There was it wasnt written as a written warning from a standard Human Resource perspective. It was just titled, corrective action letter. That was in 2011. I received nothing until 2013. So there was a silence between 2011 and 2013. I received another letter that said i was basically late on assignments. And it listed four of those. And then the final letter was i sent inappropriate emails when i requested Human Resources, had they done an investigation to because an email by itself, without the context of the conversation, is just an email by itself, and my supervisor and the manager of Human Resources admitted oh, this was just based on the emails. And those were the three letters i received. And those occurred before you im trying to figure out where the performance issues with you, if they if there were any that were documented prior to you giving testimony in a public way that they didnt like. No. No prior to that i would say i received above average raises. Very good bonuses from the executive compensation pool. Had received numerous letters of, you know, thank yous from my supervisors. So it wasnt until you gave answers that made the companies uncomfortable, that was when you first started receiving some kind of documentation about your Job Performance . Yes, maam. And what about you, doctor, was there anything prior to you raising concerns about technical issues of safety at hanford, had you gotten any performance issues brought to your attention prior to that . No, maam. Not at all. Okay. How long did you work there prior to you raising concerns publicly that that the contractors disagreed with . I would say probably 14, 15 months. I started in march 2009. The fortuitous meeting was july of 2010. Or the latter part of june 2010. Up before that i received, you know, really no negative lots of accolades that i was doing great work at the waste Treatment Plant. When you was there ever a time that you felt pressure to change anything you had written or testified to by the companies . Yes, maam. And would you delineate what those were and when . In the Public Meeting convened by the Defense Nuclear facility safety board i think it was october 7th and 8th of 2010, i was requested to sit on the panel. During the second panel discussion, which was the first day was really the controversial, where i took positions technically. Immediately after that, i was admonished by, at that time, em1 and dr. Triea explain what em1. Environmental management. So in the department of Energy Environmental management is really the government part, that flowdown of who is overseeing the cleanup of hanford. And so after that particular meeting when i walked in to the debrief room, you know youre shuttled back and forth, i made a comment that i was out looking for a gentleman, because i figured i was off his Christmas Card list so i was trying to relieve tension, and i was admonished that if my intent was to piss people off, i did a mighty fine job that day. So i left the room. The next morning i chose not to go back there because it was quite, you know, 40 people not being kind. I was met outside by frank russo, leo sang and bill gay requesting me so frank russo was bechtel. Leo sane and bill gay were urs requesting me to change my testimony. And i told them i could not. And i went and, you know, basically went inside. During the actual third panel session, shirley owinger from the department of energy was actually passing cards to lee yo sane with handwritten notes to change the testimony that i had given. So so, it was bechtel, urs and the department of energy that were putting pressure on you to change what you were saying publicly . Yes, maam. And what about you . There are there are several very distinct cases. I started raising issues when i got there in 2003, because that was my job responsibility. In 2006, i chaired a led a very intensive technical review chartered by secretary bodman at that time, secretary of energy bodman. Upon issuing that report, a bechtel manager craig albert called me and said he wanted to edit the report. And i said, no, as you know, those were the ground rules, those were included in the ground rules, that there be no editing by management of the report. He said to me, who do you work for . And i said, well, you know, i think i know who i work for. He then went on to say, well i talked to jim at doe and jim said its okay. And i said, well, if its okay, ill call him and confirm it. And he then recanted his story. And the pressure then began retaliation on me from 06. In 2010, there were many times when my urs manager bill gay took me aside and said quit raising issues. Dont raise the issues. Leo sane, the Vice President aiken, south carolina, told me walt, bring the issues to me. And ill take them up the line. And i said, leo, youre in aiken, im 3,000 miles away. My job is to do that. No, no, you bring the issues to me and ill handle them. Then at the end of june 2010 i tasked Pacific Northwest national lab to issue a report and my immediate two urs bosses bill gay and Richard Edwards both tried to have that report squashed because they knew that that report would conflict with bechtels approach to the technical resolution of the problem. So ive had many of the mixing problem. Yes, senator. Okay. Finally, i want senator johnson to have an opportunity to ask you some questions and i may have a couple more. In your youve already said that they wouldnt give you your severance pay unless you signed documents resolving on solving them of any legal liability surrounding the way that you were treated. On your nondisclosure agreements, was it clear in your nondisclosure agreements that they had no Legal Authority to keep you from doing what youre doing today, making reports to either Inspector Generals, or to congress, as a whistleblower . Was that clear in the nondisclosure agreements that you retained those rights . You mean when we signed on with the company . Right. Wow. I would say i do not remember any such verbal or written statement, and since the