) oft.he site would access be 11eeded (e.g., RAD impact.cd areas subject to NRC license control, etc)?

Thanks iu advance for clarifying.

R...ad__i__

at.ion

., Safety Officer Representative D ____ I (b)(7)(C)

.~ .....,.,...--..,, Alternate: Main: 415.671. 1990 I Mobile:

Fax:

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Mahagement Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.tetratech.com (b)(7)(C)

From:_..__,_..,,..........

Sent: Tues a December 14, 2010 10:42 AM To: (b)(7)(C) cd.__ ___ __,

subject: RE: Hunters Point Storm Water - Wednesday storm t:vc, ,.

(b)(7)(C)

Hello Our last scheduled day of work for this year is this Friday, 17 December. We will rewm to work on Monday, 3 Jan 201 I Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

l(b)(?)(C)

--1 l(b)(?)(C)

'.::>irect: (b) ( l ) ( C ) I Main: 415.671 . 1990 I Fax: 415 6711995 I Cell:..___ _ _....,

l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I Health Physics 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.telratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or Inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient 1s strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

,A Think Green - Not every email needs to be printed.

Point Storm Water - Wednesday storm event I assume that Tetrn Tech will be working at HPS during the last 2 weeks of December?

,~1m1CJ MACTEC Engineering and Consulting I San Diego, Ca Office 858 278-360 F 58) 278-5300 Email (b)(7)(C) I Web www.mactec.com From: (b)(7)(C)

Acknowledged....

l(b)(7)(C)

. l'.b)(7)(C) I l(b)(?)(C) o,rectL.._ _ _____.I Main: 415.671.1990 I Fax: 415.671. 1995 I Cell: .__ _ _ _

_.I l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I Health Physics 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, 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.

l(b)(7)(C)

From~...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 6:26 PM To: !(b)(7)(C)

!(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Hunters Point Storm Water - Wednesday storm event MACTEC is currently tracking a storm event that is forecasted to produce significant rain in Bay Area and Hunters Point Shipyard area starting Wednesday morning and continuing throughout the day Wednesday. At this time MACTEC is planning to mobilize to Hunters Point on Wednesday morn19, for storm water monitoring and sampling in the Parcel B and E-2 areas. MACTEC will coordinate wit~ (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) f Tetra Tech for access to the 5 monitoring locations located within the Tetra Tech portion o arce E-2.

MACTEC will continue to monitor the weather and will provide updates on the status of the storm and changes to our mobilization plans.

Thank you, l(b)(7)(C) I MACTEC Engineering and Consulting I San Diego, Ca Office 858 278-3600 Fax 858) 278-5300 Email (b)(7)(C) I Web www.mactec.com

=

From: Bowers, Bert Sen *

• a r 17, 2010 10:07 AM To=(b)(7)(C)

Sub ect: RE: TtECJ, Hunters Point: Upcoming Holiday st.and Down ...

(b)(7)(C)

... tba From: (b)(7)(C)

Sent: F ~r~

id~ay~, -:=::

oecem

==~~=:,:-:-:=.-r:M -:----"""'

To:LBowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Tt.ECI, Hunters Point: Upcoming Holiday Stand Down...

Hellq Bert I would like to have l st Quarter 2011 dosimetry for the following staff involved in CEZ/Kleinfelder .field events:

l(b)(7)(C) K1<,)

l(b)(7)(C) l(K) l(b)(7)(C) lccn2) l(b)(7)(C) l(K) l(b)(7)(C) l(YCD) l(b)(7)(C) l(K) l(b)(7)(C) l(K) l(b)(7)(C) l(K) l(b)(?)(C) l(CR2) l(b)(7)(C) l(K)

(b)(7)(C)

(K) l(b)(7)(C) lccE2) l(b)(7)(C) l (K) l(b)(7)(C) kYCD)

With that, happy holidays to you too! Make it a relaxing one.

Cheers, (b)(7)(C)

From: Bowers, Bert [manto:,Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com]

t:~~-~~,rsci~Y ~~robec J6 2Q1Q 1* 34 PM To=Jt~)~~t.,) _ __

Cc:_.b (7 C)

Subject:

FW: TtECT, Hunters Point: Upcoming Holiday Stand Down...

r '(7)(C) I As a follow-up to the previous email (see below), please ensure that any remaining dosimetry for your group is placed on a Tetra Tech collection rack before day 's end tomorrow. Likewise, please respond to this email with a lisl of personnel - if any - for whom 1st Quarter 2011 dosimetry will be needed.

As always, feel free to contact me if additional infonnation or feedback is needed.

Many thanks in advance and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative r '_'x_('_)_ ____.I Main: 415.671.1990 I Moblle:...

1, Alternate:.... l'b-)(7)

_(_C)_ __,!1Fax:

Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.ttecl.com All.

Regarding the subject line above, 2010 end-of-year field activities - including those subject to radiological support under TtECI's NRC Material License# 29-31396-01, are scheduled to wrap up on Friday, December 17, 2010. A planned two week stand down will be in effect thereafter for the holidays.

Before beginning the stand down, it is important that all personnel with dosimetry assigned under TtECl's monitoring program* place their "4th quarter 2010" devices on a designated badge rack. Dosimetry badge racks recognized for this purpose are located just inside either of the two entrances to the TtEC management trailers; another is available at the Building 400 meeting area Gust inside the main access door).

During the stand down, dosimetry will be changed out to meet protocol specific to the upcoming "1st Quarter 2011" wear period. After the holidays and upon return to the project (Monday, January 3, 2011), new dosimetry can be picked up at the same badge rack where "4th quarter 201 O" dosimetry was left.

Thanks in advance for your help in ensuring the aforementioned needs are met, thus providing for a smooth transition into 2011. As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Bert

• TtEC, RSR.S, NWE, Shaw, KJcinfclder, RRRG and ITS! personnel (including subcontn1ctors) u5ing dosimetty devices issued bynee Bert B x )t : J * *on Safety Officer Representative (bX1)(C)

Direct I Alternate:D Main: 415.6711990 I Mobile: 415.314.87271 Fax:

415.2 .

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 J www.tteci.com

=

REFERENCE 25 Parcel Eat Radiological Screening Yard 4 (RSY4): Active RAD Waste Characterization Work Area: RAD deficiency (pad lock unsecured) as noted/corrected during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 12.20.10 HPS Access to Utility Corridor (UC) Parcel: Active Construction Work Area: Safety deficiency (pad lock unsecured) as noted/corrected during end-of-day RAD integrity field check, 12.20.10

HPS Tetra Tech/Shaw/EMS Management Area Parking Lot: Downed fence panels as discovered after overnight storm, 12.20.10 HPS Tetra Tech/Shaw/EMS Management Area Parking Lot: Re-established fence panels after overnight storm, 12.20.10

(b)(7)(C) 1n reference to the subject line above - and as the attached photo supports, an expanding "radiological integrity c.h allenge" continues to worsen along a non-impacted portion of Parcel E roadway. The affected roadway intersects two radiologicaJJy controlled areas subject to NR C license oversight (i.e., a location on one side involves Shav/s IR-02 radiologically posted "Contamination Area"; the side rurecUy across is specific to Tetra Tech' s "Triangle Area" designated as a "Radioactive Materials Area").

The condition, which appears to have been compounded as a result of the IR-02 work area "bulldup" (i.e., significant import fill added during pad construction and an elevated mound that' s resulted), will likely worsen as a barrage of additional stonns forecast for the area pass through in the next few days.

Presently, lingering water in the non-impacted roadway expands into the referenced "Triangle Area". As a result, vehicular traffic creates wakes which pass into and out of Tetra Tech's controlled area (observed especially so today with heavy rigs supporting Shaw's active work).

While trends from "Triangle Area" sample results to date indicate negligible levels from a radiological perspective, it will become ever challenging to address like "contaminant migration" potential if the pool continues to expand in size - especially if into Shaw's "Contaminated Area".

This situation will continue to be monitored - in particular if inclement weather conditions become ever lingering .... just a "heads up" in keeping this situation in mind - and the feasibility of suspending traffic until the situation becomes more under control (a RASO call?).

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Re resentative Direcf l<:J)iCJ IAltemat (b KC) l(b)(7)(C)

Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile1 II Fax 415.216.2743 .____ ____,

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.tetratech.corn

=

HPS Parcel E "Non-Impacted" Road: Flooded portion with Shaw vehicle stirring wake between Shaw's RCA (on left as a Radiologically Controlled Area & Contaminated Area) and Tetra Tech's RCA (on right as a Radiologically Controlled Area and Radioactive Materials Area) 12.20.10

From:[ Bowers, Bert Se

• ber 20, 2010 8:50 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

Cc: (b)(?)(C)

SutiJ l(b)(7)(C)

Thanks for the feedback! FYI, there's a crew oo the way in to re-establish downed fence panels associated with the construction zone (non-RAU) beside the management trailer parking lot Also, regarding post site drive through observations for today, a section of ERRG fence panels near Bldg 125 are presently down (non-RAD) - noCificalions have been made.

.Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Dir I

)();C)e c t ! Alternate: l(b)(JXc) t Main: 415.671 .1990 I M ol(b)(7)(C) b i l e : 1I Fax:

415.2 ~. /43 . . _ _ _ __.

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 j www.tetratech.com Promf b)(?)(C)

Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1: 16 PM To~Bowers, Bert

Subject:

Boundaries Bert, Heavy winds here last night, knocked one line of our D-1 outer fence lines down.

While walking and driving around our D-1 and E-2 boundaries, in passing by your areas, all Jines/boundaries appear fine.

l(b)(l)(C)

Shaw Environmental Inc.

Hunters Point Shipyard 200 Fisher Avenue San Francisco, CA 94124 l(b_H7_)(C

.... _)_ __,,direct 415-822-8950 fax

!(b_

.....J(7_)(C_) _ _~!cell

!(b)(7)(C)

From: Bowers, Bert Se~t; Tuesday Deremrr 21, 2010 4:02 PM To: (b)(7)((:)

Cc:.___ _ _ __,

Subject:

When it rains, it pours!

Just after sencling you tht"Baker'~ank bulletin and preparing to leave the site, a metal bin truck departing the site is encoilntered Ftl .... and likewise w/o the portal monitor established. Once again, while there's available "rationale" to support no radiological "compromise", maybe this too is a "New Year's Resolution" lopfo to discuss with a1J the "players" when we're back (Le.,

seeing again that RASO preferences/ expectations weren't followed)???? BB

=

Angle A: December 21, 2010 (Metal bin dumpster - offsite transfer during holiday stand down; no portal monitor)

Angle B: December 21, 2010 (Metal bin dumpster - offsite transfer during holiday stand down; no portal monitor)

From: Bowers, Bert Sen : mber 21, 2010 3:52 PM To! (b)(7)(C)

Cc:,___ _ _ __.

Subject:

Hunters Point: Baker Tanks (b)(7)(C)

An observation today FYJ.. ... as supported by the attached photos - and after compJcting today's site drive-1:hro, it sure does. appear that some "Baker" tanks left site without use of the portal monitor drive through .... while there's available trending / supporting data to support no radiological "compromise", maybe this is a "New Year's Resolution" topic to discuss when we're all back (i.e., seeing that RASO preferences/ expectations weren't followed)????

Have a great holiday

=

Baker Tank "Staging Area" Area as Observed: December 20, 2010 Baker Tank "Staging Area" Area as Observed: December 21, 2010

un rs Point: Parcel B, ERRG Designated Work Area (Non-RAD)

(b)(7)(C)

As a follow-up to yesterday' s storm recovery events, ERRG' s fenced areas looked secure (observatio ns noted while conducting RAD integrity field checks)!

Regards, Bert From:!_ (b_)(7_l(_

c)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:28 AM T'o:pll&l,~"""""".wllolu.....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........

Cc: (b)(7)(C)

SubJect: Wor Area Non-RAD Thanks, Bert. !(b)(?)(C) !was on his way out there (last time I spoke to him this morning) to inspect the site condition, fence, BMPs, etc. But I appreciate you Informing me.

l(b}(7)(C)

From:' Bowers, Bert [mailto:Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com)

Se

• ecember 20, 2010 9: 15 AM Toi (b)(7)(C)

Cc:' b 7 C

Subject:

Hunters Point: Parcel B, ERRG Designated Work Area (Non-RAD)

(b)(7)(C)

As an FYl, a section ofERRG fence panels near Bldg 125 arc presently down (non-RAD) after yesterday~s storm event (photo of affected area attached).

As always, foel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Dired(bX))(C) 415.216.2743 JAlternate: D Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Main: 415.671.1990 I Mobilel(b)(?)(C) 11 Fax:

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

=

Fromi Bowers, Bert Ser- Mnndav Pecerorr 27 , 2010 1:11 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

FW: HP Trespassers

....fyi Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:37 PM Cc:

To:l(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

FW: HP Trespassers FYI (b)(7)(C)

Direct. (b)(7)(C) I Cell: (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I Remediation 200 Fisher Avenue I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may Include confidential and/or Inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

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

let's keep more eyeballs ar,ound our areas now that there are less buildings for the CC-miners D

---

Oriaioal Messaae=

Froml(b)(71(C)

Sent: Thursdav December 23, 2010 15:48 To:l(b)(7)(C'.i (b)(7)(C)

Subject RE: HP Trespassers

Thank1f~'{7) !1 agree and rest assured ~~)(l) will handle this situation in the future.

Good job being BAD COP at B-215. Personally, I would have been a bit more forceful especially finding a vehicle "hidden" at B-282. (b)(7)(C) ill need to be more diligent around 8215 now that we've taken away toys for the CC-miners o pay w1 (buildings on the Mole Pier}.

---Origir,al Message-Fromt(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 13:11 To: b 7 'C r b)(7)(C)

Subject:

HP Trespassers On Thursday, 12-23-2010 at around 1030hrs I f9und a white male in his 30's walking through the rear B215 parking lot. I confronted the male,) px7xc) !and asked him what he was doing. He was looking for leasing space around dry docks for manufacturing. I told him that NAVY is not leasing space and he should leave the site. Hisj (b)(ixc>

was hidden from view in a-.1.2i:s'"2'-.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.......

Later I found his SUV parked in front of the EMS trailer. The trailer was secured so I searched fo (b)(?)

and found him walking the contractors parking lot. I toldilfilITI] I would escort him off the base. I no e 1s vehicle had a sleeping bag covering some tools in the back. I informed the main gate security guard that he was not allowed back on the base. I informed 1(b)(7)(C) ~/Shaw of what happened and suggested they check their area.

Later upon leaving I noticed 2 late model POV's with 2 males and 2 females in one vehicle and t male in the other driving next to 8134. I asked If they were lost and they asked if I had a welder sarcastically. I asked who he worked for and he said ITSI. He said they had to weld a plate on an excavator parked next to B134. I calledI D '/ITSI and he verified the job.

If contractors work at our sites, they should have proper safety gear and marked vehicles These people did not look like they should be there.

(b)(?)(C)

From: Bowers. Bert Sent: Monda December 27 201 To: (b)(?)(C)

CCL....~~~~~~~~~~-::

Subject FW: Patrol

.... FYI gentlemen

---

Ociginal Message-From; Bowers, Bert Sent: Monda D 1 PM To: (b)(?)(C)

Cc:

I ~~~~~--";

Sub~Je~cT:""'l"l"l~:~P~a~tr~o~

Information below is FYI... after discussing w~(b)(7)(C) Iwe both shared the opinion that EMS likely needs to consider the need for integrity verifi ~Ohs In and around areas at Building 211/253 - and at the EMS management trailer as well.

Feel free to contact me if additional 1nformat1on or feedback Is needed.

