Latest News and Efforts from the Government Accountability ProjectFluor Kills Hanford Joint Council

[gap-general-list@whistleblower.org]

<h1>Fluor Kills Hanford Joint Council</h1><br><br><b>Tom Carpenter</b><br><br><i>The Fluor Hanford Company has decided to pull the plug on the highly-successful Hanford Joint Council.  Here is the Council's official press release.</i><br><br><br><br></b>Hanford Joint Council Press Statement<b>
<br />May 7, 2003
<br />For immediate release</p>
<br />
<br />Successful Council for Resolving Whistleblower Issues Closes Doors</p>
<br />
<br /></p>The Hanford Joint Council, after 8.5 years of resolving employee concerns is closing its doors.  An organization that was formed through voluntary cooperation among nuclear safety interest groups, several Hanford contractor corporations, the US Department of Energy and the State of Washington, the Hanford Joint Council has had a successful record of resolving the most complex whistleblower concerns at the site.  The Council has handled over 40 cases for an average cost of $62,000 each, frequently restoring jobs or status to workers that had been fired or sidetracked for raising safety issues, and often causing changes in site safety and health practices as a result of worker concerns.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council was formed following an extended period of high profile and costly whistleblower cases that took place in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.  Cases equivalent to those handled prior to the Council’s involvement usually cost the government several hundreds of thousands of dollars each and often over a million dollars each.  In addition, hundreds of hours of management and worker time were diverted from clean up in the resulting controversies.  Using a specially developed mediation approach, cases were resolved through a combination of factual assessment and mediation.  The participating corporations agreed to implement any Council recommendation that came as a result of consensus.  Despite the differences in perspective brought by nuclear safety interest groups and corporate officers to the Council table, all cases—100%--were resolved by consensus.  All Council recommendations were accepted by the participating companies.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council handled cases brought by workers from nearly every area of site operations and functions, and resolved most within six months or less, in contrast to the years taken to resolve cases in litigation or other formal filings. The Council’s resolutions, unlike litigation, addressed the safety questions and left the employee-employer relationship in a state that could be salvaged and productive working relations restored in many instances.  The dignity of those bringing concerns forward was preserved, and the career damage often typical to managers engaged in such controversies limited.  In all instances, time that would have been spent in needless conflict was saved and the managerial and worker time channeled back into site clean up.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council and Council members also provided training services that touched hundreds of managers on site regarding proper and constructive handling of whistleblower cases.   Along with other efforts by DOE and the contractors, this training is widely acknowledged to have played an important role in improving the safety culture on site.  Among several special projects, the Council used its independent status to ensure that workers affected by the 1997 explosion incident had access to medical testing after weeks of stalemate and conflict that precluded progress on assessing their situation.  At the direction of Secretary Pena and with the cooperation of the involved companies and the DOE Richland Operations Office, the Council worked to resolve the immediate fears and concerns of the employees and their families over health and job security.
<br />
<br /></p>The Council also produced the recent report on the site’s beryllium programs.  Outside of its normal case-specific mandate, the Council was invited by Fluor Hanford to evaluate the site’s programs related to beryllium monitoring and protection.  In a detailed and comprehensive study, the Council made over 100 recommendations, most of which have been  adopted by a site-wide task force, led by Fluor Hanford, formed to respond to the report.  The report was an example of the value of an independent and knowledgeable voice on safety issues.  The result of the study and the positive response by Fluor has already brought about a far more effective beryllium protection and monitoring program at the Hanford Site.  
<br />
<br /></p>The rate of case activity has been steady since the beginning of the Council’s work, bringing to conclusion an average of a half dozen cases per year.  The Council was able to bring high level and sophisticated resources to bear and to get the attention of senior company officials when necessary.  For example, the Council was able to hire independent medical and technical experts, and had normally had immediate access to the presidents of participating companies.  These resources and access allowed it to bypass the blockages often imposed upon such cases at other levels and functions on site and thereby bring to constructive closure otherwise irresolvable cases.  Less complex or less polarized cases were handled through the normal concerns programs at the contractors and DOE.   Those programs have improved significantly since the Council’s inception, although the number of cases not suited for those programs have continued to flow steadily to the Council at the same rates as in the early years.
