From August of 1984 to July of 1988, _.. was employed by LOCKHEED
ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES COMPANY in Las Vegas, Nevada, as a

has attended approximately two years of college at
Stockton State College in New Jersey and one and a half years at
Northern Arizona. University. He studied chemistry and has not
completed all of the requirements for a degree.

recalled that approximately two weeks after starting to
work at USTC, he was assigned to conduct pesticide analveie of
two samples which were part of EPA Case Number 10015.
stated that the samples were very important to USTC because they
were performance evaluation samples and that it was common
knowledge that if USsTc did not do a good jeb of analyzing these
samples, they would lesa their laboratory contract with the EPA.

explained that told him at
the time he was interviewea for the job on Maroh 16, 1988, as
well as after he was hixed, that UST¢ had done poorly on previous
EPA contract work and that they were concerned about USTC's
ability to hold onto their contract with the EPA.

On August 7, 1988, he tested sample number X1816 during the
required 72 hour testing sequence. On approximately August 8 or
9, 1988, he discovered upon reviewing the chromatogram generated
during the testing of sample Xi81ié6 that it would be necassary to
test the sample over again. explained that the
chromatogram for sample X1516 contained a peak which was not
generated from sample X151¢é, The peak was a result of
information generated on sample *1517, which he tested just prior
to X1516. Consequentiy, the chromatogram was not representative
of sample K1516.

recalled that he immediately went to , his
immediate supervisor, and told him that he had encountered a big
problem in testing one of the samples of EPA “Case Number 10015.

stated that he did not tell specificaliy what
kina of problem he had encountered, but he made sure that

understood that it was a critical problem and that it
concerned samples associated with EPA Case 10015. stated
that he felt obligated to tell about the problem right
away because the samples in question had to be done on time or
usT¢ could lose their contract with the EPA.

stated that he then ran a second test on sample Xi516 and
generated a new chromatogram, explained that he cut off
the header portion of the bad chromatograph which included the
test date of "08/07/88" and pasted it 7 #-- -f the header
portion of the second chromatograph. stated that he then
photocopied the cut and pasted chromafgraph and submitted the
Photocopy as the original chromatograwhk denerated during the
initial test on August 7, 1988. explained that by doing



was formerly employed by UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY. INC.
(USTC). Hoboken, New Jersey, from . 1983 to
1987. was hixed by USTC as a . '
was subsequently promoted to . . in 198s.
and her staff conducted laboratory testing for inorganic
compounds. Her staff consisted of

who were all Chemists, and

(NFI) who were Laboratory Technicians. Initially, her immediate

and

supervisor was but left in 1986 and
was replaced by reported to ! .

- and reported to

_.. regalled that in duly of 1987, ___..._. instructed her to

go to USTC's Richland Division in Richiand,. Washington,

told her that Richland was trying to obtain an inorganic contract
from the EPA, and needed her assistance 4n campleting their pre-
award performance evaluation samples. explained that she
arrived in Richland on a Wednesday evening, expecting her visit
net to exceed three days. The next day when she went to work at
the Richland Division, it became immediately apparent ‘that she
could not complete the work in three days. indicated
that the Richland Division personnel did not know how to do the
required tests and had made no progress in completing the work.
She was alarmed because the due date for submittine the test
results to the EPA was the second Friday after arrived in
Richland. stated that ehe immediately telephoned POSNER
and advised nim or the situation. told her to get it

done - indicated that he @ian't care how she did it, just
get through the testing of the preaward samples.

continued that around midnight on the Wednesday just
prior to the due date, she was testing the EPA samples in the
graphite furnace, which is used to identify the presence of
metals. The tests had to be completed that evening because the
report needed to be sent out the next day so that it would reach:
the EPA by Friday. recalled that during the testing, she
ran into a problem producing standards within EPA requirements.

explained that the EPA requires that a standard be run
after every ten sample tests to ensure reliability of the test
data: A standard is a sample which contains a known
concentration level of a particular compound. ‘The standard is
tested in the graphite furnace to see what the concentration of
that particular compound is according to the test data. If tha
data indicates a concentration level within 10% of the known
concentration level, the data generated during the previous 10
gamples is acceptable. If the concentration level is outside the
10% window, the EPA requires that the laboratory retest all of
the previous 10 samples.

continued that the standards were net producing
concentration levels within the 10% window, and that given the



&

gu.72 -

TOTAL

1916863

sariaror nen GO

——
ett
344 : Weytachlor Can

ge Nd

—, heater cponde
: gene chiles done

10.883 edi elder

12.349 ted

14,243

PRIMARY

SAMPLE ID __x1s%G- 90.