Regards, Bert ~f-51Bad1a*l,n Safety Officer Representative

~~~,::;:: Alternater '"' IMain 415.671 .1990 I Moblle lL..(b-)(7)_(_c i_ _.....l1Fa>!.

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 (b)(7)(C)

While at the project today, no a,screpancies were observed at Building 258 (i.e., durin an initi I ite drive thru). While along the back side of the building (during a door check and inspection) (b)(?)(C) topped by. In discussing the prior events with him, he i n d ~ 1 e "breached" structure wa u1 1ng 58 but instead the "Glass Palace" t point, I inform (b)(7) at he was referring to Building 211/253, not Building 258. At that point (~( ) nferred with two site police who were resent with him. They also Indicated the event occurre a uilding 211 /253. The subsequent check (with (b)(7) f doors there was satisfactory as well. (I mentioned at that point the need to address RAO awareness briefs I preferred protocol involving "security personnel" specific to RCA breaches I trespassers I confiscated materials )

(b)(7)(C) asked if Tetra Tech had any vehicles with tires missing

• he said Chevy truck tires were confiscated

'--- ro-m

-'trespassers (he also said Shaw's fleet was unaffected). I completed another drive thru with focus placed on TtECl's vehicle fleet and status - including those inside Building 258. AU of Tetra Tech's fleet appeared OK. Beyond vehicles, nothing else appeared tampered with inside Building 258 as well.... the doors at auilding 400 were also secure.

Note t h a ~ i d he asked a guy discovered in the management area parking lot to leave last Thursday evening .... parked in front of the E *1ers... said he appeared to be living out of his vehicle... , was looking for the "leasing office" (b)(?) drove by later to re-check the area and the guy was back - near the new lab trailers - I believ (b)(?) said he escorted the guy off site this time around. (The doors to the new lab facilities are secore an nothing there appears tampered with.) He said the site has been active the past few days with trespassers.... I'll continue with follow-up inspections / Integrity checks.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Bert

- - -Original Message---

From:,l~H7)(C) I Sent: Monday, De~mber 27 2010 9:18 AM To: Bowers, Bert; !~ (7)(C)

Subject:

FW: Patr:o i.,.---------------

FYI , Bert ,c an you check the doors on one of your visits.

(b)(?)(C) ends ...

---

Orjqinal Message From:!(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 2:26 PM Tot(b)(7)(C) I Subject FW: Patrol

~ he last paragraph is for you. We don't know if anything is missing. Looks like someone forgot to

~ -up.

l(b)(7)(C)

---

Original Message--

From:l(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Sunda December 26 2010 14:23 To* (b)(?)(C)

Cc: (b)(?)(C)

(b)(7)(C)

(b)(?)(C)

Subject:

Patrol Patrol at HPS, at 0645 hrs (b)(?)(C) ncountered suspecr..._)_ (?-)(_C_) _ _ _.......lan~ (b)(?)(C) I on a boat

7 with and outboard motor attached towing another boat with metal debris from the Mule Gun pairJ. ~~)( )

confiscated tools from the graded area the suspects were working at.

!(b)(l)(C) ~rrived on duty _and assisted ~~?) !i>~ extending the lnvestlgatlon off the property leading the federal pohce to the location of the boa in question used in the theft of government property.

!(b)(l)(C) I introduce~~~~(?) lo24th St. San Francisco park area at the end where suspects stealing from th eral property end-up at off loading the debris from a boat in to a Chevrolet Van that (b)(7)(C) was observed driving to the park area wher (b)(?) nd I was loading the Tahoe of copper minor burglary tools and copper wire from the aforemen ,on at.

l(b)(l)(C) I spotted!(b)(l)(C) !Pn the water's edge in the park area digging for clams after and on site security guard asl<ed the federal police to order the trespassers off the property without Incident.

Also on Friday (b)(7)(C) ound the main entry door and the large sliding garage doors wide open with no one around at bldg-258 (b)(7)(C) conducted a walk-through inspecting the area for suspects and I

is uncertain if any equipment or supplies was taken before the bldg-258 was secured.

Sincerel~(b)(l)(C)

HPS: EMS RCA "As Discovered" 12.28.10 (Photo 1 of 2)

EMS RCA "As Discovered" 12.28.10 (Photo 2 of 2)

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 2:31 PM To:!(b)(?)(C) I

Subject:

RE: Patrol

~ -

(b)(?)(C)

According t the trespassers had scrap metal and miscellaneous tools - I took it to mean small hand type too s ut I could be wrong. I believe the confiscated items - including the referenced truck tires, are staged in the building where the DOD Police now work from (i.e., Building 2 15).

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative c I Dlrect:r x; c) 11Alternate: r i(J)(C) II 7 Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile: (b)( )( )

1 IFax:

415.2 fo. 143 _ .

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com 1Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 941241 www.tetratech.com

---

Original Message-From:!(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:48 AM To: Bowers, Bert Cc: !(b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

RE: Patrol Bert, Thanks for passing this along.

In regard to the debris from the Gun Mole Pier, do you know what the material was and where it is currently staged?

r (?)(C) b)(?)(C)

Shaw Environmental Inc.

Hunters Point Shipyard 200 Fisher Avenue San Francisco, CA 94124 (b)(7)(C) Office cell (b)(7)(C)

From: Bowers, Bert [13]

Sent: Mon 12/27/2010 4:01 PM To: (b)(7)(Cl Cc (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

FW: Patrol

.... FYI gentlemen

REFERENCE 33 MEMORANDUM J(b)(?)(C) I l(b)(?)(C}

To:'I ~ Tetra Tech,

.______ L------------....

From~Bert Bowers, Tetra Tech, Radiation Safety Officer Representative- Hunters Point Date: January 18, 2011 Vacate HPS Project (b)(?)(C)

In reference to the subject line above - and as requested during our discussions earlier on Monday, January 1ih, to follow is a detailed summary of events as they unfolded January 12'h . 13*h.

As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, 0-2>*Bert Bowers, Radiation Safety Officer Representative DirectD Alternate:D Main: 415.671.1990 / Moblle:r_

... )(?-)(-C)_ __.

Page lof7

Wednesday. January 12. 2011: HPS (b)(?)(C) I

• l

-1605 hrs: After ending a phone conversation with.__ _ _ _ __,r,AACTEC regarding a MOU modification need, I proceed to the afternoon 'l'anagement debrief which is already in progress; the debrief is being conducted byj(b)(7)(C) !when my turn, I brief group on my day's accomplishments including the phone call just completed with MACTEC regarding the MOU draft (and an electronic markup from MACTEC just received)ITTdvises that he'll stop by later to discuss the MOU. ~

• "' 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.

l(b)(?)(C) I

• - 1620 hrs~ jenter my office; both grab something from my snack _

containers as is normal. I am still working on the MOU draft comparison and cross reference; (b)(?)(C) '

and I proceed to discuss MOU document status as related to upcoming pier demolition work at HPS under MACTEC's NRC license, etc ~~)(?) istens11~\ rnd I appear to be "on the sarne page" re arding the MOU assignment. c

Jfl teers the conversation to the topic of work hours; drops an excel spreadsheet on desk; i s that RSOR function is reduced 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to a weekly schedule equivalent of five 9 hour1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> days; notice then provided to begin attending 6:30 AM daily meetings as "Basewide rep" with field staff management/ supervision to plan daily activities. Somewhat surprised, I sit back in chair while taking a deep breath.

[71(c akes statement to the effect that "this isn't aimed at you but Is the result of "tighter tiu get demands" and a "greater limit on resources" as compared to past contracts; stated that "Navy is trying to make Basewide go away".

+ Understanding is acknowledged of the contract restrictions, candidly shared pe~onal disappointment and sense that action did have appearance as being aimed at RSOR role.

El<pressed curiosity as to why RSOR input/feedback was not solicited before arriving at decision; described RSOR start-of-year "work load" as filled to capacity; current NRC license based work being conducted from home on "personal time"; brought lip 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 el<tended break at mid-day to allow for overlapping afternoon timeframe for integrity checks after field staff leaves for day )~fl rovides assurance that stated concerns/ questions will be addressed - however, plans shou e to a end AM meeting beginning the following day across from our offices. Request acknowledged;

..,.,-!.,,,.,,,~

(b)(7)(C) hen provides assurance that working for free isn't expected. I respond that "it's not about e 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

• ilities to the RAD field sups as "Authorized Users" on license .

• ... 1645 hrs (b)(?)(C) exit; begin closing up office in advance of "end-of-day" site drive through .

• -1650 hrs: Begin "end-of-da 'site drive through; limited drive due to dusk setting in/ length of earlier discussion with' (b)(?)(C)

Page 2 of7

• "'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 vehicles 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 arrival to gate. Vehicles observed continuing to advance toward gate where 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 js present (i.e., any of the RAD Su p's); all have left for the day. I then check to see if!(b)(l )(C) ,~s still in; upon arrival at his office he has changed into gym clothes and is preparing to leave. I provide a brief on laborers observed in and around imoacted portions of the field and the fact that all "Authorized Users" had departed for the dayJ~.~~ , {~oes not share any knowledge or awareness of what is being reported. I re-emphasize th ortance of an end-of-day site drive through '~? ) nowledged my concern and suggested I "cover it with all (b)(7)(C)

. . .... .the supervisors In.the.morning . hen brought up weekly work schedules discussed earlier in my office; suggested that - assu I planned at least 3 weeks off over the course of 2011, I should be covered for 50 hour5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> work weeks after all. r offered to average up to one week off each quarter If necessary to stay within budget whid~cknowledged. We both proceed to leave for the day. !LmJ

• .. 1740 hrs: I drive back out along Building 400 and the RSY4 area and all appears secured; I then e)(it the site and head home.

Thursday, January 13, 2011: HPS

• "' 0615 hrs: I arrive on site; proceed to open up the office* com uter is booted u then I proceed to conference room across from office (b)(l)(C) are seated in the room. Small talk ensues while"-w-e- w - a,- - .......

a-ss_u_m_e-, ...o"""r_o.,.,

t "'"e_r_

s """

to- a

- r""' n...

v-e._ ___,

• ... 0635 hrs: (b)(?)(C) ops his head through the conference room door saying ( Bert~

acknowted e ,ma er which he asks why I'm not at the meeting. I state "I'm here". Then while askin (b)(l) 'where is e verybody" , I look up at the conference room clock and note that it's 0635 hrs (~) c eplies that everyone's meeting in the small conference rB p front. At this point I say o ile jumping up to follow him there. Once out the door. ** *s*o.. bserved ....*****w* a. *l k. *.ing . (b)(l)(?l toward )~l(c nd me; he is told I was in the other conference room. ... . . olitetystates: a~ (?)(!)(?)

already 1 - that "the meeting is up front instead". We' re all thre ront by now and to my surprise, the meeting is already starting to adjourn. (At this moment, the thought occurs to Page 3 of 7

(b)

(7) discuss wit (C) hat I'm being asked to adjust my schedule in order to attend a S minute meeting/ address Basewide plans for an assigned staff quota of one- and sacrificin "end-of-hi " integrity drive thru's which have re~Cldly proven to be value added ~(b)(?)(C)

(b)(?)(C) is exiting from the meeting room and .... . nferm .. * . .. .. . . asin,*ustatthewrnng(?.)(!)(?)

conference room - no sense of an issue is obse . I spo (b)(?)(C) an (b)(l )(C) and inform both that I need to speak with them ~efore attending the AM safety tailgate at Building 400-they hold up. I then wait fo~(b)(?)(C) ~o finish a conversation he's having with someone else after which he too is asked 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 ...-...w.11....-""""" to just stop off in my office instead. As we're proceeding that way, I observe tha (b)(?)(C) are following in the same direction (i.e., toward the same end of the management trailers) - I assume to their offices opposite mine. B the time the last RAD supervisor enters my office, it's -0637 hrs. (The 4th RAD superviso~(b)(?)(C) as called off sick with the 1(b )(7)(C) !Knowing that time is limited as everyone t Building 400 for the morning tailgate, my plan is to convey the basic e1<pectation that's resulted 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 RAO 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 asl< for everyone's attention; 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 da ' send if field hands are still actively working in or around impacted areas. At this poin (b)(?)(C) ~ops me in mid-sentence with a question; the ensuing interface I sequence of events then transpire:

r 7

H_')(_c)_ _....~words to the effect of): f'BPrt.\where are you talking about" ?

Bert Bowers~words to the effect of}: "I'm referring to Parcel E near the 'Triangle Area' and the 1 1 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 to be found ... we need to have someone present because...." (I am then cut off with a question fro1 (b)(7)(C) ~

Page 4 of 7

!(b)(?)(C) !l words to the effect of): "No we don't t hat was the utility corridor crew and all that's been cleared ...

Bert Bowers1(words to the effect of): "Yes we do ...H l....(b)(7)(C) I

_ _ _ __.(words to the effect of): " let's look aL" [Can' t understand the rest a (b)(7)(C)

Interrupts with an outburst] ...___ _.

7 l(b_)( _)(_ c)_ _ _£words to the effect of): "That's f_ ing bulls_t; that's a bunch of crap..."

...r_):_7)-(C-) - - -~Imost instantaneously appears in the doorway and asks: "Whafs going on" (b)(7)(C)

!(b)(l)(C) £words to the effect of): "This is crazy f _ing bulls_t*.." (Can't remember anything else from his outburst as I'm now eye-to-eye wit i~r) y hands are folded outward e1<pecting him to directj(b)(l)(C) to tone it down]

l(b)(l)(C) ~still looking at me with words to the effect and released the area ..... (I can't remember the rest of wha

°f ~}hey're right... RASO has deared

... . . . assaying as too.

• ...... 'sbe.Ue.f..ha~)(?)(?)

now set I' now simply rubbing my face with both hand wondering wh ...... asnl** .'.?.!(!)(?)

7 directe9 (~( ) nd the others to leave; and pulled our conversation off-line tog 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 endurin (bf) nexpected "judge and jury" 7

position and yet another interru tion outburst fro (b)i )(C) o 1s now standing outside my office door behin (b)(7)(C) have exited - likely just outside in the hallway)]

l(b)i.l)(C)

-~standing directly behin°l2Jnd

.ITT pointing at me over his shoulder with words to the effect of): "Let me tell yo'U something.... tion't you ever.....*" [Can't remember anything else from outburst exce t that!l~i7} lcontinued to shout profanities - mostly the "F" and " BS" words; as wit (b)(ll(C) earlier verbal attack, I'm again eye-t~~r wi~ (b)(l)(C) she 7

allows~ to continue with his assault; I remember seein (~( ) tarting to wa away from my office door as his rants now continued from in the hallway; I now pushed my desk chair away (b)(7)(C) frommydesl

415.2'ro.z,43

~ Alternate: ~ I Main: 415.671 .1!990 I Mobile: l(b)(?)(C)

L___J ...._____.

I I Fax:

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 J www.tetratech.com From~!(b)(7)(C)

Sel)l: Friday, January 14, 2011 7:44 AM Tot Bowers, Bert

Subject:

Call Bert, When are you available to talk today or over the weekend?

I look forward to it.

l~-

(b)(7)(C)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___, RCM I

Directf b)(71(C) lI Main: 973.630 8000 I Fax: 973.630.8526 I ce11!...

7 (b-)( _)(_c)_ _....,

l(b)(?)(C)

Believe and act as if it were impossible to fail. Chai'les F. Kettering Tetra Tech I Human Resources 1000 The American Road I Morris Plains. NJ 07950 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, includ1rig any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside Information Any distribution or use of this communicat1on by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful If you are not the Intended recipient, please notlfy the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

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

REFERENCE 35 18 2011 7:45 AM Su ject:: HPS CT0-04 Agenda & J Week LookAhead Good morning, Attached are the HPS CT0-04 Agenda & 3 Week lookAhead for 1/ 18/11.

Th nk you, (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I Hunter's Point Shipyard 200 Fisher Ave. I San Fmnclsco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE. This message, including an~* allachmenti.. may 1nctUdeconfiClent1al and/or inside lnfom1at1011. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than 1he inlended recioienl is strielly prohibited and ~ay be unlawf\11. If you are not the lntendecl recipient. please notify the sender b}' ,eplying to this message and lhe11 delete it from your system

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

(11:) TETRA TECH EC, INC.