<br />
<br /></p>The Council was formed in 1994, following a recommendation by the University of Washington submitted at the request of the Department of Ecology.  Westinghouse Hanford Company agreed to the recommendation, as did Heart of America Northwest, the Government Accountability Project and the Department of Energy.  Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary personally advocated the formation of the Council following a series of meetings with Hanford whistleblowers.  O’Leary once referred to the Council as “…a whistleblower “safe house.”
<br />
<br /></p>Fluor Hanford and the major subcontractors that came on site in 1996 inherited the contractual requirement to work with the Council.  Other companies outside the Fluor team were not required by DOE to participate.  Along with Fluor Hanford, other contractors at the site, including CH2MHill (CHG), continued to participate, as did Numatec, as well as subcontractor Roy F. Weston Company.  Since 1997, Fluor, CHG and other companies worked with the Council on some 26 cases, 24 of which were resolved with consensus recommendations that were accepted by the affected companies, and the remaining two through cooperative referrals.  Overall, the Council has accepted and resolved 31 cases using its complete process, as well as an additional 17 examined, but then referred to, or assisted with, other sources for resolution.  The Council also has, after review, rejected or referred an additional 48 cases that it found without apparent merit or were outside of its jurisdiction.   
<br />
<br /></p>Citing improvement in its internal processes and other factors, Fluor Hanford informed the Council in March that it had decided no longer to participate and would, instead, invest in internal and on-call resources.  In his message to the Council, David B. Van Leuven, Fluor president, said, in part, “…the HJC has produced much value …and assisted with many difficult issues.”  Edward S. Aromi, president of CH Group, said, 
<br />“This collaborative forum allowed everyone to “beat their swords into plowshares,” achieving amazing results in the personal lives of individuals, demonstrating corporate values, and assuring the safe execution the US Department of Energy’s mission at Hanford.”  
<br />
<br /></p>Upon learning of the Council’s dissolution, State Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire said, “The government has saved millions of dollars and thousands of hours of management, employee and oversight time that could be devoted to clean-up work.”  She also said that,  “The Council has ensured accountability for the site and dignity for workers that will be difficult to duplicate.”  She went on, “Further, the Council has given those of us in state government the comfort that no issues would be overlooked if an employee had the courage to come forward and that no individual would be discriminated against because they raised a concern…. we are now unsure about how this vital function will be performed.”   
<br />
<br /></p>The Chair of the Hanford Joint Council, Professor Jonathan Brock of the University of Washington, observed:  “The kinds of cases the Council handled included those that would never have come forward in the absence of an independent and confidential venue.   When they did come forward, the issues merited serious attention and all of us should be glad for the courage these employees displayed.”   He observed the reasons for the Council’s success:  “The Council was composed of people who prior to the Council’s inception would never have been in the same room, unless it was a court room.  Back then, they communicated through legal briefs and press releases. Under the Council system, they took the bold step of sitting  around the same table, examining all of the information together, and reaching an objective conclusion on what would ensure fairness and safety.””
<br />
<br /></p>Normally, the Council was made up of three senior contractor managers, two representatives of nuclear safety interest groups, a former whistle blower and two neutral members with experience in conflict resolution.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council is no longer taking cases and is closing its office in Kennewick.  
