The Energy Department found no evidence its conflicts of interest rules were violated when the Portsmouth Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) voted May 10 whether to request the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and DOE, reopen the 2015 record of decision for an on-site waste disposal cell at the cleanup site.
Advisory panel member Dennis Foreman, a vocal opponent of the planned $900 million disposal facility at Portsmouth, said he was informed of the finding in a Monday email from David Borak, the designated federal officer for local advisory boards to cleanup sites overseen by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management.
The ROD paves the way for the disposal of more than 2 million cubic yards of waste produced by the decontamination and decommissioning of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
Foreman has said three board members who voted against reopening the case have employment or family ties to the Portsmouth Site. The vote fell short of the two-thirds majority off the 18-member board needed to ask DOE and the Ohio EPA to reopen their consideration of the disposal cell.
The email, which Foreman shared with Weapons Complex Monitor, did not detail the rationale for DOE’s conclusion. As a matter of policy, the agency asks that advisory board “members recuse themselves from votes related to real or perceived conflicts of interest, act impartially, and avoid the appearance of impropriety,” Borak wrote.
“In this case, the Portsmouth SSAB (Ports SSAB) draft recommendation 18-02 requests that DOE consider opening a Record of Decision and offering a second public comment period,” Borak said. “While I realize there are very strong feelings about this recommendation, in consultation with DOE Office of General [Counsel], we have determined that a recommendation to reopen public comment does not violate the conflicts of interest statutes or regulations for Ports SSAB members.”
Speaking by telephone Tuesday, Foreman said he considers DOE’s response inadequate: “You take over a month to send me a blanket statement – and you repeat your policy back to me.” He vowed to pursue the matter further, although he’s not sure what appeal options are open to him.
In subsequent emails, Foreman indicated he’d received no further explanation for the DOE decision.
Local advisory panel members at DOE sites are not bound by the same ethics standards as federal employees. However, a DOE procedures manual suggests they refrain from voting on issues that might benefit them, their family, or employees.
Union, Company Still at Odds Over July 4 Schedule
A local branch of the United Steelworkers and contractor Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth remain at odds about the company’s plans to basically stop work during the week of July 4 at Portsmouth Site.
USW Local 1-689 President John Knauff said by telephone this week he has filed grievances, through the normal dispute procedures specified in the labor contract, against the company’s plans to cease decontamination and decommissioning work during the Independence Day week. Knauff said Fluor-BWXT, by forcing USW members to burn vacation days or take unpaid time off, is implementing what amounts to a temporary layoff.
By not bargaining on the specifics of a July 4 week shutdown, the company failed to comply with its labor contract, according to Knauff. Fluor-BWXT spokesman Jason Lovins, in an email last week, reiterated the company’s position that the plan passes muster with current labor agreements. The company also said the work schedule was explained to union members in late 2017. In addition to USW, a separate labor union represents security guards at the site.
Fluor-BWXT currently works a weekly schedule of four 10-hour days at Portsmouth, and the USW contract includes two scheduled days off for July 4. This would leave only a two-day work week and create “an inefficient working scenario,” according to the company. The United Steelworkers represents between 600 and 700 workers at the site.
Knauff counters the company could schedule two 12-hour days that week to help compensate for the shorter work schedule, without forcing union employees to expend two vacation days.
“The net effect is a massive lay-off of employees July 1, 2018,” Knauff said in a June 13 letter to Fluor-BWXT Site Manager Bob Smith. “We state ‘massive’ since the Company has refused to identity which and how many employees will be laid-off.” The letter also asks for details of the company’s financial issues that prompted this “austerity” measure.