CQC Weekly Meeting Agenda CT0-04 Meeting No. 3 NAVFAC SW, RAD EMAC Contract No. N62473-1P*D*0809 BASEWIDE, LAB, RAD SCREENING YARDS, et al.

HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MEETING DATE: January 18, 2011 MEETING TIME: 0930 HRS MEETING LOCATION: TtEC Hunters Point Field Trailer TELECONFERENCE CALL IN #: (866) 692-5721 PASSWORD: 8175375# (participant code), 1655660# (PQCM code)

(b)(?)(C)

Quality Message:

• Morning Tailgate Topic Previous Meeting Action Items:

• Minutes Health and Safetv:

• Safety Topic(s): Morning Tailgate Message

• Incidents: None

• First Aid Occurrences: None Status of Submittals:

• Weekly CQC Meeting Minutes

• Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan Status of Deficient Conditions:

• Dewatering of pad without radiological approval. Water was pumped from a pad.being filled into a clean water truck. Rad supervisor was called; he inspected pad-water did not contact material and was approved as stonn water. Corrective action: Site Sup & Rad Sup counseled RSY personnel.

Status of Rework Items:

None Items Requiring QC Plan Revision or Design Clarification:

None

CQC WEEKLY AGENDA Meeting No. 3 (C.TO 04)

.fonuary 18, 20 I I Page 2 of2 Status of Work Activities:

• Completed Activities:

• Received soil from Shaw at RSY2

• Received soil from Work Area 33 at RSY4

• Prepped Piles 0375, 0376, 0378 for towed array

• Scanned Pile 0364 with the towed array

• Sampled Pile 0372

• Supported CE2/Kleinfelder in varios locations basewide

• Work In-Progress:

• Lab operations, RSY operations & postings

• Perfonning portal monitor & instrumentation maintenance activities

• Performing incoming/outgoing, weekly & monthly surveys

• Radiological screening/remediation of excavated soils at RSY2, RSY3, RSY4

• Transferring cleared soil from RSY2, RSY3, and RSY4 to SB3, SB4 and MDR.

• Yard maintenance activities, housekeeping activities, dust suppression activities

• Work Area SWPPP inspections & repairs as needed

• Planned Activities:

• None Schedule Review:

• Three-Week-Look-Ahead: see attached.

OC Weekly Planned Activities:

• No preparatory/initial phase inspections scheduled

• Continue follow-up for ongoing DFWs Other Items:

None l>istribotioo List:

(b)(7)(C)

From!(b)(7)(C) I Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:34 PM To:!(b)(7)(C) ~ ECT.Alameda - Employees; ECI.Hunter's Point - Everyone; EO.SanDiego - Employees

Subject:

Updated HPS phone list - as of 1/19/11 Tetra Tech I Hunter's Point Shipyard 200 Fishe1 Ave. I San Francisco. CA 94124 I www te1ratecr: com PLEASE NOTE* This message, including any anachrnen1s. may include confidential and/01 inside information. Any distribution or use of this CCl!Tin1u11lca1ion by anyone olher than the intendeo recipient 1s strictly prohibiled ancf *nay be unlawful. If you are nnt lhP.

intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying lo this massage and !hen delete ii trom your systern

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

Hunter's Point Shipyard 200 Fisher Ave. San Francisco, CA 94124 www.tteci.com Main Number: 415-671-1990 Direct lines: 415-216-xxxx Tetra Tech Fax: 415-671 -1995 B co iers NWT Fax: 415-216-2743 Front office TT Name/Office Position Extension Cell X (b)(7)(C)

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

2751 2760 2782 ffice North 2730 South 2735 2747 2744 As of 1/19/11

(b}(7}(C)

Angle 1 of Office Desk Ransacked and Computer Monitor Missing as Observed w/ n 012111.JPG "I

415 13 Angle 1 of RSOR Office Keys Used for "Lock and Secure" Purposes - Some Discovered Damaged/ Destroyed as Discovered o n 012111.JPG

Angle 1 of Returned Item forE (T)(C) } istributed Prior to Christmas Break as Discovered on RSOR Desk Fri PM 012111.JPG Angle 2 of Area Beneath RSOR Desk w_ Items Rearranged As Discovered 012111JPG

Angle 2 of Office Desk Ransacked and Computer Monitor Missing as Observed w/ (b)(?)(C) n 012111.JPG Angle 3 of RSOR Office Desk Ransacked ;Computer Monitor Missing; Remaining Computer Equip Rendered Inoperable as Observed w (b)(?)(C) n 012111.JPG

~~

~--*

~

Angle 4 of RSOR Office Desk Ransacked; Com uter Monitor Missing; Remaining Computer Equip Rendered Inoperable as Observed w/ (b)(?)(C) n 012111.JPG Angle S of RSOR Office Desk Ransacked; Project Radio Missing from Charging Cradle as Discovered 012111.JPG

"RSOR Officer" Nameplate Identifier Reversed at Office Entrance as Discovered on 012111.JPG RSOR Office Records Cabinet w/ Original Lock Drilled Out; Bottom Drawer Now Stuck Closed; Padlocks Installed to Each Drawer as Observed on 012111JPG

Storage Box and CDR Storage Rack formerly stored at RSOR Desk as Observed 012111.JPG Angle 2 of Returned Item fo istributed Prior to Christmas Break as Discovered on RSOR Desk Fri PM 012111.JPG

RSOR Office Locker (After Forced Breakin) w/ New lock / Improper Signage... Post 1.13.11 REFERENCE 36 TETRA TECH INC MEMORANDUM (b)(7)(C)

Date; January 18, 2011 (b)(7)(C)

From:

_.., Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Twin Oak$ I, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wright Drivei Norfolk, VA 23502 (757) 466-4906 To: All TtEC Radiation Safety Program Personnel

Subject:

Designation of Radiation Safet} Officer Representative - Hunters Point ib)(7)(C)

As determined by the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer has the necessary training and experience described in Appendix Hof NU , 6 wne 18 to act in the position of Hunters Point Radiation Safety Officer Representative. This designation is in accordance with Materials License Number 29-31396-01, Docket Number 030-38199, Condition 11, as issued to Tetra Tech EC, Inc. through and subject to oversight by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

u As the qWlters Pomt

• s-.&'

• Rad.1ation . om1cer Representative w.ety * (bl(l )(Cl has the vested authority and responsibility to ensure radiological safety and ce with the TtEC radioactive materials license as it is used at the Hunters Point Shipyard.

cc: RSO file, Hunters Point RSOR Page 1 of 1

REFERENCE 37

--Original Message-From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:01 PM 6~~ r X'XC) ,

SubJect: FW: Patrol LJ Information below is FYI... after discussing with px1xc> ) we both shared the opinion that EMS likely needs to consider the need for integrity verifications in and around areas at Building 211/253 - and at the EMS management trailer as well.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety ~er Regre~entatlve Directf XJxc>

415.216.2743 I Alternatef

• C) ~ I Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile: f ()(7xcJ IFax:

Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management H unters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com

- Original Message---

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 12:38 PM To: la,x1xq Cc:

L---------------------'

Subject RE: Patrol While at the project today, no discrepancies were observed at Building 258 (i.e., during an initial site drive thru). While along the back side of the building (during a door check and inspection x1xc) topped by. In discussing the prior events with him. he indicated the "breached" structure wasn't Building 58 but instead the "Glass Palace. At that point, I informedr XJXC)lthat he was referring to Building 211/253, not Building 258. At that poinS<>nferred with two DOD site police who were present with him. They also indicated the event occurred at Building 211/253. The subsequent check ( w i t ~ of doors there was satisfactory as well. (I mentioned at that point the need to address RAD awar~riefs / preferred protocol involving "security personnel specific to RCA breaches I trespassers I confiscated materials.)

Wsked if Tetra Tech had any vehicles with tires missing - he said Chevy truck tires were confiscated

• from trespassers (he also saidl§;haw'~fleet was unaffected). I completed another drive thru with focus placed on TtECl's vehicle fleet and status - including those inside Building 258. All of Tetra Tech's fleet appeared OK Beyond vehicles, nothing else appeared tampered with inside Building 258 as well.... the doors at Building 400 were also secure.

Note thaE..}saro ne asked a guy discovered in the management area parking lot to leave last Thursday evening .... parked in front of the EMS trailers... said he appeared to be living out of his vehicle.... was looking for the "leasing office". re drove by later to re-check the area and the guy was back - near the new lab trailers ~ I believe b aid he escorted the guy off site this time around. (The doors to the new lab facilities are secure and nothing there appears tampered with.) He said the site has been active the past few days with trespassers.... I'll continue with follow-up inspections / integrity checks.

From. Bowers, Bert Sent Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:03 PM

! 0 : l°')'.l)(C)

Subject:

FW: Patrol

....fyi

-.- Original Message---

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 2:28, To: r XJXO)

Cc: L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Subject:

FW: Patrol r )(lXC>

FYI, a closer observation during today's RAD integrity field inspection revealed downed signage /ropes /

stanchion posts inside the EMS RCA just o/s Building 211 /253. Reference attached photos for additional specifics .... also, per the information forwarded yesterday, it appears activity specific to "trespassers /

vandals" was observed in and around the referenced RCA as well as around the EMS management trailer.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers Radiation Safety Officer Representative Direc )(1)( I Alternate: pxixc'>  ! Main: 415.67U 990 I Mobile: r )(l)(C) Ii Fax:

415.216.2743 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

---

Original Message-From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:01 P~

Tofx1xc1 I cc! x1xc) I

'!3ubject: FW: Patrol D Information below is FYI ... after discussing with r X1XC) l we both shared the opinion that EMS likely needs to consider the need for integrity verifications in and around areas at Building 211/253 - and at the EMS management trailer as well.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative

From: Bowers, Bert Sent; Wednesday* December 29 201 o 11 :os AM

~~; r (?)(C) I

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point: Shaw - Area's Subject to NRC license Jurisdiction

--Ori inat Messa e--

F rom: (b)(71(C) (b_)(_7)(_c_) _ _ _ _ _ ___.

[maitto._!

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:32 AM To: Bowers, Bert E c:!(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

RE: Hunters Point: Shaw - Area's Subject to NRC Uce11se Jurisdiction

• sert,

• We've had personnel perlodlcatty on site perforrmng spot checks, and will have personnel working the 30th (weather permitting).

Dec 30 Activities- Starting at approximate! 1OOOhrs

!(b)(l)(C) ..Jwm be Op's Lead POC. (b)(7)(C) 1 RCT and approximately 5 others to support a water side inspection of the Gun Mole Pier.

-3 personnel will be in our 12 foot boat- putting in over at E-2 RCA and maneuvering over to D-1, then back again to E-2.

l(b)(?)(C)

Shaw Envi ronmental Inc.

Hunters Point Shipyard 200 Fisher Avenue

~wmm~.

(b)(7)(C) cA 94124 (b)(?)(C)

From: Bowers,Bert[14]

Sent: Tue 12/28/2010 5:36 PM

~~t b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

Hunters Point: Shaw - Area's Subject to NRC license Jurisdiction Regarding the subject line above, was anyone on site as a radiological point of contact yesterday.... in parallel, will there be a similar onsite presence the res.t of the week (and if so who)? The need for these questions has elevated in importance as a result of recent trespasser activity!

Thanks for confirming, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Direct: _r XJXC) rb)(7)(C) ,b)(7)(C) 1_ _ ___,!

1I A l t e r n a t e : !1 Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile:._ 1 Fax: 415.216.2743 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

From. Bowers, Bert Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 5:08 PM

_To: !(b)(7)(C)  !

Subject FW: Patrol

... FYI gents!

Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety O cer Re resentaUve Direct: Xll(C) Alternate: Xl)(C) Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile. I Fax; 415. ert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech E ,e roJect Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tetratech.com

~

Bertiwe went to the site yesterday (early afternoon), and put up the ropes

'and1tanchions, We also checked on the security of the storage containers, vehicles, forklift, and trailer. We did not see any evidence of break-in or attempted break-in to any of our vehicles, locked containers or office trailer.

Thanks for the information and photo's, we can compare notes on Monday.

l(b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C)

' Environmental Management Services, Inc. an (Ba) Certified Company 150 North Wiget Lane, Suite 101 Walnut CreF,k CA 9:4596 Telephone:._l (b_)(_

l l(_c_J _ __.

Fax: (92 938-0105 E-mail: (b)(7)(C)

Visit our we site at www.enviro-mgmt.com

From: Bowers, Bert Se

• ber 31, 2010 5:41 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Cc: (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

FW: Patrol

, (b)(7)(C)

While doing today's drive through, I met up with the DOD Pohce Office ho actually encountered some of the prior week's vandals... specific to the confiscated vehicle tires, he elieves tney came from inside Building 258.

Upon further questioning, he confirmed that Building 258 was in fact the location found unlocked and doors wide open on the back side of the building. The day I went Inside for a "visual" look around, nothing looked out of the ordinary and all vehicles parked inside looked OK i.e., tires and all).... however, If spare tires were staged inside, I would have no way of knowing as such. (b)(7)(C) also confirmed BUIiding 211/253 was also broken In to. Today's drive around revealed nothing out of the ordinary or Tetra Tech controlled areas. (I'll copy you on observations from the ERRG work location.)

That's lhe latest FYI!

..Bert.

---Original Message- -

From: Bowers, Bert Sent Monday, December 27, 2010 12:38 PM To:,(b)(7)(Ci

,Cc:L...- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Subject:

RE: Patrol (b)(7)(C)

While at the project today, no discrepancies were observed at Building 258 i.e., during an initial site drive thru). While along the back side of the building (during a door check and inspection) (b)(7)(C) stopped by. In discussing the prior events with hilldlcated the breached" structure wasn't Build , stead the "GI lace". At

' that point, I infonne (b)(?) hat he was referring to Building 211/253, not Building 258. At that point (b)(7) nferred with two DOD site po ' ! l e r e present with him. They also indicated the event occurred at Bui 1ng 11/253. The

' subsequent check (Wit of doors there was satisfactory as well. (I mentioned at that point the need to address RAD awareness briefs ed protocol fnvolving "security personnel" specific to RCA breaches / trespassers /

confiscated materials.)

!(b)(7) fasked if Tetra Tech had an~ vehicles with tires missing - he said Chevy truck tires were confiscated from trespassers (he also saidl§.haw'~ fleet was unaffected). I completed another drive thru with focus placed on TtECl's vehicle fleet and status - lncfudlng those i'lslde Bulldfng 258. All of Tetra Tech's fleet appeared OK. Beyond vehicles, nothing else appeared tampered with inside Building 258 as well.... the doors at Building 400 were also secure.

Note thaJ~~r) ~aid h~*a: ~ed a guy discovered in the management area parking lot to leave last Thursday evening....

parked~;r~ of the EMS trailers... said he appeared to be living out of his vehicle.... was looking for the " I ~

, office" (b (7 rove by lat?r to ~ -check the area and the guy was back - ne~:_the new lab trailers - I b.elieve~aid 1 he esc e guy off site this time around. (The doors to the new lab facilities are secure and nothing there appears tampered with.) He said the site has been active the past few days with trespassers.... I'll oontlnue with follow-up inspections I integrity checks.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Bert

REFERENCE 26 From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Monday, January 031 2011 2:36 PM To: px1xci I S ubject: H"unters Pofnt: Upcoming "Basewide Support" Assignment Needs (ITSI)

D ~ reference to the subject line above (and as follow-up to our conversation earlier this morning),

rKl ) ~ailed to advise ofITSJ plans to haul Shaw debris originating from Gun Mole Pier beginning tomorrow. Due to the origin of the material (designated for offsite disposal), he indicated the debris trucks will need to pass through a portal monitor which - according to Brett, will need to begin at or around I 000 hrs. He went on to say this process will likely continue on through Wednesday- possibly Thursday. Accordingly, please advise if there are issues which could impede the radiological support of ITSI' s upcoming needs.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert

=

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesda January 04, 2011 3:49 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

SubJect: unters oint: "Basewlde Support" Needs (lTSI) for Wednesday, January 5, 2011 (b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above,~ usa~ advised that ITS! will continue tomorrow with their ongoing hauling operations Involving the truck portal. Please advise ASAP if there are issues which could impede the radiological support of ITSI's planned needs.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert IIIIII/I////III/////III/I//I/III//////II/I/II///IfI!IIIIIIIIII rom: Bowers, Bert G Sent: Monda , January 03, 2011 2:36 PM o (b)(7 (C) *