21.455
annie VOLUME INJECTED 114) fone
8,0. COLUMN | s2s¢22se /1 952 57
es. are DR are ? iata3
| 000723
tne



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
llIness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 5 of 7

Basis for Proposing that Records and Information are Inadequate for Individual Dose —
Complete Section F.

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

F.1. QO IMWehave attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area

monitoring.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

F.2 ¥ \/ We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

See ArtACHED FACES

_ Se eannat

Part F is continued on the following page.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

affiliates' operations suspect, we hereby request that
the affiliates named above be made respondents to this

action pursuant to F.A.R. §9.407~1(c) and 40 C.F.R.
§§32.420 and 32.325(a) (2). }

Circumstances Necessitating Suspension

EPA currently has one CLP contract with the Hoboken
facility, #68-01-7473 due to expire in July, 1991 and
one CLP contract with the Richland facility #68Ws80031,
due to expire June, 1990. The Richland facility! is
currently under a voluntary exclusion from EPA work via
the Interim Agreement (Exhibit A, p2). With the|
exception of the Richland facility, all usT facilities
and affiliates are eligible to receive immediate! EPA
and other federal contracts or contracts under federal
nonprocurement and benefits programs. UST is currently
the low bidder in at least one sub contract on a:
superfund site to be awarded by the State of New} York
in mid-April.

Additionally, EPA CLP Organics and Inorganics IFB
solicitations are currently in progress and bidding is
expected to take place in April and May, 1990. he
estimated cost of these awards is approximately
million dollars in Organics contracts and $13 Ritiion
dollars in Inorganics contracts. Currently, UST is
expected to bid for work under both of these contract
areas.

There is adequate evidence to believe that UST is,
until proven’ otherwise, a company that conspired,
directed, and condoned a scheme in at least the |
Richland facility and the Hoboken facility to defraud
the United States Government. This resulted in the
submission of false, inaccurate and unreliable test
results and data submitted to the EPA for payment: under
its contracts. This was apparently done with kndwing,
willful and flagrant disregard for state and fedéral
laws, contract requirements and CLP protocols. e
potential impact upon Federal programs, public health
and the environment at this time, cannot be measured.

There are approximately 100 laboratories qualified to

do EPA work under the CLP, therefore UST does not;

provide unique or sole source services to the EPA.
Recommendations

EPA requests that the Respondents be suspended fron

participating in future government procurement and non
procurement contracts and assistance programs for the

8



so, the test appeared legitimate because it look as if it had
been done during the required 72 hour sequence. In addition, he
was able to save tine in that there was no need to start up a new
72 hour sequence to retest sample X1516. “

stated that while he was cutting and pasting the

chromatocram, he told what he was doing.
was also in tne room at the time and suspects that
she overheard him telling about this incident as well.

Immediately after cutting and pasting the chromatogram, he told

that he had fixed the problem with the EPA sample.
NICHOLS stated that he did not tell specifically that he
had cut and pasted the chromatogram, nor did he tell him which
EPA sample was involved.

was provided photocopies of his employee tinesheets and
stated after reviewing the timesheets that he gave all of the
data generated on EPA Case Number 10015, including the cut and
pasted chromategram, to THOMPSON on August 25, 1988.
stated that August 25, 1988 was the day before he returned to Las
Vegas, Nevada to gather up and move the rest of hie belongings to
his new residence in Richland, Washington. explained
that he had originally planned to leave for Las Vegas on August
25, 1988, but couldn't because the work on EPA Case Number 10015
had not been completed.

recalled that on September 2, 1968, the first day back to
work after his trip to Las Vegas, he met with in
office regarding the cut and pasted chromatogram.
showed him two handwritten letters which he read in

presence, One of them written by 1 deseribed in
detail how |: } had cut and pasted the chromatogram. ‘The
second letter written by , indicated without

specifically referencing the cut and paste chromatogram that
wanted USTC to fire , stated that
after reading thea letters, told him not to be so obvious
when antting and pasting chromatograms. ... — explained that
aid not tell him that he should n ave cut and pasted
the chromatogram, nor did he say that } should not cut and
paste chromatograms in the future.