<br />
<br /></p>Attachment-Letter from Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire
<br />
<br /></p>Contact:  Jonathan Brock 206 714 6603 or brockjon@earthlink.net
<br /><br><br>If you no longer wish to receive these e-mails, please send an email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. To one of the addresses below.<br><br>If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-general-list-request@whistleblower.org>gap-general-list@whistleblower.org</a><br><br>If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-media-request@whistleblower.org>gap-media-list@whistleblower.org</a><br><h1>Fluor Kills Hanford Joint Council</h1><br><br><b>Tom Carpenter</b><br><br><i>The Fluor Hanford Company has decided to pull the plug on the highly-successful Hanford Joint Council.  Here is the Council's official press release.</i><br><br><br><br></b>Hanford Joint Council Press Statement<b>
<br />May 7, 2003
<br />For immediate release</p>
<br />
<br />Successful Council for Resolving Whistleblower Issues Closes Doors</p>
<br />
<br /></p>The Hanford Joint Council, after 8.5 years of resolving employee concerns is closing its doors.  An organization that was formed through voluntary cooperation among nuclear safety interest groups, several Hanford contractor corporations, the US Department of Energy and the State of Washington, the Hanford Joint Council has had a successful record of resolving the most complex whistleblower concerns at the site.  The Council has handled over 40 cases for an average cost of $62,000 each, frequently restoring jobs or status to workers that had been fired or sidetracked for raising safety issues, and often causing changes in site safety and health practices as a result of worker concerns.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council was formed following an extended period of high profile and costly whistleblower cases that took place in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.  Cases equivalent to those handled prior to the Council’s involvement usually cost the government several hundreds of thousands of dollars each and often over a million dollars each.  In addition, hundreds of hours of management and worker time were diverted from clean up in the resulting controversies.  Using a specially developed mediation approach, cases were resolved through a combination of factual assessment and mediation.  The participating corporations agreed to implement any Council recommendation that came as a result of consensus.  Despite the differences in perspective brought by nuclear safety interest groups and corporate officers to the Council table, all cases—100%--were resolved by consensus.  All Council recommendations were accepted by the participating companies.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council handled cases brought by workers from nearly every area of site operations and functions, and resolved most within six months or less, in contrast to the years taken to resolve cases in litigation or other formal filings. The Council’s resolutions, unlike litigation, addressed the safety questions and left the employee-employer relationship in a state that could be salvaged and productive working relations restored in many instances.  The dignity of those bringing concerns forward was preserved, and the career damage often typical to managers engaged in such controversies limited.  In all instances, time that would have been spent in needless conflict was saved and the managerial and worker time channeled back into site clean up.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council and Council members also provided training services that touched hundreds of managers on site regarding proper and constructive handling of whistleblower cases.   Along with other efforts by DOE and the contractors, this training is widely acknowledged to have played an important role in improving the safety culture on site.  Among several special projects, the Council used its independent status to ensure that workers affected by the 1997 explosion incident had access to medical testing after weeks of stalemate and conflict that precluded progress on assessing their situation.  At the direction of Secretary Pena and with the cooperation of the involved companies and the DOE Richland Operations Office, the Council worked to resolve the immediate fears and concerns of the employees and their families over health and job security.
<br />
<br /></p>The Council also produced the recent report on the site’s beryllium programs.  Outside of its normal case-specific mandate, the Council was invited by Fluor Hanford to evaluate the site’s programs related to beryllium monitoring and protection.  In a detailed and comprehensive study, the Council made over 100 recommendations, most of which have been  adopted by a site-wide task force, led by Fluor Hanford, formed to respond to the report.  The report was an example of the value of an independent and knowledgeable voice on safety issues.  The result of the study and the positive response by Fluor has already brought about a far more effective beryllium protection and monitoring program at the Hanford Site.  
<br />
<br /></p>The rate of case activity has been steady since the beginning of the Council’s work, bringing to conclusion an average of a half dozen cases per year.  The Council was able to bring high level and sophisticated resources to bear and to get the attention of senior company officials when necessary.  For example, the Council was able to hire independent medical and technical experts, and had normally had immediate access to the presidents of participating companies.  These resources and access allowed it to bypass the blockages often imposed upon such cases at other levels and functions on site and thereby bring to constructive closure otherwise irresolvable cases.  Less complex or less polarized cases were handled through the normal concerns programs at the contractors and DOE.   Those programs have improved significantly since the Council’s inception, although the number of cases not suited for those programs have continued to flow steadily to the Council at the same rates as in the early years.
