WC Monitor
10/2/2015
DOE Investigating Problems With Hanford Electronic Medical System
The Department of Energy Office of Enforcement has notified Computer Sciences Corp. that it plans to investigate alleged problems with the electronic medical system being implemented at Hanford when CSC held the site’s occupational medicine contract. It also will consider taking enforcement action for retaliation against two former CSC workers who raised the concerns. The Office of Enforcement, part of the Office of Enterprise Assessments, considers the retaliation to be substantiated by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
OSHA in late 2015 ordered CSC to pay $186,000 in back wages for retaliation against the workers. In August 2012, they reported that the electronic medical record system was not accurately tracking employee medical restrictions, according to OSHA. A defect in the record system created the potential for workers to be exposed to beryllium despite medical restrictions that should have prevented them from working in areas where the metal was suspected to be present. Workers with an allergy-like immune system reaction to beryllium are more likely to develop an incurable lung condition, chronic beryllium disease, if they continue to be exposed to fine particles of the metal that may be inhaled.
The two employees, whose names have not been released, were laid off by CSC after DOE looked into their complaints. Both were information technology specialists working on software used at AdvanceMed Hanford, which was owned by CSC. CSC’s contract expired in September 2012. HPM Corp. then received the contract for Hanford occupational medicine services and it retained CSC as a subcontractor. CSC has until Oct. 21 to provide the Office of Enforcement any information to supplement what the DOE branch already has received from the Department of Labor. CSC appealed the OSHA findings shortly after they were released. It made no comment on the recent DOE notice of intent to investigate.
DOE said only this regarding the investigation: “Upon issuance of the letter, the DOE Office of Enforcement has notified CSC that a formal 10 CFR Part 851 enforcement investigation has commenced. The Office of Enforcement cannot disclose further information regarding the investigation or the timeframe until after the enforcement investigation is concluded. Questions regarding the Department of Labor’s investigation should be directed to DOL.”
DOE, Wash. State Joust Over Hanford Litigation Adviser
The state of Washington and Department of Energy have reached agreement on a jointly proposed technical specialist for a panel that will advise the federal judge for Hanford consent decree litigation, but are at odds over the panel member proposed by the state. Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson is forming the panel of experts to help her understand technical issues related to DOE and state proposals for new milestones for the construction and start of operations of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant and for retrieval of waste from certain Hanford’s single-shell tanks. The state and DOE agreed to new milestones in 2010 in the court-enforced consent decree, but have returned to court after the department said it was at risk of missing most of the remaining milestones. Malouf Peterson asked the state and DOE to each propose an expert for the court’s technical panel and also to jointly propose a third expert for the panel if they could reach agreement.
The state and DOE agreed on Per Peterson, a professor in the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of California, Berkeley. Peterson has worked for several DOE national laboratories, but not on Hanford matters, according to court documents. He also was part of the panel of experts handpicked by then-Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to spend several days with the DOE chief at Hanford in 2012 to evaluate technical problems at the site’s vitrification plant. The judge had said that while DOE and the state could propose their own employees or contractors for the panel, their jointly proposed expert should be independent of both parties.
The department proposed Jeffrey Trent as its choice as technical adviser to the court. Trent is under contract to DOE, providing technical and project management support, including on technical issues associated with the vitrification plant. The state proposed Suzanne Dahl as its choice for the panel. She works for the Washington state Department of Ecology’s Nuclear Waste Program as manager of the tank waste treatment section.
DOE objected to her on the grounds of bias, saying she already had presented sworn testimony in the case with arguments in favor of the state’s position on the consent decree. She is a staunch advocate of the state’s proposed milestone amendments as a key state regulator at Hanford, DOE argued. DOE also objected to her based on her qualifications. It said her experience is in overseeing compliance with regulatory requirements, rather than as a trained engineer or project manager. Trent is both. The state countered that Dahl has been its point person on vitrification plant matters for 20 years. If she is disqualified for bias, then Trent should be, too, it said.
Malouf Peterson overruled objections on the grounds of bias, saying she had not imposed a limitation on experts who had been declarants in the case. “The court recognizes the difficulty that Washington in particular faces in finding qualified experts given that DOE has almost exclusive authority over the Hanford Site and employs, or has employed, a substantial number of qualified candidates,” she said in a court order. The judge will continue to consider issues related to qualifications, however. Both parties are being allowed to file additional briefs in the case before the judge rules. Malouf Peterson has not indicated when she may make the final selection of her technical panel.