stated that approximately one to two months later, it
became clear to him during a conversation that he had with
who is the Director of the Hazardous Substances

Analysis Group and supervisor, that t.knew that
NICHOLS had cut and pasted the chromatogram. told him
during the conversation that should have been quieter

about the incident.

stated that he and discussed the cut and paste
chromatogram a second time during a meeting on April 13 or 14,



%, “OFFICIAL, USE | ONLY :

Filensees 25458-1

Seeples POLKO2~DL

Chann CD-PORT!
Acquireds 12-01-88 29: i
‘Ih Vott $.00 30 Methods AMAXADATALACLEPEST Operators Fl.

.

3 = xX hf
8 Qo .
a 8 iy
J. I 3
———

* — pRIMARY

VOLUME INJECTE. JL) —!—-

GC. COLUN.ALS 2280f J. 240\
INSTRUME’ 9 6C(SK

On tn re
~ 2.88 DEC



E OMLY

89-5010

added that he then deleted the failed test data generated
on uctober 12, 1988 from the magnetic storage tape and replaced
it with the backdated test data generated on October 14, 1988.

explained that by backdating the test and inserting the
data into the 72 hour sequence, he made it appear on the reports
submitted to the EPA that the test data was generated on October
12, 1988. In addition, indicated that backdating the
test made it unnecessary to retest all of the samples which were
tested during the 72 hour sequence.

stated that he told about the backdated test
shortlv thereafter during an internal audit of his records.
recalled that he did not tell specifically what

he had done, but told him that he had “fixed” another
chromatogram, explained that he went to THOMPSON because
he suspected that ~~~ had told the internal audit staff
about the cut and paste chromatogram and consequently had
triggered an audit of his records. told ‘ that he
was angry that USTC was auditing hig records when he had cut and
pasted the chromatogram for the benefit of UsTC with the
knowledge of his supervisors, .

was provided a copy of the Data Package Report for EPA
Case 10316 dated November 17, 1988, and stated after reviewing
the document that pages 408 and 484 provide information relative
to the above referenced backdated test (Attachments "Cc" and "D"),

indicated that told him at the time left
usTc, that and falsified some data on the first EPA
package that USTC received. i stated that it was either

the pre-award samples or the first cage samples received by USTC
under the EPA contract.

also indicated that after USTC receiyed the suspension
notice from the EPA, he talked to about alterina neak
areas and the firing of stated that
told him that UST¢ in Hoboken, New Jersey altered peak areas all
the time and that Hoboken was a lot worse than they were in
Richland relative to running the tests properly. In addition,
stated that he knew enough to "sink Hoboken."



35.

36.

maximum suspendioi period as set out in 40 C.F.R.
§32.415 and the FAR §9.407~4 pending completion ‘of
investigation and legal proceedings.

Pursuant to the Government's need for confidentiality,
the EPA Office of Inspector General requests that
attachments J through Z be reviewed In Camera. ;
(Exhibit J). i

EPA's Office of Inspector General has cleared this
matter for suspension action. :

bo



ofS PTIAIAL FICE AAA
: OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UPTiv Ob ULI

of their own testing. Consequently, USTC in Hoboken did all of
Richland's organic and inorganic testing. indicated that
the samples were from BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY.

(as ~ stated that during the end of 1986, beginning of 1987,

: . offered her some cocaine at USTC, She refused the offer

and consequentlv was ridiculed by for doinag aa.

stated that | would use cocaine in office.

It was common knowledge that whenever | and went into
office and closed the door they were doing cocaine.
stated that this went on for about a year and that she

overheard _._... and talking about it. She also overheard

POSNER offering cocaine to ~..-....--

also told and her staff not to run EPA samples
when EPA was present at the laboratory during an on-site
inspection. did not want the EPA to see USTC having any

problems testing their samples.

stated that commercial samples were routinely poured down
the sink during periodic clean ups. During the end of 1986,
instructed UsTC employees to pour New Jersey State
Drinking water samples down the sink drain. indicated
that UsT¢ was required to hold onto the samples until the end of
the state contract, and that the samples were acidified with a PH

of approximately 2.