Subject:

Hunters Point: Upcoming "Basewide Support" Assignment Needs (ITSI)

~

In reference to the subject line above (and as follow-up to our conversation earlier this morning),

!(b)(7)(C) lcalled to advise of ITSI plans to haul Shaw debris originating .from Gun Mole Pier beginning tomorrow. Due to the origin of the material (designated for offsite disposal), he indicated the debris trucks will need to pass through a portal monitor which - according to !(b ...-)(7-)(-c)"""'!

will need to begin at or around 1000 hrs. He went on to say this process will likely continue on through Wednesday - possibly Thursday. Accordingly~ please advise if there are issues which could impede the radiological support of ITSI's upcoming needs.

Feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert

=

REFERENCE 27 coverage needed tomorrow

.... fyi From: Bowers, Bert Sent Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:56 PM To: l(b)(7)(C) j C:C: 'susan.andrews@tetratech.com'

• subject: RE: Rad coverage needed tomorrow Thanks for the "heads op" In rele;ce to upi>orning support needs. Every reasoua.ble effort will be mode to coordinate/provide radiological support u!l needed fo Klcinfcldcr'!}ictivilies al the IR07/18 portion of Hunters Point. ... if~ituations arise which could overextend Tetra Tecl1's avai able resources (i,e., contrnct driven, etc), resolution thr(lltgh project rmin11gemc111, the Navy, etc will be pursuerl.

fw planning purposes - and to cloriiy specilics as your n(lcds c><ist today, at what time to11101Tow will JR07/ l 8 opcrn1iuns begin illlll for what <111ra1ion? Also, please re-ccmfinn the durntion of your current schedule aud time frames for IR07/18.

Lost. o.re you presently on slle'I I attempted 10 dro offdosimc1r fo Kleinfelder taft'enrlier last week but the ni.~ ,

office arking lot was locked. Dosimetry for you'l:(.;.: bl,:.;.

(7.:.a..;..:)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....,.._ _ _ _........,.........,--,1 nd

)(C (b)(7)(C has been prepared wid is ready for dis1ribu ,on. ':-'-~ 11"-'-rn=:'°:'-'n-'-'-'o,,.,r...,..:.:.:aiiiiiiaiii~~.aia.aiaiiiiii..._.:.:..:.......:-=:::...:....a""-'!-"'-!.l..: .==w parnlfol, I need to further discuss/ con!im1 specifics with you pertinent tc._...,_."""'--------

dosimelry I completing RWP reviews 11s well Please odvise as to when a time would work for you to address existing needs or Just reel free lo stop by if you' re in lhe area.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Re resentative l ,[,

r

xl)(C) X J Direct r Alternate'. Main

415.6711990 l Mobile*r_ ... )(l- )(-C)_ _I, Fax: 415.216.27431 Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com

, Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 J www.tteci.com From: (b)(7)(C)

Sent: ue matlto~(b)(l )(C) anuary 11, 2011 11:57 AM r

To: B w Cc: (b)(7)(C)

S ub ect: coverage ne e tomorrow u-" A,\\('

Hell~er}f. we rtquest your rndfologico.l support in the lR07/18 area tomorrow. Please confinn rad lt:ch availability. With only one bascw1i:le rad t.cch avallabl(: fur support (Susan), ii is likely tbnt we wJll need her help pretty coll!listcntly throughout our sampling t\'Orlt.

Thanks!

(b)(7)(C) 1330 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 o4.._j (b)-(7)(-C) _....,lcl!(b)(7)(C) I I s10.a2a.eoo9 \

f

From: Bowers, Bert Se

• ary 02, 2011 11:00 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

'"Sub ect: Hunters Point: Tetra Tech Dosimetry Program f1einfelder patt {1st Qtr 2011 Request)

(b)(7)(C)

I have dosimetry m!ide up for your :staff as requested e:xcept for those highlighted below in yellow. I'll be in toucJ1 tomorrow to discuss specifics.

Regard~,

Directt llb)(1KC) l

' A}temate D)

Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative I II Main: 415.671 .1990 Mobile: _l'b-)(-?)-(C-) _ _ Fax: 415.216.2743 Bert.Bowers@letratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tteci.com 1

,..From:!(b)(l)(C) k mallto ,...~b,.,..,

)(7,...

)(C....) ,..,..,.."'ll'TT"---'~

Sent: Friday, December 17, ~010 10:06 AM J o: Bowers, Bert Subject RE: l1ECI, Hunters Point: Upcoming Holiday'gtand Down...

Hello Bert, l would like to have I11 Quarter 20 I I dosimetry for the following staff involved irt CE2/Kleinfclde~Jfielt.l events:

(b)(l)(C)

With that, happy holidays to you tool Mak'e it a relaxing one.

Cheers LJ om: Bowers, Bert [15]

nt: Thursday, Dec:ember 16, 2010 1:34 PM

$XJXC) I

)(J)(6 j .

Subject:

FW: TtEO, Hunters Point: Upcoming Holiday Stand Down...

As a follo"*up to the previous email (see below), please ensure that any rernai11ing dosimetry for yo,Jr group is placed on a Tetra Tech collec-tion ruck before duy' b end tomot'l'ow. Likcwi~e. please respond to this email with II list of pel'sonnel - if any

• for whom I" Quarter 2011 dosimetry will he needed.

• As always, feel fre~ to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Many thanks in advance and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Repres.entatiVe Direct: r_ r_

...x'_l(C_) _ __,!1Altemate= ... x,_xc_)_ ___,, Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile:._F_')(l_xc_) _ _ _,! r Fax: 415.216.2743 Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tteci.com From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:26 PM To: fbX1 XC> n; (bXJJ(C) j

~ubject: TtEO, Hunters Point: Upcoming Holiday Stand Down ...

All, Regarding-the subject Line above, 2010 end-of-year field activities including those subject to radiological support under TtECJ's NRC Material License ii 29-31396-0J , are scheduled to wrap up on Friday, December 17, 2010. A planned two week st.anti down will be in effect thereafter for the holidays.

Before beginning the stand down, ii is important that all personnel with dosimetry assigned under TtECJ's monitoring program*

place their "4th quarter 2010" devices on a designated badge rack. Dosimetry badge racks recognized for this puzpose are located just inside either of the two entrances lo the 'liEC manft8emcnt trailers; another is available at tbe Building 400 meeting area Gust inside the main access door).

DuriJ1g the smnd down, dosimetry will be changed out to meet protocol specific to the upcoming I st Quarter 201 J" wear period.

Aller lhe holidays and upon return to lbe project (Monday. January 3. 201 1). new dosimetry can be picked up at the wnc hndge rack where "4th quarter 20 10" dosimetry was left.

Thanks in advance for yo11r help in ensuring 1he aforementioned needs are met, thus providing for a smooth tro.n~ilion into 201l.

As always, feel free to coiu.-'tct 111e if additional infonn11lion or feedback is needed.

Bert

• TI.EC, RSRS, NWU, Shaw, KlemCeldt:1, ERRO ruul rrsr J)CIS(lnncl (includin~ suboontracton) usmg dosimetry dc~lcc.~ i~8ucd by TtEC D;m.. D I Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Altemate,o)( l Main: 415.671 .1990 I Mobile._l 7 ~

(b_H_)(_c)_ _ _ Fax: 415.216.2743 Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave J San Francisco. CA 94124 I www.tteci.com

=

REFERENCE 28 From: (i:l)(?)(C)

Sent: u ay, January 11, 2011 5:05 PM Jo: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Survey of NWT Equipment Send it to her directly l(b)(7)(C)

Direct.._!

(b_):?_J(C_) _ ___.! 1Ce1i- !(b)(?)(C) l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I Remediation 200 Fisher Avenue I San Francisco CA 94124 ] www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE This message, tncludlng any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communrcation by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf..Jt. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system rl; Think Green

• Not every email needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:42 PM To:!(b)(7)(C) I ,

~ubject: FW: Survey of NWT Equipment (b)(7)(C)

In reference t (b)(l)(C) equest (below), has the corresponding survey documentation - finalized on Jan 3rd - already been provided o ano er NWE entity?

Thanks, Bert .

From: (b)(l)(C) [mailto~L.(b_)(7_)(_

c)_ _ _ ___,

Sent: ues ay, anuary 11, 2011 10:37 AM To: Bowers, Bert

• subject: lab survey Happy New Years! Hope you bad a wonderful holiday season.

I have a request.

I would like to have a copy oftbe hunters point final lab survey report for our records.

Thank you, (b)(7)(C)

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Monda January 03, 2011 9:56 AM Jp: (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

FW: Survey of Nwr Equipment (b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above. the requested release documentation is attached. Please advise if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Dl*red_:X:xci 415.216.2743 II Alternate:Dx >< > l(b)(l)(C)

Main: 41 5.671. t990 I Mobile: jFax:

I Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Field Project Management Hunters Point Shipyard, 200 Fisher Ave I San Francisco, CA 94124 I www.tteci.com From: Bowers, Bert Se~'.; ThuC5f.lav Oerernbec ~o, 2010 9:33 AM To: (b)(7)(C) I Cc: _

Subi..1ect:

- -*... RE-:S ....u_rv_e_y_o....,f,_N__WT

~ Equipment (b)(7)(C)

I - - - - - - '

1.,.,..........._ . _......

o confirm completion status ofrelease surveys for the NWE lab and equipment within.

He indicated . at an s on" surveys were in fact finished - with the last series being conducted on Friday, December 17ih (a final set of smears was submitted to the NWE Jab for processing that S3.!l1e d~y).

S pect'ti1c to the corresponding

• survey report, noth'mg h as yet crossed my desk (b)(l) c ind icatea tnatI smear samples turned in to the lab through last Friday were done so on schedule. Subsequent a results for those samples (along with a finalized survey report - development also presumed on schedule), should be anticipated on Monday, January 3~ .

Being tha~ s off on Monday, !' II follow up first thing with the la ay to ensure the smear results were provided in support of survey report generation. Again, as indicated b 1:b)(7) 'and as observed in the past with processes such as this}, all appears on schedule for that to happen within e maround timeframe presently in use.... I 'll continue to monitor ongoing status and forward the finalized survey report once it becomes available.

Oest regards and "HAPPY NEW YEAR" to you and yours!

.Bert..

From:!(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:35 PM To: Bowers Bert

~ : (b)(7)(C)

Su6J  : urvey of NWT Equipment Bert, Did we finish the outgoing survey of the NWT T.ah equipment1 If yes, can you scan the survey sheets for me to provide to NWT.

(b)(7) 1 (C) ends ....

From: Bowers, Bert sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:37 AM To:li6ji7)(C) I

-§.b]ect: FW: Survey of NWT Equipment r )(?)(C)

See below FYI.. ... this will be a high priority item come Monday morning ... please Jet me know if there are delays / issues in getting that release survey out timely!

Thanks in advance, BB From: Bowers, Bert Se~t; Thursday Qecembec , o, 2010 9:33 AM To. (b)(7)(C)

Cc:

L----------1 S ubject: RE: Survey of Nwr Equipment (b)(7)(C)

I talked wit (b)(l)(C) to confirm completion status of release surveys for the NWE lab and equipment wit m. em cated that "hands on" surveys were in fact finished - with the last series being conducted on Friday, December 1?1h (a final set of smears was submitted to the NWE lab for processing that same day).

(b)(7)(C)

Specific to the corresponding survey report, nothing has yet crossed my desk. indicated that smear samples turned in to the lab through last Friday were done so on sc edule. Subsequent lab results for those samples (along with a finalized survey report - development also presumed on schedule), should be anticipated on Monday, January 3rd_

Being tha (b)(?)(C) is off on Monday, I'll follow up first thing with the lab that day to ensure the smear resu were provided in suppo11 of survey report generation. Again, as inclicated by (b)(7)(C)

(and as observed in the past with processes such as this), all appears on schedule forthat to happen within the turnaround timeframe presently in use .... I'll continue to monitor ongoing status and forward the finalized survey report once jt becomes available.

Best regards and "HAPPY NEW YEAR" to you and yours!

Bert l(b)(7)(C)

' From:i..._ _ _ __,_

I Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:35 PM To: Bowers Bert Cc: (b)(7)(C)

SuHJe : urvey of NWT Equipment Be~

Did we finish the outgoing survey of the NWT Lab equipment? lfyes, can you scan the survey sheets for me to provide to NWT.

(b)(7)

(C) sends ....

REFERENCE 29 f rom: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:36 PM To: 'susan.andrews@tetratech.com' "subject: FW: Rad coverage needed tomorrow Susan-(b)(7)(C)

I spoke w is PM .... Stop by and I'll update you on existing plans.

Thanks, Bert I From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:56 PM To: !(b)(7)(C) I Cc: 'susan.andrews@tetratech.com' SUbject: RE: Rael coverage needed tomorrow Hi (b)(7)(C)

Thanks for the "heads up"' in reference to upcoming support needs. Every reasonable effort wiJJ be made to coordinate/provide radiological support as needed forIBJeinfelder~activities at the IR07/l 8 portion of Hunters Point .... if situations arise which coulcroverextena'Tetra Tech's available resources (i.e., contract driven, etc), resolution through project management, the Navy, etc will be pursued.

For planning purposes - and to clarify specifics as your needs exist today, at what time tomorrow will (R07/18 operations begin - and for what duration? Also, please re-cou.finn the duration of your current schedule and time frames for IR07/18.

I ,a.st, arc you presently on site? I attempted to drop off dosimetry fo~ein felder *tuff earlier last week bul the gale to the field office parking lot was locked. Dosimetry for you (b)(7)(C)

!(b)(7)(C) Iand (b)(?)(C) as been p._ re_p_a-rc-.--a---.

n ....1.-s __.

ready for distribution. (A Radiation Work Permit review an s1 1 o f for 2011 is still needed. ln arallel, I need to further discuss I confirm specifics wirth you pertinent l (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) efore releasing their dosimetry / completing RWP reviews as w...e........- - - - - -

Please advise as to when a time would work for you to address existing needs - or just feel free to stop by if you ' re in the area.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Radiation Safety Officer Representative Directr Jl(C) 415.2 ~0.2143 l Alternate:l(b)(?)(C) 1, Main: 415.671 1990 I Mobile:l(b)(?)(C)

---

~

11 Fax:

REFERENCE 30

, , (b)(7)(C)

Hunters Point: RSOR Observation w - January 2011 Parcel Eat Mill Peninsula Import Pile "as found".... angle #1 unauthorized Water station Staged Vs RCA Jan2011 Parcel Eat Mill Peninsula Import Pile "as found".... angle #2

REFERENCE 31 From: Bowers, Bert SeJt; Tuesday January 18, 2011 8:43 AM

.!9: (b}(7)(C) I

Subject:

RE: Sealed Sources

.. .just now seeing this !

From:IL.. (b_l(7_)(C_) _ ___,

Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:41 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

Sealed Sources Bert, When you get a chance, could you do an inventory of radioactive sources that TtEC owns a1 HPS. I believe we still have a couple Tc-99 sources and a Sr-90/Y-90 source fro (b)(l)(C)

!(b)(7)(C) (locker. And if you could scan a copy of the source certificate paperwork that wou d be great.

Thanks!

l(b)(7)(C) I

. (b)(7)(C)

P .S. ~n chance you have a copy of the source certificates for the sources you sen at Lowry? If you don't, no big deal, but if you already had them available somewhere, if would be help .

l(b)(7)(C)

Direct!(b)(7J:C) !1Fax. 757.461 41461 Cell:l(b)(?)(C)

"""l (b)=(1J=(cJ~ - - - - - , I Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oaks, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wnght Drive I Norfolk, VA 23502 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside Information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the Intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful If you are not the intended recipient, 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.

=

REFERENCE 32 From: ....

l(b_

)(7_)(C_) _ ___,

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:01 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Description of Events Hi .Bert.

I was hoping to have something today. We have a meeting at noon to discuss. I'll see what I can do......ln the meantime, keep working on it.

On the locks: that was the result of trying to get TlDs to issue. I moved SSN documents that I could identify to a locked cabinet. Working on a lock for the door.

Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oaks. Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wnght Dnve I Norfolk VA 23502 www.tetrate.ch.com PLEASE NOTE This message Including any attachments. may 1nclud11 conlldenllal and/or lnsldA 111101 r1111llo11 Any dls1rlbutlo11 01 use ol this communication by anyone other than 1111:: rnte111Jetl 1ec,µierit 1s st11clly piohlb1ted and may lie unlowlul II you are 1101lhe intended t ecipienl. please notify lhe sender tiy replying lo this message anll men deJele 11 hom you, systern

~ Think Green

• Not every email needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesda January 18, 2011 11 :39 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

RE: Description of Events Hi there -

I finally figured out what was preventing me from connecting to the Tetra Tech network just this morning!