time i filed suit in the past over the past, almost four years, i have never heard that referred to. Okay. So i dont know anything about it. I would say the nondisclosure, because ive read it numerous times, i would say, is not would not supersede some of the departments regulations to provide factually accurate information. So when a Defense Nuclear facility safety board, whether an attorney, or a board member would ask me a question, i believe im obligated to tell the truth. Senator johnson . Yes. You know, i come at this from a perspective of a business guy whos managed construction prong ingts in the past, and theres a lot of things that i just this is a real head that this is a real head scratcher. A number of different perspectives. First of all, im not sure in terms of obviously we have a dispute between yourself and the company. Im not sure this is the best place to adjudicate this and to be done in a court of law. Theres real issues in terms of whistle blower protection and who is getting reimbursed for legal fees and who is not. You know, as a business guy i avoided attorneys, no offense, and the judicial process like a plague, and, you know, taking this kind of action, they would certainly understand this is going to create an awful lot of heat. Putting that aside, what i want to get so is having managed construction projects. Having been a customer, its always the its the having been a customer and a supplier, its always the customer thats in the drivers seat here. And the customer in this instance is the government. And i read in part of the briefing that the companies are require to notify the government if theyre going to be laying off or dismissing the safety employee. Okay, so were you one of those key persons . Yes, i am. And as of yesterday im still listed as a contractor. Where were the notifications given . There was a letter to my knowledge. I wont speculate. But i know there was a letter sent january 14th to the department of energy requesting to change key personnel. That letter has been labeled sensitive in the system. So theres a lot of gossip, so people brought it to my attention. I could not get a company. My understanding is the department of energy did not approve that or the significant reorganization of my Job Department at that time. So today i dont believe theyve made a decision one way or the other, and im still listed in the contract. I think the government should be in the drivers seat of making sure and putting controls in place to make sure, you know, that type of system should be honored and respected and followed. What other things are there that the government has in place to be in charge of this process that theyre maybe just ignoring or not following through on . Does that make sense . Do you know what im trying the to get at . I think so. In my view the department of energy is outnumbered, outmanned and outgunned when it comes to deal with the contractors. At the wpt, its about 100 if not 150 to 1, the ratio of contractor employees to doe oversight. Doe has to rely on the contractor for what the technical situation is. And when i was in as r t manager, there was not one engineer in h the doe change between my counterpart and secretary chu. I mean, all good degrees, but a law degree is not going to necessarily help with the design of the wpt. So the d. O. E. Has to rely on the contractor ls. The contractors now want to keep their funding going, so they will mislead, misrespect the facts and ill say sell a story to d. O. E. That gets to the point that the t government has to put in place the controls, recognizing the nature of the personnel versus the contractors. I remember the hearing we did have. That was a question i had. Is could we, you know, could the government hire the people to do this type of project. And really the answer is no way. So the government has to rely on these contractors, have expertise in producing these one at a time. You know, once in the span of Human History these types of projects, you have to rely on krrpts. But its a matter of how do you institute the controls. Thank you very much for that. We do have models in the country for regulating Nuclear Energy in the navy. Both have programs for instituting Safety Culture and making sure that the laws are followed. And of course, there is an element of independence there. And that is what is missing at the department of energy, for instance, the department of energy owns the site. Theyre subject to pressure from you guys and the state of washington to hurry up and get it done. Thats justifiable pressure, right . It is justifiable pressure. Were already leaking absolutely. This is a big, complex problem. No question about that. However, you do have Nuclear Safety laws, and if you take shortcuts there to hurry up on the schedule, then youve got a problem. Let me because i talked about difference of opinion. You mentioned fukushima, and again, im not a nuclear engineer. You said the experts said increase the walls to protect the diesel generators. The Design Change is going to be made as a result of that experience is to put a big tank of water on top of the Nuclear Reactor to cool it and can be filled by anything. I mean, you can get outside pumps to fill that. So the outside experts at that point, not having that experience, would have recommendeded raising walls s not the best design solution. The best is to put a big tank of water. It is true that youve got differences of opinion of the best way to succeed. I want to go back i think to your original question. Do i think the department of energy is responsible and accountable for the safe cleansnup. Absolutely. It has to be. Absolutely. I have no argument there. I also believe that the contractors who have signed written agreements and contracts with the department of energy are obligationed to tell the truth. Correct. Right . So thats the business side. So what parts of those contracts are they violating . So its fundamental that any documentation provided to the government be factual in all