E.5

Page 2 of The Internal Dosimetry Report R EXID: for the
Petitioner was based upon fraudulent data created by the
United States Testing Company (UST). This fraud was discovered in an
investigation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as set forth in their Action Referral Memorandum dated April 4, 1990,
recommending that UST be suspended from further work on dosimetry
testing at both their Richland Washington and Hoboken, New Jersey
laboratories. See attached copy of the EPA report.

F.2

Note the following instances of fraudulent activity described in the
numbered paragraphs of said EPA report encompassed time periods
relevant to the dosimetry testing data set forth on the attached page 2 of the
Internal Dosimetry Report for Petitioner.

#15 concerning signatures of persons qualified to do the work were forged
by unqualified UST personnel that actually did the work, at least between
December, 1987 and August, 1988. This time neriod would include the
analysis of Petitioner’s fecal samples done : 1988 and ¢ 1988.

#17 concerning the false report by UST that during 1987 and 1988 data was
fraudulently reported as being analyzed on certain types of equipment that
was not present or used at the UST facilities during said periods. All of

Petitioner’s sampling beginning with his urinalysis tests o! 1987
through to his last fecal test of 1988 were included within the period
of the described fraud.

#19 concerning “backdating” of sample preparation and analysis used by
UST in all analyses done under both Organics and Inorganics contracts
since at least 1987. This backdating was also done by another method
known as “cut and paste.” All of Petitioner’s samples since his urinalysis of

1987 up through his urinalysis of 1989 were within the period
of this type of fraud.

#20 concerning the improper calibration of analytical equipment and
failure to utilize required standards made it impossible to determine if the
analysis results were reliable. These practices took place at least in 1987
and 1988, which would include the Petitioner’s urinalyses o/ 1987
through to his fecal sample of : 1988.


20.

21.

22.

23.

submitting the finished product for payment to the EPA as

the “original”. (Exhibit I, p.2, Exhibit F, 2; Exhibit G,

pp2, 4-5, 10~41).

CLP protocols require the use of specified standards
for the purpose of calibrating (checking the accuracy)
the equipment used during analyses. The improper
calibration of equipment and the failure to use ,
standards required by CLP protocols affected work done
under Organics and Inorganics contracts. (Exhibit C, pp
1-2; Exhibit D,p2; Exhibit F, pp 2-3). UST also failed
to use the mediums or standards required by the: EPA.
(Exhibit G, pp 4-5). These practices make it impossible
to determine if the analyses results are reliable.
These practices are believed to have taken place’ at
least in 1987 and 1988.

CLP protocols also require that each time.a sampie is
prepared a method blank (reagent water which measures
contamination from a source other than the sample) is
also prepared,and these results are analyzed and
reported along with the sample analyses results.
(Exhibit AA, p61) Method blanks and samples are
prepared in the Extraction laboratory and then sent to
the correct laboratory for analysis. Instead, UST
management would misrepresent that the proper "planks
had been used when, in fact, they had not. These’
practices are believed to have existed at least in 1987
and 1988. (Exhibit S,pp4- 5).

Analyses results are often produced on a computer print
out as a graph in the form of peaks which indicate
whether the proper standard was used. "Peak shaving"
consists of manual manipulation of a computer to/bring
the peak within the required range. This appears: to
have been common business practice throughout the
Hoboken and Richland facilities where equipment
producing computer printouts was used. (Exhibit:C, p2;
Exhibit D, p2; Exhibit F, pp2-3). Data produced: from
such practices is unreliable.

From at least May 1987 to January 1989, with the:
knowledge and acquiescence of management, hazardous
wastes were apparently discarded into city dumpsters
present on UST property, improperly handled and stored
on UST premises and poured down laboratory drains which
discharged into local sewer systems and the waters of
the United states, a potential violation of 33 USC
§1311 and 42 USC §6928 (a)(2)(A). (Exhibit G, pS;
Exhibit AA, p26)

jo


10.

Semi-volatiles and PCB/Pesticides must first be prepared in
the Extraction Laboratory. Inorganics contracts involve two
major types of analyses relating to metal and cyanide.