I'm still plugging away at this document... been up "off and on" all night. Finally had to make myself break away for a spell. From my perspective regarding level of detail, I could take close to a week to complete just a first stab at this. I know t hat's not reasonable, but how long can you give me based on your needs/ timeframes.... while I will most likely beat it, is a target of noon tomorrow fair?

On another front, I spoke again with )~fl arly this morning... conversation included the RASO topic we discussed yesterday.... she stated a erwards

• in her words "that's important to know thanks for sharing that with me." She went on to say that further discussions involving you and~ ould ensue.

I failed to mention that " locked and secured" portions of my office were forcibly bro~ ~n yesterday... I would recommend that a "key and lock" door knob be installed on the office door at this point.

)(l)(C) f

• f needed, call me a ...(b-)(-?)(_C_) _ __,,(if t hat doesn't work, .__ _ _ ____,

Bert Bert Bowers Radiation Safety~ tative Direct.Cbx,xc) 415.216.2743 I Alternate: XJXc) I Main; 415.671 .1990 I Mobile:!(b)(?)(C)

! I Fax:

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

From: !(b)(7)(C) I Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:53 AM To: Bowers, Bert SUbject: Description of Events Bert, Do you have your statement completed, or an estimated time of completion?

Thanks!

(b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oaks. SlJite 309, 5700 Lake Wright Drive I Norfolk. VA 23502 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message. including any attachments. may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are 'lOt the intended recipient. 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.

fItJ TETRA TECH EC, INC January 31, 2011

SUBJECT:

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Designation of Authorized Users for Contract Task Order 6 Alameda Point, Alameda, CA Materials License No. 29-31396-01 Docket Number 030-38199 Authorized users (A Us) must have adequate training and experience to use, possess, or provide

~ervices involving licensed materials. Duration of training and experience should be commensurate with the expected hazards that may be *e ncountered during routine and emergency condition.c::.

(b)(7)(C)

In accordance with license condition 11 , the has de tennined that the following individuals have the necessary tra1111ng L--,-----:---:;-'

an experience described in Appendix H of rl(:NU:R

)(?)(C)~E-G_*_l5_5_6._ V

_o_lu_m

_e_ l_8_: _ln~.B.o.iiliLet~~:

IBer] Bowers l(b)(?)(C) _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

l(b)(ll(C)

These individuals are hereby designated as authorized users of radioactive material license No.

29-31396-01, for license activities perfonned at Alameda Point in Alameda, California during the execution of contract task order 6.

(b)(7)(C)

- 1 etra Tech EC, Inc.

Twin Oaks I, Suite 309 5700 Lake Wright Drive Norfolk, VA 23505 TWIN OAKS I , SUITE 309, 5700 LAKE WRIGHT DRIVE ,

NORFOLK,VA 23502 TEL 757.461.3768 FAX 757,461.4148 WWW. TTE'Cl,COM

REFERENCE 38 Bert Bowers Goals at Alameda Project

./ 1. Develop a series of training briefs on all Alameda Site specific radiological SOPs for use at Alameda.

/ 2. Upload trainlng records, sealed source inventories, MOU, dosimetry and weekly survey records for Alameda onto the TtEC NRC record sharepoint site.

3. Work with the RSOR to Monitor Radiological subcontractor costs through the PO tracker.

/ 4. Assist the RSOR in completing daily radiological reports to the Navy.

. / 5. Assist the RSOR in other administrative functions as required.

6. Maintain a visible, physical presence during radiation work so that you are accessible to the

/ RCTs and radiation workers; and so you can more quickly Identify and address any c_ oncerns. If you identify concerns during work, address them immediately, In person, with the RCTs onsite.

/ 7. Serve as the on-shift HP Supervisor for the Alameda project, ensuring compliance with our NRC license, RASO/Navy requirements, and Work Plan requirements.

8. In the event you Identify a concern, verify that the concern conflicts with existing work plans, SOPs or written guidance. Once the conflict has been verified as a valld concern, address It at the lowest level. If It cannot be resolved, then continue elevating your concern up the chaln--of-command undl It is resolved. While you always have the right to contact RASO or the NRC directly, resolution of issues withl11 TtEC is always preferred, since It will take personnel within TtEC to correct whatever deficiency may exist. Start resolution of issues with the Rad Control

• on wo ker. Elevate issues u the chain-of-command In the followln order.

(b)(7)(C)

--7~ 9. Do not enter into shouting matches with other site personnel. W~lle tensions and pressures may make this dlfficult, as the HP Supervisor, you need to maintain a cool and calm demeanor through resolution of issues and concerns.

10. Operate within the budget established for the HP Supervisor position at Alameda. Do not exceed this budget without first getting the PM's approval for the additional hours.

(b)(7)(C)

/_ z. s-: I I } /'-'UI ~ .f--<-'~ ~ .r-'"-<-

L ~ c--- 1) ~

.,.~,* .

REFERENCE 39 From: Bowers, Bert Seflt: Wednesda ebrtJary 09, 2011 3:30 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Cc:

SUI:>...,,

~~:""l"f'll'r.':-;:Ch::::-a

-:n~ges to Corporate Procedures (b)(7)(C)

Per our phone conversation Just completed - and as dctaih!d below, lhc "Changes 10 CorpoMc Proceaures" notice generated by (b)(7) for review with lhe HPS RAD staff has heen addressed.

(C)

Thanks for con1imung!

Bert Bowers Su ervislng ESQ Scientist l Naval Air Station AlamedaD 7)(Cl Cell: (b)(7)(C) I Main: 510.523.4825 1Fax: 510.523.40631 Alternate: x Bert. owers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com From: l~ (b-)(7)-(C

, -l- - = - - -

Sent: Monday, Ja!! nu~a~.J:1.!=!

0&..-'l.u..i.....i.a..L..J~- ,

To: Bowers, Bert; (b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Chang...:J..~--=:r.:,!'f:':=:r.u:-::res ~ - ....

As a follow up to an earlier e-maiJ: Our NRC icensc requires that the licensee's staff is trained in changes to procedures prior to implementation." I have ult.ached a powerpoinl highlighting the changes lo lbe corporate procedures. .By and large, the ob.anges reDect what our current practices are. If you could please provide training to RCTs and J IP supervisors using this iofonnation (or a different version providing essentially the same information),

document the training via a sign-in sheet, and forward copies of sign off sheets (or equivalent) to me, that would be fantastic.

AJso, we have a new audit checklist that I will be using during annual internal audits. I've attached that as well, so hopefully nobody is surprised during audits.

I know everybody is busy, and I hate to drop this on everyone, but it's one of the things we need co do .. ...

I Give me a call atlL.,(b-)(-7)(-C-) _ _ if you have any questions, comments or concerns....

Thanks!

Direct: (b)(7)(C) I Fax* 757.461.4 148 I Cell: (b){l)(C)

---====---,

l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC t ESQ Twin Oaks, S1J/te 309, 5700 Lake Wright Drive I Norfolk, VA 23502 j www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE. This message. including any attachments. may include confidential and/or Inside information. Any dlstribulion or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended rectplent Is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful II you are nol the intended recipient. please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete ii from your system

~ Think Green

• Not every email needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursday. February 10, 201112:15 PM To: !(b)(7)(C)  !

subject: Alameda: TIEC NRC Record Sharepolnt Site

'(b)(7)(C) I In regards to the subject Jine above, 1 need a recommended navigation pathway in order to gain initial access the referenced site.

Thanks in advance, Berl Bert Bowers I 5m~ervislng ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station Atarnedt Cell:!(b)(7)(C) j I Main* 510 523.4825 I Fax: 510. 523.4063 l Alternate~ u c, Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com L--------

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

=

(b)(7)(C) l From:L..- - , - - - ~

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:29 AM

Subject:

Daily ESQ Topics 3-3-2011 Stress in the workplace Daily ESQ Topic March 3, 2011 STRESS IN THE WORKPLACE Recently released research from the New York-based Families and Work Institute found 41 percent of workers who responded to a survey on workplace stress reported experiencing stress "often" or "very often* on the job.

Although small doses of stress are not harmful, situations in which stress is very high or constant can create serious problems, according to NIOSH.

Far from being a mere annoyance, stress can play a larger role in more serious, chronic illnesses when it persists for long periods of time, studies suggest. Research indicates stress can increase an employee's risk of developing cardiovascular disease and musculoskeletal disorders, particularly in the back and upper extremities. There also is growing concern that high levels of workplace stress can increase on-the-job injuries by interfering with safe work practices.

Dismissing concerns of stress in the workplace may be detrimental to the health and well-being of the workforce.

Stress and your health The link between high levels of workplace stress and the development of cardiovascular disease seems to have garnered the most attention from researchers.

One of the factors linking the two may be the propensity for stressed individuals to make unhealthy life choices. Lyle H. Miller has been studying stress for 30 years. Currently, he directs the Bio Behavioral Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused on stress and behavioral health, and is chairman and CEO of Boston-based Stress Directions Inc., which provides consulting services to employers.

In his work with police officers, Miller found certain measures workers take to control their stress can exacerbate the issue. "They drink too much coffee on the job," he said.

"And one of the things that coffee does is it liberates adrenaline from the adrenal gland, which is part of the stress response. So they raise their level artificially."

Because stress does not magically disappear when an officer is off duty, he or she may look for ways to manage it at home. "Often, one of the solutions for the officer is, Well, just a little drink will calm me down.

And if one works, well, maybe two would work even better,'" Miller said.

A 2007 University of Melbourne study examining the relationship between smoking habits and job stress found men who experience "moderate* or "extreme* job stress were twice as likely to smoke as other workers.

Yet the negative health effects of stress are not limited to poor lifestyle choices.

A 2008 study of British civil servants found that people with the most severe levels of job stress had a 68 percent higher risk of developing heart disease. Although this was linked, in part, to the stressed workers' propensity for unhealthy foods and forgoing exercise, biological factors were identified as well.

The stressed workers were found to have lower heart rate variability and increased levels of cortisol, which can damage heart and blood vessels. Adjusting for lifestyle factors did not impact the relationship between stress levels and cardiovascular health.

NIOSH warns that the effects of job stress on chronic diseases can be difficult to determine because these diseases can take a long time to develop and are influenced by factors other than stress. Past research links stress not only to cardiovascular disease, but also to musculoskeletal disorders, psychological disorders, suicide, cancer, ulcers and impaired immune function.

Common workplace stressors Rather than pointing to individual personality traits that make a person more prone to stress, NIOSH contends that working conditions play a primary role in causing job stress.

Paul J. Rosch, M.D., is president of the American Institute of Stress, a Yonkers, NY-based nonprofit organization. Rosch agrees with NIOSH's assessment and points to the following as common causes of workplace stress:

• Task design: Heavy workload, long work hours, infrequent breaks, routine tasks, not enough time to complete a job

• Management style: Little participation in making decisions, little control over the finished product, poor communication, lack of family-friendly policies, little recognition for good job performance

• Interpersonal relationships: Poor social environment and lack of support from co-workers or supervisors; prejudice or discrimination because of race, religion, gender or age

• Work roles: Conflicting or uncertain job expectations, too much responsibility, too many bosses or "hats to wear"

• Career concerns: Job insecurity; lack of opportunity for growth, advancement or promotion

• Environmental concerns: Unpleasant or dangerous physical conditions such as crowding, noise, air pollution, ergonomic issues and fear of exposure to toxic chemicals "Also, many times, the issues of stress at work are really not issues with work per se," Miller said. Not only can a worker's personal Jife impact one's levels of workplace stress, but "it has to do with other things that impact on work like, for instance, traffic. By the time the person gets there, their level of stress has gone up considerably, so it just takes a few more things on the job to really trigger some unfortunate kinds of reactions."

Although certain high-risk, fast-paced industries may be more prone to stress, Steven Sauter, coordinator of NIOSH's Work Organization Stress-Related Disorders Program and co-author of NIOSH's document "Stress ... at work," said the institute believes stress results from the job itself, rather than from the worker. "We don't think so much about the personality of the individual worker," he said. "We look at the job context and what it is the job requires of them and the types of stressful working conditions that employees encounter in the workplace."

Miller says personality plays a large role in the level of stress a worker may experience. "For example,* he said, "if you don't particularly like people, then stay out of retair sales."

Some indicators point to stress becoming more prevalent as the economy worsens and more workers fear unemployment. "Numerous surveys confirm that the recent progressive downturn in the economy has resulted in a corresponding sharp increase in job stress due to job loss, and job insecurity as a result of layoffs and downsizing,* Rosch said.

Warning signs of stress "The first warning signs of stress are primarily emotional, and anger is one of the first ones," Miller said.

When workers find themselves feeling these emotions more quickly or more intensely than they normally

would, it is an indicator of high stress levels.

"Muscle contraction headaches, or tension headaches, are one of the really early physical signs," he said, as are intestinal issues such as heartburn or gastroesophageal reflux disease. Additionally, according to the American Institute of Stress, workers suffering from stress may experience shortness of breath, hair loss, changes in appetite, fatigue or panic attacks.

Miller draws a distinction between acute stress and the more dangerous chronic stress. "When you're under acute stress, you know you're stressed ," he said. "But when it's chronic stress, it becomes so much a part of the landscape of your life that you don't even realize it's there and it just grinds on and on and on. It just wears people out, wears their immune system out so that they develop all kinds of diseases. "

The impact on safety Although the link between stress and worker health is becoming stronger through a wide range of studies, the impact stress has on the safety of workers is not as well-known.

"The data are weaker for injuries [being related to stress) than they are for illnesses," Sauter said. "But I would say the weight of the evidence points to a linkage between both stress and illness and workplace injury."

NIOSH calls for more research, yet cites "growing concern" that stress can lead to incidents by interfering with safe work practices. In a recent survey of nurses conducted by the American Nurses Association in Silver Spring, MD, 80 percent said on-the-job stress levels impact workplace safety, and 59 percent of nurses said when they feel pressured they are more inclined to work faster and take shortcuts.

"Accident levels go up dramatically when stress climbs,* Miller said, pointing out stress also can increase the incidence of workplace bullying and violence.

Steps workers can take to manage stress In addition to workplace modifications, NIOSH recommends workers try to better manage their job stress levels by taking the following actions:

• Develop a strong social support system in the workplace. A co-worker or other ally who is available to talk through problems can help put things in perspective and minimize stress.

• Take a break to avoid "burnout." Even something as brief as a walk around the block can help clear your head and distance you from stressors, enabling you to return to the job with a fresh outlook.

• Set realistic expectations for the amount of work you can complete in the time you have available. Do not attempt to take on more than you can reasonably handle.

• Recognize you are not perfect and every minor detail in your work will not be perfect either.

• Try to remain organized and keep your work area free of clutter, which can add to stress.