<br />
<br /></p>The Council was formed in 1994, following a recommendation by the University of Washington submitted at the request of the Department of Ecology.  Westinghouse Hanford Company agreed to the recommendation, as did Heart of America Northwest, the Government Accountability Project and the Department of Energy.  Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary personally advocated the formation of the Council following a series of meetings with Hanford whistleblowers.  O’Leary once referred to the Council as “…a whistleblower “safe house.”
<br />
<br /></p>Fluor Hanford and the major subcontractors that came on site in 1996 inherited the contractual requirement to work with the Council.  Other companies outside the Fluor team were not required by DOE to participate.  Along with Fluor Hanford, other contractors at the site, including CH2MHill (CHG), continued to participate, as did Numatec, as well as subcontractor Roy F. Weston Company.  Since 1997, Fluor, CHG and other companies worked with the Council on some 26 cases, 24 of which were resolved with consensus recommendations that were accepted by the affected companies, and the remaining two through cooperative referrals.  Overall, the Council has accepted and resolved 31 cases using its complete process, as well as an additional 17 examined, but then referred to, or assisted with, other sources for resolution.  The Council also has, after review, rejected or referred an additional 48 cases that it found without apparent merit or were outside of its jurisdiction.   
<br />
<br /></p>Citing improvement in its internal processes and other factors, Fluor Hanford informed the Council in March that it had decided no longer to participate and would, instead, invest in internal and on-call resources.  In his message to the Council, David B. Van Leuven, Fluor president, said, in part, “…the HJC has produced much value …and assisted with many difficult issues.”  Edward S. Aromi, president of CH Group, said, 
<br />“This collaborative forum allowed everyone to “beat their swords into plowshares,” achieving amazing results in the personal lives of individuals, demonstrating corporate values, and assuring the safe execution the US Department of Energy’s mission at Hanford.”  
<br />
<br /></p>Upon learning of the Council’s dissolution, State Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire said, “The government has saved millions of dollars and thousands of hours of management, employee and oversight time that could be devoted to clean-up work.”  She also said that,  “The Council has ensured accountability for the site and dignity for workers that will be difficult to duplicate.”  She went on, “Further, the Council has given those of us in state government the comfort that no issues would be overlooked if an employee had the courage to come forward and that no individual would be discriminated against because they raised a concern…. we are now unsure about how this vital function will be performed.”   
<br />
<br /></p>The Chair of the Hanford Joint Council, Professor Jonathan Brock of the University of Washington, observed:  “The kinds of cases the Council handled included those that would never have come forward in the absence of an independent and confidential venue.   When they did come forward, the issues merited serious attention and all of us should be glad for the courage these employees displayed.”   He observed the reasons for the Council’s success:  “The Council was composed of people who prior to the Council’s inception would never have been in the same room, unless it was a court room.  Back then, they communicated through legal briefs and press releases. Under the Council system, they took the bold step of sitting  around the same table, examining all of the information together, and reaching an objective conclusion on what would ensure fairness and safety.””
<br />
<br /></p>Normally, the Council was made up of three senior contractor managers, two representatives of nuclear safety interest groups, a former whistle blower and two neutral members with experience in conflict resolution.  
<br />
<br /></p>The Council is no longer taking cases and is closing its office in Kennewick.  
<br />
<br /></p>Attachment-Letter from Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire
<br />
<br /></p>Contact:  Jonathan Brock 206 714 6603 or brockjon@earthlink.net
<br /><br><br>If you no longer wish to receive these e-mails, please send an email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. To one of the addresses below.<br><br>If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-general-list-request@whistleblower.org>gap-general-list@whistleblower.org</a><br><br>If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-media-request@whistleblower.org>gap-media-list@whistleblower.org</a><br>