When the Whistle Didn’t Blow: The Politics of Organizational Dissent at the Hanford Nuclear Site Angela Day A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Michael McCann, Chair Peter May Rachel Cichowski George Lovell Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Political Science © Copyright 2014 Angela day University of Washington Abstract When the Whistle Didn’t Blow: The Politics of Organizational Dissent at the Hanford Nuclear Site Angela Day Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Michael McCann Department of Political Science Beginning in the early 1970s, members of Congress and state legislatures enacted laws to protect workers who raise health, safety or environmental concerns. A right to voice concerns - either within or outside the organization - is particularly compelling in industries conducting activities that may harm the health and safety of workers, the environment, and perhaps even entire communities, ecosystems, and the economy. Despite legal protections, media accounts and government investigations often reveal that workers had knowledge of procedures or practices that were later identified as contributing factors to catastrophic accidents. But they were afraid to speak up. i One might ask, why, given a legal right to raise a concern without retaliation, would workers remain silent? This study seeks to answer that question by examining the political, regulatory and organizational context that either encourages or discourages workers from raising concerns, and how those circumstances vary across organizations. The findings of this study suggest that whistleblower protection laws are one of many forces that come to bear on organizations that in turn, shape individual decision-making and action. Individuals perceive law as a thick mix of policies, directives, meanings, incentives, risks, and potential punishments - all filtered through the lens of their organizations. This study identifies three layers of influence including 1) the social, political and media attention in the organization’s environment; 2) court decisions and oversight strategies employed by regulatory agencies; 3) and historical and cultural norms within the organization. This study suggests that organizations play a fundamental role in institutionalizing perceptions about legal rights. It adds to an understanding of the constitutive power of organizations in shaping the meaning and impact of law. The evidence presented sheds new light on regulatory oversight and enforcement strategies that seek to affect this meaning-making process. Finally, this study concludes that formal legal rights to raise concerns are either dimmed or made real at the organizational level, where social, political and legal forces converge to convey the value of dissent. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iv List of Tables v Acknowledgements vi Dedication ix Chapter One: The politics of dissent 1 Chapter Two: Interpreting and transforming whistleblower protections 28 Chapter Three: A history of secrecy, innovation, and risk 66 Chapter Four: Regulating safety at Hanford 104 Chapter Five: Policies and processes for resolving concerns 127 Chapter Six: Implications for workers’ willingness to speak out 163 Chapter Seven: Conclusion 212 Appendix I: List of Acronyms 218 Appendix II: Research Journal 220 Bibliography 223 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Illustration of the layers of influence on 9 individual decision-making Figure 3.1: Media coverage of Hanford 95 Figure 3.2 Congressional and Media Attention of Hanford 98 Figure 5.1: Process for resolving concerns filed with the 141 Employee Concerns Program at Energy Northwest Figure 5.2: Process for resolving concerns filed with the 143 Employee Concerns Program at the Hanford Site iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Comparison of whistleblower protection provision 44 in the Occupational Safety and Health and Energy Reorganization Acts Table 2.2: Formal claims filed with the Department of Labor 200502011 60 Table 3.1: Organizations at the Hanford Nuclear Site 1942 – present 84 Table 4.1: Comparison of Regulatory Agencies at Hanford 114 Table 4.2: Survey of individuals in organizations at the Hanford site 119 Table 4.3: Comparison of “Allegations” and “Employee Concerns” 121 filed with Regulators Table 4.4: Comparison of formal whistleblower claims filed with the 122 Department of Labor by employees in organizations regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy Table 4.5: Formal whistleblower claims filed with the Department of Labor 123 under provisions in the Energy Reorganization Act Table 5.1: Overview of licensees and contractor organizations 129 Table 6.1: Summary of survey results regarding workers’ 174 perceptions about raising concerns within DOE regulated organizations Table 6.2: Summary of survey results regarding workers’ perceptions about 180 raising concerns within CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (2008) Table 6.3: Summary of survey results regarding workers’ perceptions 188 about raising concerns within Washington Closure Hanford (2006) Table 6.4: Summary of survey results regarding workers’ perceptions 194 about raising concerns within Washington River Protection Solutions (2009) v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first time I stepped foot onto the Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington State, I was transported into yesteryear. From the blocky reactor buildings perched on the banks of the Columbia River, to the stacks rising from concrete processing facilities and low-slung accessory buildings, the site appeared reminiscent of the era of secrecy and solemn purpose in which it was created. I stood in awe of what humankind had created there, and more importantly, of the bravery and ingenuity of generations of workers who have built, operated, and labored to clean up the 586-acre site. They are the ones who inspired this study, and to whom it is dedicated. I owe thanks to many who helped make this study possible. I would like to first thank Michael McCann, my academic advisor and committee chair. Michael encouraged me to pursue an interesting and meaningful research question, even if it proved difficult and complex to answer. He helped me conceptualize this study, and expanded my thinking and inquiry in the early stages of its development. Later, he challenged me to reorganize, rethink, and refine my draft. My work on this project has benefitted from his intellectual leadership, patience, and mentorship. Other members of my committee - Peter May, Rachel Cichowski, George Lovell, and Stephen Page – all contributed to this study in important ways. Each provided suggestions and comments along the way, asked thoughtful questions that challenged my thinking and writing, and provided encouragement and support. I am also grateful to a community of people who shared their knowledge of the Hanford Site. Jon Brock, chair of the Hanford Concerns Council and Professor Emeritus at the UW’s Evans School of Public Affairs, first introduced me to the site many years ago. Jon also vi introduced me to Tom Carpenter, whistleblower attorney and Executive Director of Hanford Challenge, who helped me identify sources of information at the site. Jon and Tom encouraged me to pursue the topic of this dissertation and helped me brainstorm at key junctures. This study would not have been possible without them. Max Power, chair of the Oregon Hanford Cleanup Board, was always thoughtful and analytical, and generously shared his experiences and knowledge gathered during many years of involvement at the Hanford Site. From whistleblower attorney, Billie Garde, I gained a great deal of background knowledge, and an appreciation for the role of regulatory agencies in interpreting and enforcing workers’ rights. Liz Mattson, Program Coordinator at Hanford Challenge, kept me informed of relevant public meetings and newly released documents during my field research. Fellow graduate students Erica Elliott (University of Oregon) and Shannon Cram (University of California, Berkeley) readily offered their friendship and insights about a research topic we shared in common. Janice Parthree, at the Department of Energy Reading Room in Richland, Washington, was an invaluable source of help as I dug through archives in the early stages of my research. Librarians at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Public Document Room in Rockville, Maryland, helped me navigate the extensive digital database and hard copy stacks. The Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies provided a generous research grant that allowed me several visits to the Hanford Site, as well as a trip to Washington DC. My greatest debt is to the many current and retired workers, managers, union representatives, and regulators who took time to talk with me. Through these interviews, I gained a deep appreciation for their expertise and commitment to safe operations at the Columbia Generating Station, and the cleanup of the Hanford Site. Their insights provided a window into vii daily life and decision-making within organizations performing some of the most dangerous and consequential work in our modern society. Through their efforts, the Hanford Site remains a place of unparalleled challenge and innovation. I sincerely hope this dissertation is worthy of their incredibly rich observations, perspectives, and wisdom. I am also grateful for a supportive group of colleagues within my department who offered encouragement, advice, and a smile. Finally and not least, I am so