• Avoid negativity and negative people, and try to maintain a positive attitude about your work and your co-workers.

Reference:

http://www. nsc. org/safe11 *hea/th/Pages/3. J1Stressintheworkplacefeature. aspx

• Please note that the Daily ESQ Topic emails are meant to briefly describe issues that we may encounter both on and offthe job. While the tips do include a substantial amount of helpful hints and information there is always more that could be added iffurther researchetl They are

!!f!.! designed to he a full informational publication .on a particular topic a11d t/1erejote I encourage n11yone who is seeking extra information to ple,ue research it at tl,eiJ* leisure.

il(b)(7)(C)

Direct (b)(?)(C) r_

Direct Fa)( *... I x,_xc_>___ Cell* l(b)(l)(C)

Tetra Tech l FC 2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 400 I Arhngtori, Virgmla 22201 I WWw.tetratechfc.com (b)(l)(C)

PLEASE NOTE: This message, lncludlng any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside Information, Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the Intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

your If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from syslef!'l.

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

=

REFERENCE 40 From: Bowers, Bert Se

• ebruary 09, 2011 9:12 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

Sut;  : aval Air Station Alameda: Tetra Tech "PO Tracker, RAD EMAC TASK 6, Site 17

• Seaplane Lagoon (WE: 020411)

E]

Since the "long term" duration of my Alameda assi~rnen yet to be dete1mined, I would suggest that J be added to your <listribution, but leave (b)(7)(:::) n as well.. .. at least until further notice.

AlamedD Thanks for the cordial "Welcome"!

Bert Bowers etvising ESQ Scientis-t I Naval Air Station 1 Cell: (b)(7)(C) I Main- 510.523 4825 l Fax. 510.523.40631 Alternate.

Bert. owers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC *I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

//III/IJIIIII/II//I/I//IIIIIII//IIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIII/II/IIII/II/I From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Th rch 31, 2011 3:26 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Cc: L - - - - -

Subject:

Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment p )(7)(C) I In reference to the subject line above, this correspondence confinns today' s 2:47 PM phone notification that tomorrow, April I, 2011 will conclude Tetra Tech EC's support needs specific to Project No. 106.40440006 (RAD EMAC Task 6, IR-17 Seaplane Lagoon).

Regards, Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

=

From: Bowers, Bert Sent~ Thurs ruary 10, 201112:22 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

SubJect: RE: Alameda: TIEC NRC Reoord Sharepoint Site (b)(7)(C)

Thanks for the link - I' II go visit it!

Regarding access to Alameda S

• I was directed yesterday by (b)(l )(C) i.e., so as to work off current SOP's). (bl(7J(C) pointed out a "bard copy" om er w *ch inc u es all active Alameda RAD SOP's for wor er current and active contracts. There is also a CD in the front cover w/ the same in PDF format. To "make life easier", it would be nice to access Alameda SOP's in word format (from where ever such a source might be) so as lo more easily import and modify for training purposes .... from your end, m* something handy in that regard?

If not, I'll keep digging some more when I see (b)(?)(C) again.

Thanks, Bert From: (b)(l )(C)

Sent: ursday, February 10, 201110:38 AM To: Bowers, Bert Subject RE: Alameda: TtfC NRC Recnrd Sharepolnt Site Bert, Here you go: https://intranet.tetratecb.com/eci/NRC/default.aspx By the way: Have you had a chance to put together any training notes on Alameda procedures yet? (I'd like to be able to show the NRC we're formalizing our training a little more. ....)

Thanks!

((b)(7)(C) l Direct (b)(7)(C) I Fax: 757.*61 ~148 1 Ce!l (b)(l )(C)

Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oak&, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wtlghl Drive I Norfolk, VA 23502 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This rm,ssaye, Including any attachments, may Include confidenhal and/or inside 1nfo1ma11on. Any distribution or use of this communtcatlon by anyone other than tho Intended recipient is shictly prohibited and may be unlawful, If yoLI are not the Intended recipient, please notify the sende1 by replying to this message and then delete It from your system Think Green - Not every email needs to be printed.

RAD Safety Topic:

Fires and Radioactive Materials Victoria. tx: Truck carrying radioacti¥e material crashes, catches fire June 15, 2010: A pickup carrying radioactive material crashed and caught fjre early Monday morning.

The pickup crashed with another truck, which carried a crane. No one was injured. The truck fire was contained to the engine area, but a hazardous material unit was called out to conduct radiation tests.

The tests were negative, according to a press release from the Victoria County Sheriff's Office. The truck, owned by PetroChem Inspection Services in Corpus Christi, carried an X-ray machine used in oil fields and *chemical plants. It was carrying radium 192, said Victoria Fire Department Battalion Chief Roger Hempel, but none of the material escaped the truck. {Story by Erica Rodriguez of The Victoria Advocate)

Hunters Point Shipyard According to the site Historical Radiological Assessment (HRA) document, significant portions of the shipyard are 'Categorized by the US Navy as Impacted areas due to prior activities confirmed or suspected to involve the use and/or presence of radioactive materials subject to regulated control.

This p'resentation pertains to a recent event that occurred in an*impacted portion of the Hunters Point Shipyard referred to as Parcel E.

Historically significant activities associated with *the Hunters Point Parcel E sector involve its use as a designated burial location for various forms/types of site generated waste. Examples of the waste involved include (but is not limited to) products classified as chemical, petroleum, biological, asbestos, and radiological concerns. A vagrant apparently touched off a brush fire on or around Aug. 16, 2000 in the Parcel E landfill which transformed into an underground fire that burned for three months, re-igniting four times.

Because of radiologically based concerns associated in large part with the impacted landfill, all of Parcel E is presently designated as a Radiologically Controlled Area. Non-Impacted roadways are established throughout Parcel E as Indicated in the picture above. To establish the road, a heavy duty liner was first placed where the roadway was to be constructed, followed by the placement of non-impacted import (sand and gravel) to serve as the road building material. Currently, Parcel E roadway access is restricted only to authorized site personnel. The road is also routinely maintained to limit potholes and accelerated deterioration.

Example of a radiological controls posting at Hunters Point Shipyard as established along active portions of the non-impacted Parcel E roadway.

The event:

During the early morning hours of November 24, 2010, representatives of Shaw Environmental informed Tetra Tech staff of a fire observed burning along a portion of the Parcel E shoreline referred to as "Metal Debris Reef"

The weather conditions near the area of the fire were calm; clear skies prevailed and temperatures were in the mid to upper 40's.

(b)(7)(C)

Upon arrival of Tetra Tech staff to the scene, Shaw personnel were at the source of the fire with a water truck staged. Attempts to extinguish the fire were underway.

Closer inspection revealed that the fire was centered on some insulated cable dumped along the shoreline and situated directly under a keel block. Multiple footprints were also observed along nearby portions of the shoreline at the water's edge. Vandals (aka: "Copper Miners" ) were immediately suspected (i.e., as supported by past events of attempted theft in abandoned buildings involving the removal of copper wiring.

Additional information: The impacted area of the fire is subject to Tetra Tech jurisdiction under its NRC issued materials license.

QUESTION:

In responding to a similar event - and under like conditions / circumstances at Alameda - what considerations / actions are required to be addressed and under what general categories would those considerations/ actions fall? (Hint: Look at the pictures to follow)

(b)(7/(C)

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda March 03, 201111:05 AM To: (b)(7)(C) subject: RE: Alameda: RAD SOP Power Point Presentation (SOP Drafts 1-4)

OK... in parallel, will soliciJ(b)(l)(C) l'field based" feedback / buy in as to what continues to be pared down from existing packages ... being that so much (actually all) of this materia) is proceduralJy driven! Thanks for the quick turnaroundf BB From: !(b)(7)(C) I Sent Thursday, March 03, 201110:57 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Alameda: RAD SOP Power Point Presentation (SOP Drafts 1-4)

Looks good!

l(b)(7)(C)

Direct:l(b)(7)(C) !1Fax 757 461 4148 I Cell:l(b)(7)(C)

• ---,---====-------1 (b)(7)(C) . -*- -

Tetra Tech EC I ESQ I I Twin Oaks, Suite 309, 5700 Lako Wright Drive Norfoll<, VA 23502 www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: Th,s message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribu\lon or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your syslern.

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

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursday, March 03, 20111:54 PM To:!(b)(7)(C) I subject: RE: Alameda: RAD SOP Power Point Presentation {SOP Drafts 1-4)

(b)(7)(C)

Working off the examples provided this morning, attached is a draft for SOP 2 (specific only to instrument efficiency determinations), It's down to 5 slides and reflects the same Power Point template used for Corporate NLP-0 l . Before proceeding with the others, what do you think?

Thanks, BB'

urs ay, 3, 2011 8:10 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Alameda: RAD SOP Power Point Presentation (SOP Drafts 1-4)

Hi Bert, See if you can streamline them a little further. Preferably 4-5 slides per topic. I've attached one with a few slides cut out, and adjustments to some infonnation from the SOP that was off a little. I've also attached an example of some slides for a corporate procedure.

!(b)(7)(C) I l(b)(7)(C)

Direct: -l(b_)(_l)_

(C-) - -iiFax: 757.461 41481 CEll.,(b)(l)(C) l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech l!C I ESQ Twin Oaks, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wright Drive f Norfolk VA 23502 I www.telratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, Including any attachments may Include conf11,1ent1al and/or lnside 1nrorrnatlon. Any d1stribullon or use of this communication by anyone other than the ,mended rec1p1ent is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete It from your system.

J.J Think Green

• Not evefY emall needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda February 24, 20111:32 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Sut; D SOP Power Point Presentation (SOP Drafts 1-4)

Hj l(b)(7)(C)

'Please see attachments as provided. Presentation breakdown is as follows:

SOP 1 l part SOP2 4parts SOP 3 1 part Sop 4 2 parts AH presentations closely mirror procedural guidance "as is" ..... also, none should take more than 15 minutes to complete ..... I'U await your feedback!

Thanks, Bert Bowers I Supervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station Alamedt = J Cell: (b)(7)(C) I Main: 510.523.4825 I Fax: 510.523.4063 1Alternate: bXJXCl Bert. owers era ech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda. CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

From: Bowers, Bert Se : rch 15, 2011 2:28 PM Toi (b)(7)(C)

Cc:1-.._ _ ___,

Subject:

RE: RSRS PO Tracker "Burn Rates"....

Will do .... thanks for clarifying! BD urn Rates" ....

Berl, There is no issue with an individual item going over the limit identified on the tracker. Let me know if t he total cost gets over 70%.

(b)(7)(C)

Thanks, (b)(7)(C)

Direct; (b)(?)(C) Fax- 510.523-4063 I Cen:j(b)(l)(C)

!(b)(7)(C)

Te! :h I Department 2000 Kollman Circle

• Unit C , I Alameda CA 94501 I www_tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE. This message, including any attachments, may Include confidential and/or inside informatron. Any distribution or use ot this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, 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: Bowers, Bert Se~t: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:22 PM T~)(b)(7)(C) I SUL~  :.t: RSRS PO f racker "Burn Rates" ....

l(b)(7)(C)

As of today's " PO Tracker" update, there's a field in the RSRS category that now raises "near term" flags (as of this week and as follows for on:

(b)(4)

Based on the information above, are we held strictly to each inctividual line item dollar value .... or to the "not to exceed total cost" bottom line amount?

Thanks, Bert=

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda Mar :41 PM To: (b)(4),(b)(7)(C)

Subject:

Alameda: SOP-6, Orum Handling Procedure:.

l(b)(4),(b}(7)(C)

In regards to the subject line above, Section 5.5 of the referenced procedure reads as follows:

"If individual containers suspected ofcontainu,g discarded laboratory chemicals, reagents, or otlterpotentially dangerous materials in small volumes ore found, the Site Superintendent and SHSS, who will possess the necessary training to act as tire Site Radiation Safety Officer, will be notlf.ied immediately prior to any removal or opening of the containers or bottles. If the Site Superintendent and/or SHSS approve the ha11dlil1g ofthese containen.-, they will be handled with extreme caution. Until otherwise iden_tified or categorized, they will be considered exp/Qsive or shock sensitive wastes, and will be handled as described in the section above."

Question # 1 What is the intent of: "the Site S11J1erintendent and SHSS, who will possess the necessary training to act as the Site Radlation Safety Officer"??? (Do either, or both of you assume dual roles as "Site Superintendent" and/or "SHSS" ...... or, does the recognized "Site Superintendent" and "SHSS possess "necessary training" to act as Site RSO?)

Question #2 Likewise, what is the intent of: "Until otherwise identified or categorized, they will be considered explosive or shock sensitive wastes, and will be handled as described in the section above"? (FYI, ' 'the section above" as provided in the procedure refers to "Containers Containing Radioactive Waste", not "Containers Containing Explosive Shock-sensitive Waste").

Just needed your lake on it in case I'm missing something, there's more to this than is obvious, etc ...

Thanks, Bert

=

From: Bowers, Bert

. LUJ.&WL......c.11:11.1.L.i.....;&.....Lu.at..J~~ AM Se ....,._

To: (b)(7)(C)

CC:

rum Handling Proc.edures (b)(7)(C)

Thanks for the clarification/timely turnaround; I didn't think you'd agree w/ the verbiage "as currently listed"! I'll begin the FC (b)(?)(C) s requested ... (sorry about the "typos" -

was asked at the Jast minute to get (b)(?)(C) o and hurried to get this out before leaving .... hope that didn' t lead you too ar astray early on)!

Bert Bowers I suyervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station AlamedD)ox > *

• fety Cell:!(b)(7)(C)  ! Main: 510.523 4825 I Fax: 510.523.4063 1Alternate Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com Fr om~(b)(?)(C)

Sent: Thursday, ,;.,w,..............................,,..:44 PM To: Bowers Bert* (b)(?)(C)

Cc: (b)(7)(C)

Burt, You are referencing SOP-8. SOP-6 is the SOP for sampling procedures for radiological surveys.

SOP-8 is drum handling.

Answer to question #1 The Site Superintendent and SHSS, don t sscss the necessary training to act as the Site Radiation Safety Officer. Technically (b)(?)(C) and t do possess tl1c necessary training to act as the Site Superintendent and SHSS. However, we do not assume these roles.

I believe that this should have been v.Titten to state that the Site Superintendent and SHSS should be trained as UXO personnel not as a RSOR. This is an obvious error that was most likely a relic of a previous project. In addition, the Site Superintendent and SHSS are not trained to a level

beyond awareness in UXO. Therefore, reference as to the training level of the Site Superintendent and SHSS should be removed.

Answer to question #2

( agree that the section immediately preceding section 5.5 is called "5.4 Containers Containing Radioactive Waste". Section 5.3 is called "Containers Containing Explosive Shock-sensitive Waste" and ends at the top of the page in which the reference states "as described in the section above". This reference is confusing. J do not like to reference previous sections with statements that refer to physical locations such as "above". This reference should state "as described in section 5.3".

Conclusion and direction fonvard Thank you for pointing these deficiencies out. Please be *n an F address the required changes. If you need help in the FCR process, contact (b)(7)(C) with questions.

Thank you, Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality Naval Air Station, 1090 Y, W. Tower Ave I Alameda, CA 94501 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, 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: Bowers, Bert Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:11 AM To: !(b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

RE: Alameda: SOP-8, Drum Handling Procedures

... not a proble (b)(?)(C) .. as I often times encounter tbe."Burt's", l'd be willing to bet your