Corporate Background

UNITED STATES TESTING CO., Inc. (UST),is a corporation
organized and operating under the laws of the State of
New York. Its principal place of business is lo¢gated
at 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030. ‘UST is
engaged in the business of providing laboratory
services including chemical analyses of environmental
samples. :

uST is a wholly owned subsidiary of SGS North America
Inc., which is located. in Fort Lee, New Jersey. _SGS
North America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Societe Generale de Surveillance Holding S.A. of’
Geneva, Switzerland. UST, in turn, operates 22
unincorporated constituent branch laboratories of which
19 are known to be operating in the United States. UST
also controls three U.S. incorporated wholly owned
subsidiary corporations known as QUALITEST, INC. | (1415
Park Avenue, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030); Research &
Testing Co., Inc. (1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, New
Jersey 07030); and NATIONWIDE Consumer Testing
Institute, Inc. (1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, New Jersey
07030). These corporations are engaged in the business
of providing analytical services and are all located at
the same address as the parent lab in Hoboken, New
Jersey.

UST is currently doing business with the’ EPA and ‘the
Department of Energy.

UST has performed under Organics and Inorganics CLP
contracts since approximately 1983. These contracts were
laboratory specific and involved laboratories in Richland,
Washington and Hoboken, New Jersey. Neither labdratory was

listed as an alternate site to perform work on a ‘contract
for the other.

Current Status

On April 6, 1989, the Director, Grants Administration
Division, suspended the above named Respondents from further
participation in Federal assistance and benefit programs
under 40 C.F.R. Part 32 and the FAR Subpart 9.4.
action was taken at the request of EPA Region 10/
Compliance Branch. upon receipt of information and
allegations of misconduct by UST during performance of
services as a CLP laboratory under an EPA contract.

3



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Iliness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 7 of 7

Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 300 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. If you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form to this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.
Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently
valid OMB number.

Privacy Act Advisement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a), you are hereby notified of the
following:

The Energy Employees Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385)
(EEOICPA) authorizes the President to designate additional classes of employees to be included in the
Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). EEOICPA authorizes HHS to implement its responsibilities with the
assistance of the National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), an Institute of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Information obtained by NIOSH in connection with petitions for including additional
classes of employees in the SEC will be used to evaluate the petition and report findings to the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health and HHS.

Records containing identifiable information become part of an existing NIOSH system of records under the
Privacy Act, 09-20-147 “Occupational Health Epidemiological Studies and EEOICPA Program Records.
HHS/CDC/NIOSH.” These records are treated in a confidential manner, unless otherwise compelled by law.
Disclosures that NIOSH may need to make for the processing of your petition or other purposes are listed
below.

NIOSH may need to disclose personal identifying information to: (a) the Department of Energy, other federal
agencies, other government or private entities and to private sector employers to permit these entities to
retrieve records required by NIOSH; (b) identified witnesses as designated by NIOSH so that these
individuals can provide information to assist with the evaluation of SEC petitions; (c) contractors assisting
NIOSH; (d) collaborating researchers, under certain limited circumstances to conduct further investigations;
(e) Federal, state and local agencies for law enforcement purposes; and (f) a Member of Congress or a
Congressional staff member in response to a verified inquiry.

This notice applies to all forms and informational requests that you may receive from NIOSH in connection
with the evaluation of an SEC petition.

Use of the NIOSH petition forms (A and B) is voluntary but your provision of information required by these
forms is mandatory for the consideration of a petition, as specified under 42 CFR Part 83. Petitions that fait to
provide required information may not be considered by HHS.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: __


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Iiiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7

F.3 Q  \We have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation

guidelines.
{Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

F.4 OQ IWehave attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of
employees covered by the petition.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)
Go to Part G,

plete Section G.

All Pc of three persons may sign the petition.

S226 -OF
Date

Signature Date

Signature Date

Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of
fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnati, OH 45226

If there are additional petitioners, they must complete the Appendix Forms for additional petitioners.
The Appendix forms are located at the end of this document.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


_ = “AETIOIAL HOE Ant
gt SURMBENTIAL OFFICIAL USE OnLy

og :

2) y OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

g : OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS

"ae mo

INTERVIEW OF

on 1989, