Energy.gov

Donald E. Searle (Searle or the complainant) appeals the dismissal of his complaint of retaliation and request for investigation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. As explained below, the dismissal of the complaint should be sustained, and the appeal denied.

Charles Montano (the complainant), appeals the dismissal of his complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. The complaint was dated January 30, 2007. As explained below, the dismissal of the complaint should be sustained, and the appeal denied.

This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on October 27, 2005, involving a Complaint of Retaliation filed by Clint Olson (also referred to as the employee or the complainant) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. Olson was an employee of BWXT Pantex (also referred to as BWXT, the firm, or the contractor), the Management and Operating Contractor at the DOE’s Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. In his Complaint, Mr.

This Initial Agency Decision concerns a whistleblower complaint filed by Franklin C. Tucker (the Complainant) against his previous employer, BWXT Y-12, L.L.C. (BWXT) under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. BWXT is the manager of Y-12, part of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Nuclear Weapons Complex.

Misti Wall (the complainant or Wall), appeals the dismissal of her complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. As explained below, the dismissal of the complaint should be reversed and the matter remanded for further processing to the Whistleblower Program Manager (Manager) at the National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center (NNSA).

This Initial Agency Decision involves a whistleblower complaint filed by Mr. Curtis Hall (also referred to as the complainant or the individual) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. The complainant was an employee of Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), the prime contractor at the DOE’s Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. From January 10, 2005 until July 28, 2005, he was employed as a Controls & Instrumentation (C&I) Engineer to work at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) being constructed at the Hanford Site.

Fredrick Abbott (the complainant or Abbott), appeals the dismissal of his complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. As explained below, I have determined that the dismissal of the complaint should be sustained and the appeal denied.

This letter concerns the complaint of retaliation that you filed with the Department of Energy (DOE) under 10 C.F.R. Part 708. On September 6, 2006, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) received your petition for Secretarial review of the August 3 jurisdictional appeal decision issued by the OHA Director. Under the Part 708 regulations, the Secretary will reverse or revise an appeal decision by the Director of OHA only in extraordinary circumstances. 10 C.F.R. § 708.19.

Donald R. Rhodes (Rhodes or the complainant) appeals the dismissal of his August 25, 2006 complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. He filed the complaint with the Whistleblower Program Manager (WP Manager) of the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center (NNSA/SC), located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As explained below, the WP Manager’s November 16, 2006 dismissal of the complaint should be upheld, and the appeal denied.

William Cor (the complainant or the employee), appeals the dismissal of his complaint of retaliation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708, the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. As explained below, the dismissal of the complaint should be reversed and the matter remanded for further processing to the Whistleblower Program Manager at the National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center (NNSA).