"'l(b..,..)(""

7)""' ) ...,pikcwise (c""" get s 1s s are of the. "Bert's"!

Bert rs Su ervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station AlamedD 7xc) *

• fety Cell: (b)(7)(C) Mam: 510.523.4825 I Fax: 510.523.40631 Alternate:

Bert. owers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com From:!(b)(7)(C)

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:01 AM To: Bowers Bert Cc:!(b)(7)(C) ~ I Su6Jecf: R : Alameda: SOP-8, Drum Handling Procedures Bert, I apologize for thei "Burt" that is how my [~?) name is spelled.

Thanks, l...(b)(7)(C)

I Naval Air Station Alamed (b)(7)(C)

.__-=~--

Cen !(b)(7)(C) II Main: 510.5231582 I Fax: 510.523.4063 I Alternate Cell:l(b)(?)(C) r )(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality Naval Air Station, 1090 Y, W. Tower Ave I Alameda, CA 94501 I PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include conficlential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than lhe intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 201111:34 AM To: !(b)(7)1:c) I

Subject:

FW: Alameda: SOP-8, Drum Handling Procedures, Section 5.5 (b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above and the informalion to follow....

Present wordjng in SOP-8, Section 5.5:

"If i11,dividual containers suspected ofcontaini11g discarded laboratory chemicals, reagents, or other potentially dangerous materials in small volumes are found, the Site Superintendent and SHSS, who will possess the necessary trai11ing to act as the Site Radiation Safety Officer, will be notif,ed immediately prior to any removal or opening ofthe containers or bottles. If the Site Superintende11t and/or SHSS approve the handling of these containers, they will be handled with extreme caution. Until otherwise identified or categorized, they will be considered explosive or shock sensitive wastes, and will be handled as described in the section above."

Proposed "FCR 04/06-1 1" modification to information above:

"During any radiologically controlled course ofdiscovery involving single or multiple containers known or suspected to possess laboratory based chemicals, reagents, or like materials, the affected area(s) will be immediately secured and the site Radiation Safety Officer Representative (RSOR) promptly notifiedprior to proceeding further with assigned tasks (e.g., removal or opening operations, etc). lfthe RSOR, with Site Superintendent and SHSS concurrence, approves further handling actions to resume, the container(s) in question will be care/ully processed using pre-established protocolfor explosive/shock-sensitive waste (unless the material is confirmed to be different and subsequently re-categorized). ,~

...please advise if you're OK with the proposed modification (after which I'll incorporate into the referenced FCR) - or feel free to mark up / return as necessary. I' ll run with whatever you send back!

Than.ks.

Bert Bowers I suyervising ESQ Sc ien1ist l Naval Air Station Alameda Radiation Safety Cell:!(b)(7)(C) I Main* 510 523.4825 I Fax. 510 523.4063 I Alternate: x, c>

Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I EMironmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

meda: SOP-8, Drum Handling Procedures, Section 5.5

....many thanks, will run w/ it!

Bert Bowers Su ervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station Alamedt : Jfety Cell: (b)(7)(C) I Main: 510.523.48251 Fax: 510.523.4063 J Alternate: :xi C)

Bert. e ratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Clrcre, Unit CI Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com From:l1... )<7_)(C_) _ _.....,

(b_

sent= Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:39 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Alameda: SOP-8, Drum Handling Procedures, Section 5.5 I'm okay with this.

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality Naval Air Station. 1090 IS W. Tower Ave I Alameda, CA 94501 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

JtJ Think Green - Not every email ne-eds to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Wednesda March 30 201112: 17 PM To: (b)(7)(C) 7 Su6 owerPoint Presentation Drafts for "-l(b_)_< _l<_c _) _ _ _ _.....,

l(b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above, attached are half oflbe PowcrPoint review drafts for RAD SOP's 1-7 (eighteen total). The hreakdown by lillo is as follows:

SOP- I: Radiation and Contllmination Surveys (Genernl Requirements, 3 slides)

Radiation and Contamination Surveys (Exposure Dose Rate Surveys, 3 slides)

Radiation and Contamination Surveys (l<emovablc Contruninution Survey - Swipes, 4 :;lidcs)

Radiation and t:011tarninaliun Surveys (Removable Co11tnmination Survey* I.AWs, 4 slides)

Radiation an.d Contwnination Surveys (Alpba/lleta Contamination SW'veys, 4 slides)

Radiation and Contamination Surveys (Gamma Surveys, 4 slides)

SOP-2: Preparation of Ponablc Radiation and Contamination Survey Instruments (Calibration, 4 slides)

Preparation of Portnble Radiation and Contamination Survey Instruments (Background Determinations, 4 slides)

Preparation of Portable Radiation and Contamination Survey Instruments (Chi-Square Test, 4 slides)

Prepardtion of Portable Radiation and Contamination Survey Instruments (Instrument Efficiency, 5 slides)

SOP-3: Release of Materials and Equipment fi'om Radiologically Controlled Areas (4 slides)

SOP-4: Radiological Records (3 slides)

SOP-5: Radfological Protective Clothing Selection, Monitoring, and Decontamination (Donning and Doffing, 4 slides)

SOP-5: Radiological Protective Clothing Selection, Monitoring, and Decontamination (Monitoring Personnel, 4 slides)

SOP-5: Radiological Protective Clothing Selection, Monitoring, and Decontamination (Personnel Contamination and Decon, 4 slides)

SOP-6: Sampling Procedures for Radiological Surveys (4 slides)

SOP-7: Decontamination of Equipment and Tools (Initial Preparation and Planning, 4 slides)

SOl'-7: Docorrt.acninution of Equipment and Tools (Removable/ Fixed Decont:u11im1tion llJld Follow-up, 4 slides)

Jnfonnation within each package consists of 2-5 slides (pcrlI[}and echoes- in an attempt to be all Inclusive" - established procedural protocol. In that regard, please ad\*ise if you're good to go with the content; or identify what (if anything) you prefer to delete and/ or expand on, modify, etc! Once r receive your feedback. necessary steps to get a "fli.naJ Dr.ill" out to Virginia will begin]

Thanks, Bert Bowers I Sul?ervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station Alameda,1.,1;i.i.!S,lLLillWJ:u:1.i~ ~

Ce!l:i(b\(7)/C} ] 1Main: 510.523.48251 Fax: 510.523.40631 Alternate; Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit CI Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

=

REFERENCE 41 From: ! (b)(7)(C) I Sent:riday, April 01, 2011 4:28 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment Bert, 1 w:iJl notify lhe HR Rep in the west Thank you.

l(b)(7)(C)

Direcd (b)(l)(C) I Main. 973.630 8000 I Fax: 973.630.8526 I Cell l(b)(7)(C)

L.-----'

l(b)(7)(C)

(b)(lXC)

Tetra Tech f Human Resources 1000 The American Road I Morris Plains, NJ 07950 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, Including any attachments, may anclucie confidential andlor inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawfuL If you are not the intended reciprent, please notify the sender by rep,Ymg to thrs message and lhen detete ii from your system.

~ Think Green

• Not every emall needs to be printed.

rt Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment Tl1e correspondence to t.oJJow 1.s fi*or yow* 101om1ation . " . as suggested by (b)(7)(C)

Regards,

.;;u~ ervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station Alameda l Radiation Safety

• ,.;;;..;:=~i..;S I Main* 510 523.4825 I Fax* 510 523 4063 I Alternate: l(bx1xc> I

=~:<=~=""'t"""etra=t,.,,,e:::. c""

h.'""c:::.o=m . _

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda March 31, 2011 3:26 PM To: (b)(7)(C)

Cc: .___ _ ____.

Subject:

Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment (b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above, this correspondence confirms today's 2:47 PM phone notification that tomorrow, April 1, 2011 will conclude Tetra Tech EC's support needs specific to Project No. 106-40440006 (RAD EMAC Task 6, lR- J 7 Seaplane Lagoon).

Regards, Bert Bo ers Su ervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station AlamedaD c) *

• ety Cell: (b)(7)(C) I Main: 510.523.4625 I Fax: 510.523.4063 I Alternate:

Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

=

REFERENCE 42 duplicative of previously provided records

REFERENCE 43 duplicative of previously provided records

REFERENCE 44 From: ..  !(b._

)(7~l(.;,.

Cl_ _ __.

Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 8:58 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Daily ESQ Topics 4-1-2011 Japans Radiation Effects on The U.S.

Thank you Berl l actually thought about sending it after a c-0nversation I bad with !(b)(7 )(C) i,ho was so confused from listening to hed (b)(7)(C) ~ivc their "educated op1ruons". i:fo 1 thought [ would research it for her. Once l did 1 figured it was a great topic for a)} of us!

l(b)(7)(C)

Direct: !(b)(l)(C) !Direcl Fa~: 70:.-387-55761 Ce11 j(b)(?)(C) l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I FC 2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 400 I Arhnglon, \lug1nia 22201 I www.tetratechfc com (b)(J)(C)

I PLEASE NOTE: This message, Including any attachments, may include confidential and/or Inside lnfonnation. Any distribution or use of this communication l>y anyone other than the Intended 19clpfent Is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. ff you are not the Intended recipient, please notify t he sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

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

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Friday, April 01, 201111:54 AM To~(b)(7)(c*, l

Subject:

RE: Daily ESQ Topics 4-1-2011 Japans Radiation Effects on The U.S.

Bravo (b)(?)(C)

Well worded, accurately presented, and obviously conveyed by someone who knows what they' re talking about. ... having witnessed all the vicious terminology abuses and inaccurate facts frequentJy being conveyed across the television, radio, inteme~ etc, it's refreshing for a change to come across an article like this!!

Bert Bowers Su ervislng ESQ Scientist I Radiation Safety Cell: (b)(7)(C)

Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com I Main: 864.483.17891 Fax: 650.376.3719 J Alternate:

D Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com

From: !(bi(7)(C) I Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 4:28 AM

Subject:

Dally ESQ Topics 4-1*2011 Japans Radiation Effects on The U.S.

Daily ESQ Topic April 1, 2011 JAPANS RADIATION EFFECT ON THE U.S.

Radiation Dispersal from Japan and the Effect on U.S. Workers Efforts continue in Japan to contain the release of airborne radioactive contamination from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi power plant On March 17, 2011 , President Obama, speaking outside the White House, stated "We do not expect harmful levels of radiation to reach the United States, whether it's the West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories in the Pacific...Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health experts do not recommend that people in the United States take precautionary measures beyond staying informed."

[More ... ]

Radiation occurs in many forms at low levels as a part of everyday life, from residual cosmic radiation in the atmosphere to medical applications such as x-rays and CT scans. Taking extraordinary steps to prevent exposure to radiation in the absence of a known risk can create problems of its own. For example, potassium iodine pills, which are one such preventive measure, can cause intestinal upset, allergic reactions, and other symptoms, and should only be taken on the advice of emergency management officials, public health officials, or your doctor.

OSHA is working with other federal agencies to monitor domestic reports of radiation concerns and provide up-to.date worker protection information. This includes working jointly with NIOSH on a worker information page. This page provides information to help workers, employers, and occupational health professionals regarding the release of airborne contamination from the damaged Japanese power plant. If you have further questions, ple~se contact the OSHA hotline at 1-800-321-0SHA (6742) I TTY 1-877-889-5627.

Incident-specific Information

• Frequently Asked Questions About the Japan Nuclear Crisis (62 KB PDF, 3 pages]. This is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) document addressing common questions on radiation, exposure, precautions, travel, etc.

• Radiation Basics. CDC/NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topics Page.

Provides answers to questions on radiation, specific to this incident.

• Current Situation in Japan. USA.gov. USA.gov is an interagency initiative administered by the U.S. General Services Administration's Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies. It has links to various Government offices and their resources.

• Kaatauon u1spersa1 rrom Japan. LUL/NIU\::>H vvorKp1ace .:,arety ano rtearm Topics Page. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health also provides updated information for workers.

• Japanese Nuclear Emergency Radiation Monitoring. US Environmental Protection Agency. The US Environmental Protection Agency's website for air monitoring data.

• CBP Statement Concerning Radiation Monitoring of Travelers. Goods from Japan. US Customs and Border Protection is monitoring developments in Japan and has issued field guidance reiterating its operational protocols and directing field personnel to specifically monitor maritime and air traffic from Japan.

Reference:

http://osha. gov!radiatian-iapan/index.html

• Please note tltat the Dai('~ .BSQ Topic emails are meant to briefly describe issues that we may encounter both on and offthe job. While the tips do include a substantial amount ofhelpful hints and information there is always more that could be added !Ifurther researched. They are not designed to be a full informational publication on a particular topic a11d therefore I encourage anyone wlto is seeking extra information to please research it at their leisure.

(b)(7)(C) 01rect. ...(b_)(_ (c_) _ _. Direct Fax: 703-387-55761 ce11*...

7;_ l(b-)(-l)(_c_

) _ __,

l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I FC 2200 Witson Blvd. Suite 400 I Arlington, Virginia 22201 I www.tetratechfc.com bXlXC)

PLEASE NOTE: This message, fm;ludfng any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the Intended recipient is stricUy prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the Intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

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

=

REFERENCE 45 (b)(7)(C)

From:___ _ _ __, l Sent: Friday, April 01, 201110:51 AM To: Bowers, Bert SUbject: RE: Alameda: Corporate RSO Assignments Thanks (b)(7)(C)

'---"T'::"":'=  :":"'"""---,------___J Naval Air Station Alamed L.._-r::-:-:e~----,

~C ~ e;;;.,l..;.i l: .... IM

)(7_)(::::_)_ _...L.

(b_ .;..;.a

.;i...;

n:...;5;..;.1...;,.;

0.523.1582 I Fax: 510,523.40631 Alternate (b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality Naval Air Station, 1090 Y, W. Tower Ave I Alameda, CA 94501 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient 1s strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient. please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

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

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 10:51 AM To~(bl(7)(c*, I

Subject:

FW: Alameda: C.Orporate RSO Assignments (b)(7)(C)

Just came across the email below which ended up in my draft folder .... was about to send it right as (~(7) popped in earlier this week! Instead, I briefed him. on where we were on everything....

a e that you would follow up with him on the MOU, exams, training records, surveys, etc for the shared "P" drive.

Should you decide to implement their use with the tech's, original "bard copy" qua! card packages for all 13 active RAD SOP's are here in the office (binders on desk). In parallel, PowerPoint presentation draft finals for RAD SOP' s l-7 (ready for your review and/oii..,(b!....,)(7,,,..)(..,,., C)----:::..

- were electronically forwarded earlier on.

As always, feel free to contact me if/ as needed!

Bert ~~cs..l~~rvisin ESQ Sc~entist I Radiation Safety Main: l Cell. (b)(7)(C) I AltemateT XJXC) !I Fa.x: 650.376.3719 rt. ch.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Satety and Quality I Radiation Safety 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City. CA 94404 www.tetratech.com

II/I/IIIIIIII/////IIIIIIIIIIII/IIllIIIII/ II/IIIIII//I/1///IIIIIIII/I!IIIIIIIII/III/I/IIIII/II/II//IIIII/II/IIIIIIIIII (b)(7)(C)

Just a follow-up regarding the subject line above!

Thanks, Bert (b)(7)(C)

As a follow up to our earlier conversation, to follow is one of the assignments (in multiple parts) as furnished to me by~

"Upload training record.<,, sealed source inventories, MOU, dosimetry and weekly survey records for Alameda onto the TtEC NRC Record SharePoint site."

To ensure the normal course of daily operations does not be.come impacted or deterred, please let me know how you feel these 5 action items should best be approached I completed.

Thanks, Bert