material respects. So when the department, when they exclude even differing opinions, people are making an uninformed decision on incleat facts. That directly relies with the contractor. So if donna is no longer allowed the to go to the Senior Management meetings with the department of energy, all were hearing is theyre good to go. The there are no differing opinions. Their all solved. Is it a complex problem . Yes. But its not as complex as people make it out to be. Were building two facilities and a laboratory. F those are standard technologies, but yet there are still systemic design flaws because we havent addressed the issues that are raised. Am at some point people have to make decisions on ultimate approaches and ultimate technologies. I think those always have to be reviewed and updated and was it the right decision . At a certain point of time you go, okay. We have to make a decision. We have to move forward on this, and you can vsh im not saying you can have people potentially off the wall different ideas on things. At what point do you say this is a decision we made in conjunction with the government, were moving forward on this, and you know what im say sng. Absolutely. Thats the question. Thats the conundrum here. Hang on one second. I was an executive. I do get the business and the profit and loss piece. I clearly understand that. We made the risks from 2003 to 2010. Those risks were taken. Management made the decisions, and they turned out to be technically wrong. Spo we have 60 concrete walls with commodities in the walls. So why isnt the department of energy theyre the ones that should be saying this is wrong. And quite honestly its a work in progress. Nobody knows for sure. We all collectively made the decision. It was a wrong decision. Now we have to change it. Its going to cost more money. Were not going to like that. Dollars are scarce. So you have all these competing pressures making it difficult to move forward. I believe they have in a large portion for the very reasons that we and many other people raised. Right . The question is how do you go forward . If you use the same Business Management models that make the same Business Decisions using the same process and same people, were going to end up ten years from now having the next discussion. Putting your civic situation aside, which should be adjudicated in the court of law, which an appropriate venue, from our standpoint, what do we need to do to solve it . How should the department of energy as a customer, how do they institute the controls . What do we need to put in the controls so this is a process thats going to move forward, be as Cost Effective as possible . But also proceed in a timely manner, kwily, as requesticly as possible, but also in a safe manner . Well, first let me offer that with a design in wpt. They designed the savannah plan. They operate it. Urs operates it. Urs operated the valley plan. And urs is operating settlefield england. Those Companies Know how to build a plan. F the problem is they dont come forward and say heres what were going to do. Let us tell you what this plant will do. What were going to provide you as the customer as the department of energy. They dont do that. Are there differences between these sites . There are, arent there . No, no. Its Nuclear Waste with every element of the periodic table in it. So why didnt the department of energy say youve already got these, just give us a quote on the same process. F weve already overcome the technical hurdles at the other sites. Why are we reinventing the wheel here . Again, the customer should be driving the process. They should be in charge. I would concur that the department of energy plays a role in establishing those r50ir789s. But again, they dont have the technical background. Why not . Good question. I would suggest that you need as congress to give the Defense Nuclear facility safety board some authority to assure that the designs are compliant with the nuclear laws. Thats what is missing here is that driver. The gao has done the studies. But mostly they identified conflict of interest. If you beef up the role of an agency already there doing the work but doesnt have the authority to, for instance, grant a license, then you have a problem. Now you make sure thats a safe design until we continue being d d. O. E. , the contractors have to do it with Nuclear Safety in mind. And thats going to improve the schedule and the cost. That only assumes that the Government Agencies have the expertise they do. Thats at least as good as the contractors have. They do. Theyve retired the engineers for the contractor community, from the nrc, from the nuclear navy. Good question. Weve been asking for that for some time. We would love you to do that. But thats a statutory issue. Right. Precisely. Thats what we should get decided on. Whatever this is. This meeting, which i appreciate, in hearings and subsequent hearings, we have to get to the point of whats the solution . What are the controls . What do we need to do from the government standpoint who should really be in charge of the process to solve the problem as well as provide the controls. Absolutely. But for the purpose of whistle blowers, we need a forum that we can raise concerns. Individuals like myself have an incredible amount of courage and some days i dont know how i went to work. But when you see very strong people that are treated the way we are and its a deafening silence when they have no forum to raise the concerns. And there is no check and balance in the system now. So with respect to whistle blower forum, i think we have a lot of work we need to do so we can raise concerns and they dont have to be adjudicated in the court of law for six to seven years while very legitimate safety issues are out. And might i add, the taxpayers are picking up an unfettered bill of millions of dollars for legal fees while they are scraping the to figure out how they can actually outweigh the paper barrage that will come down on their head from private defense firms