REFERENCE 46 Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:02 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment Hi Bert, Gee whiz! That's sad to hear. Well, T wish you all the best arnl it's been a pleasure working with you also. Thanks for always getting the PO Tracker 'lo me before it was due. Makes my life much easier.

And thanks for alJ the uplifting, happy emails! Always brought a smile to my face!

Take care, l(b){7){C)

Directl(b)(7):C)

!(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I Project Controls 17685 Von Karman Ave I Irvine. CA 92614-6213 i www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may Include confidential and/or inside Information Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is s!rtctly prohibited and may be unlawful If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete lt from your system.

~ Think Green

• Not every email needs to be priot.ed.

From: Bowers, Bert sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:48 PM

~~:l(b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment (b)(?)(C)

Hi I've been informed today that my present assignment here at Alameda will finish up tomorrow. In that regard, please remove my name from the current distribution list for weekly "PO Tracker" update notices and coordinate future RSRS based requests throug~(b)(7)(C) ~

It's been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to doing so again if future opportunities become available.

All the best!

Su ervi3i ~ ESQ Scleat*,st I Naval Air Station Alameda I Radiation Safety I Main:~ xc) _I Fax: 510.523.4063 1Alternate: ~

.=ll:..!:"'~""~""c,,

""i>  :.i:::.

°'""

"'"~"°'

"" e""'

c,..,,

h.= 1"-!, L__J Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safe-ty and Quality 2000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

(b)(7)(C)

From Sent: Fri ay, Apri To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Completion of Alameda Assignment

'Ibis all seems to be a big bummer. Best wishes M

s1gnmen

All, Just a quick follow-up to thank you for the opportunities afforded to experience/contribute to your ongoing efforts at Alameda. The obviously high level of positive camaraderie, coupled with the observed degree of order and cleanliness in active radiological work locations, and within all other areas of responsibility, validate the presence of a uniquely personable, knowledgeable, and superior staff.

Thanks again and best of luck to each of you... I look forward to future opportunities to cross paths/ work together again!

Regards, Bert Bowers I Supervisin ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station Alameda I Radiation Safety MainJCbx7xti I( Cell: (b)(7)(C) I Alternater X7XC) 11Fax: 650.376. 3719 Bert. Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality I Radiation Safety 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com

=

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 4:16 PM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Completion ot Alameda Assignment Hi Bert, What an awesome email! !

Thank you for includin me.

(b)(7)(C)

Direcd (b)(?)(C) l(b)(?)(C)

Tetra Tech I 2000 Ko!lmann Circle Unit CI Alameda, CA. 94501 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attact1ments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient 1s strictly prohibited and may be unlawful, If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and !hen delete it from your system.

Think Green

• Not every email needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Friday, April 01, 201110:15 AM To: !(b}/7}/Cl

!(b)(7)(C)

Cc:!(b)(7)(CI subject: Completion of Alameda Assignment

/\II, Just a quick follow~up to thank you for the opportunities afforded to experience/contribute to your ongoing efforts at Alameda. The obviously high level of positive camaraderie, coupled with the observed degree of order and cleanliness in active radiological work locations, and within all olher areas of responsibility, validate the presence of a uniquely personable, knowledgeable, and superior staff.

Thanks again and best of luck to each of you ... I look forward to future opportunities to cross paths / work together again!

Regardc;,

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality I Radiation Safety 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www. tetratech.corn

=

REFERENCE 47 rrom: t,0wers, Dert Senti Monday, April To:!(b)(7)(G) r, 2011 8:06 AM subject: RE: Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment (b)(?)

• 1 d. d.

Thanks (C) or your tune y turnaroun m respoo mg.

I Fax: 650.376.3719 Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality f)56 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com From: ... l(b-)iJ_l(_c)_ _ _....,

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:14 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment Hi Berl, For time charging, you wiJl need to use hours that you have banked previously, because we don't have a project for you to chat'ge to right now. (I'm not sure whc1t the code is, but I'm sure J lR can walk you through that). As far as HPS is concerned, there is no role for you there at this time.

Thanks!

(b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C)

Direct I Fax: 757.461 4148 I Cell: (b)(l)(C) l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech EC I ESQ Twin Oaks, Suite 309, 5700 Lake Wright Drive I Norfolk, VA 23502 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, 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.

wet"S: c.ompletion of Alameda Assignment (b)(7)(C)

In follow up to last Thursday's notification (see belowX I' ve informed HR of my assigrunent completion at AJameda as you recommended. In parallel, T've been urgently reminded - based on tl1e original request from !(b)(?)(CJ !hnd y ou that J fill a need at Alameda, foJJowed now it's completion (and all elements oftbe corresponding assignment letter) - to confirm with you the following:

• For administrative time recording purposes, what charge code(s) am I to use for the upcoming week of Saturday, April 2, 2011 through Friday, April 8, 2011?

• What is tne present status of my role as related to Hunters Point now that the Alameda assignment is complete:?

Thanks!

Bert Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foste r City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Thursda March 31, 2011 3:26 PM To: (b)(?)(CI Cc:*--....,......---.,--....

Subject:

Bert Bowers: Completion of Alameda Assignment (b)(?)(C) ln reference to the subject line above, this correspondence confirms today's 2:47 PM phone notification that tomorrow, April 1, 201 1 will conclude Tetra Tech EC's support needs specific to Project No. 106-40440006 (RAD EMAC Task 6, IR-17 Seaplane Lagoon).

Regards,

s. . .u....._ ervising ESQ Scientist I Naval Air Station Alameda Radiation Safety

,.;a..a.;..;...................

I Main. 510.523.4825 I Fax: 510,523.4063 I Alternate: (b)(7)(C)

.....,,.,=,,...,.,,,....,e,...ra="'ech.com .___ _ __.

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 7000 Kollmann Circle, Unit C I Alameda, CA 94501 www.tetratech.com

=

REFERENCE 48 From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:13 AM To: !(b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

RE: Alameda Assignment: "Signature Page" for Per Diem Extension to April 1, 2011

' 6a,l........_.~.k, I'll start with (b)(?)(C) r" .. FYI, I ' m swinging by Hunters Point after

~t Alameda to drop off some keys!

Bert Bert:.owers I Supervisin ESQ Scientist I Radiation Safety Main:~X?XC) I Cell: (b)(7)(C) I Alternate: r )(JXC) 11Fax: 650.376.3719 Bert. owers@tetratech.co L..-------1.

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com From: ... l(b_)(7_)(C

_l _ _.....

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:53 AM To: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

RE: Alameda Assignment: "Signature Page" for Per Diem Extension to April 1, 2011 Hi Bert.

Hope all is well. I do not recall getting the full extension document on that one - just the signature page. But I think you can get a copy from either

.i.(-b)(-7)-(C-) ---------..---------'I or r )(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C)

Direct:!(b)(7)(C) l(b)(?)(C)

Tetra Tech I 2000 Kollmann Circle Unit C I Alameda, CA. 94501 I www.tetratech.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any aUachments, may Include ccnfidentlal and/or Inside information. Any distribution or use of this e,ommunication by anyone other than the Intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete It from your system.

~ Think Green

• Not e11ery email needs to be printed.

From: Bowers, Bert Seqt; 511odav A,103, 201111:42 !PM To:l(b)(7)(C) .

Subject:

Alameda Assignment: "Signature Page" for Per Diem Extension to April 1, 2011 l(b)(7)(C)

I meant to follow up with you last week regarding to the subject line above. On or around March 14Tif or 15ni I stopped by at your request to sign a signature page which extended my Alameda per diem benefit to April 1, 2011.

In that regard (i.e., after signing), I never received a copy of the completed sheet reflecting all required signatures. Please advise as to whom I would get that from (along with the rest of the "extension" document). Many thanks in advance for your help!

Regards, Bert

=

REFERENCE 49 erokee: Return to Hunters Point for Pick-Up per L..l(b_)_

(7-)(_c _) _ _ _ ____.

Hi (b)(?)(C) ln reference to the subject line above, lhe Jeep Cherokee (used while at Hunters Point) was transferred / used whiJc also assigned recently at Alameda t b)(?)(C) h.rranged to transfer billing to AJameda as we . Th s

• as since ended as oflac,t Friday, ApriJ J, 201 I . In that regard, I spoke with (b)(?)(C) to make arrangements to return the vehicle. She asked that 1l be left at llunters omt w ere some other vehicles were already scheduled to be picked up. That's been done but I still need to make arrangements to get the key to you (didn't want to leave it in the vehicle W1locked over the weekend!) I tried to contact you at your office phone but there was no answer and your voice mailbox was fulJ - I left a message instead for (b)(7)(C) o relay to you.

I'm swinging through the area this morning while on the way for an appointment in San Francisco, would like to drop off the key then if OK. Please advise if that wilJ work!

Thanks and ,c.Hi" to all!

Bert Bert Bowers I Supervisin ESQ Scientist I RadlatwR ~afptv Mairf)oxc: t Cell: (b)(l)(C)

Bert. 8owers@tetratech.com I Alternate: l_cl( x l

! I Fax: 650.376.3719 Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com

=

From: Bowers, Bert sent: Wednesda A ril 06, 2011 9:09 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

SubJect: RE: Alam a, FCR 11

.. ..attached!

______I Fax: 650.376.3719 Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com From:!(b)(?)(C)

Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 20118:14 AM To: Bowers, Bert .

Subject:

Alameda, FCR 11 Can u send me the word document for this FCR Thanks l(b)(7)(C) ni1,ct !(b)(?)IC) !1cc11 !(b)(?)(C) l(b-)(7)-(C-) ------,1 Tctl"II Tech RC I St1l'OC~

20()0 Kollman Circle. Apt. C A1nmedu. CA, !14~01 www.lelratech.com l'I 1-'ASll NO'l 1* l hi~ 111~~,11µc. i11cl11di11v 11111' 111111~11111~111,,, 11111y 111cl1u1': c,mlid~n11nf nnd/m 111s1dc 111fhrn1n1io11. All\ 1Jistr1h11tlr111 or 11, ~ llf 1h,~

c111111111111 ic~tlcm hy Ull)<111C nthc1 than th.: intc11llcd 1<:~1pic111 i~ ~t, ictl) p1ohibitcd u111l 11111)' he 1111luwfi1I II 1011 ui*c not the 1111~mku 1cul111ent please notify 1hc sender by repl ying JO 1h1s me;sage and 1hcn delete it from }ollr s~stem.

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

=

FYI ....

Bert Bowers I Supervising ESQ Scientist I Radiatr n Safety Mainrcxh c) II C e ll:,(b)(7)(C) 11Alternate. (l(l)(C)

II Fax: 650.376.3719 Bert. owers@tetratech.co 11 Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com From: Bowers, Bert Sent Friday, April 08, 2011 9:31 AM

~ :l(b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

RE: LANDAUER, INC - INV #3988299 dated 03/22/11 All. .. see response sent earlier (below)

Bert t xixCJ ~g ESQ Scientist I Radiat,~q Safety Main: , 1 co , (b)(7)(C) UAlternate (b:ci ~9 I Fax 650.376 37 19 BertBowers@ tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com

/////III IIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/II//III////I/IIllII//I/I/I/I//IIIIIIIIIIII From: Bowers, Bert Se * . 2011 9:27 AM To: (b)(7)(C)

Cc:L--_ _ _ _....,

SUbject: RE: LANDAUER, INC - INV #3988299 dated 03122/ 11 Hi (b)(7)(C)

Sorry for the delay in a response .. ,. network ..disconnects" have prevented me from staying reliably connected lo the Tetra Tech sites from my home office.) hooe that's now been fixed!

(b)(7)(C)

In reference to the subject line above. is the pe-;.:r~o s ~n.:.....:~ol,LW,ufd direct questions to regarding Landauer invoice services or unters Point; (b)(?)(Cl ow administers the dosimetry program there.

Also, after completing a preliminary review the attachment, I would submit that the following charge fields first be investigated / validated with Landauer prior to moving forward with a payment authorization:

, " -- * * - * - -* - - , ~ ~- - -*-*, *f"" *, _,._. 1 1 l'li.'I "'1tl\,,lo VU \ I I C:,:'1/C,* VU*~ C::IVC:U on prior invoices)

• "CTO 3 Unreturned Dosimeter Fee for 1 device (may be valid - appears to represent a lost device never returned) " & "CTO 3 Unreturned Dosimeter Fee for 36 devices" (appears in error"). $513.59

• "CTO 18 Unreturned Dosimeter Fee for 5 device (may be valid - appears to represent lost devices never returned) * & "CTO 18 Unreturned Dosimeter Fee for 152 devices" (appears in error*): $2167.10 "Looks very similar to "carryover errors" from prior invoices which required correction (past examples resulted due to an earlier CTO 3 I CTO 18 account re-configuration by Landauer and assignment of new ID numbers, the "unreturned charge* items kept getting carried over as a result!)

As always, feel tree to contact me if additional infonnation or feedback is needed (aJI phone #'s below arc updated)!

Regards.

Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com From: !(b)(7)(C) I Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 5:45 PM To: Bowers, Bert cc: !{b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

LANDAUER, INC - INV #3988299 dated 03/22/11 Hi Bert, Do you happen to know the PO number for the attached invoice? If no PO, please advise how should this invoice be paid.

Thank you and have a nice evening.

l(b)(7)(C) I

!1Main: 619.234.8696 I Fa~: 619.471 3576 l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I Project Services 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 750 I San Diego, CA 92101 I www.tetratech com PLEASE NOTE: This message, Including any allachmenls, may include confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this c:immunlcatlon by anyone other than the intended recipient ls strictly prohibited and may be unlawful If you are not the intended recipient. please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete It from your system .

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

Sent: Thursda To: (b)(7)(C)

CC: Bowers, Bert

Subject:

FW: LANDAUER, INC - INV #3988299 dated 03/22/ 11 Hi (b)(7)(C)

Have not heard from Bert Bowers, so I' m forwarding this message to you. I think this is something that is normally paid by the PCard. If so, who do J send the originaJ invoice to?

Please advise.

Have a nice evening!

Thanks always.

l(b)(7)(C)

Direct: !(b)(7)(C) hMain.* 619.234 8696 j Fa11: 619.471.3576 l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I Project Services 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 750 I San Diego, CA 97101 I www lelralech.corri PLEASE NOTE . This message, including any allachments, may include confidential and/or inside 1nformation. Any distribution or use of thls communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. ir you are not the intended recipierit, 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)(?)(C)

!,,---,.--,-~

Sent: Tue ay, Apri 05, 2011 5:45 PM To: Bowers, Bert Cc:!(b)(7)(C) I

Subject:

LANDAUER, INC - INV #3988299 dated 03/22/11 Hi Bert, Do you happen to know the PO number for tbe attached invoice? lfno PO, please advise how should this invoice be paid.

Thank you and have a nice evening.

l(b)(7)(C)

Direct:!(b)(7)(C) hMain: 619.234.8696 I Fax: 619.471.3576 l(b)(7)(C)

Tetra Tech I Project Services 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 750 I San Diego, CA 92101 I www.tetratech com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include conf1dent1al and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of tnis communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recrpient, please notify the sende/ by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

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

From: Bowers, Bert Sent: Frida A 2011 4:32 PM To: (b)(7):C)

Cc: i.,.....-~~---=.....

SUbject: IT Record Update: Location of Assigned Laptop and Supplemental IT Equipment (Docking Station, Mouse, Keyboard & Monitor)

Thanks for returning my call from last Friday! for any record update needs, and per OW' conversation just completed, IT office equipment supplied to me at Alameda (i.e., to supplement the laptop originally assigned while at Hunters Point) is now being used from my home office in l(b)(7)(C) f A, The assignment at Alameda was completed effective Friday, April 1, 2011.

As always, feel free to contact me if additional information or feedback is needed.

Regards, Bert Bowers I Supervising ESQ Scientist I Radiao x x *>

Mainf xixc, I Cell* i(bl(7)1Cl II Alternate* Fax. 650 376.3719 Bert.Bowers@tetratech.com Tetra Tech EC I Environmental Safety and Quality 656 Greenwich Lane I Foster City, CA 94404 www.tetratech.com

=

REFERENCE 50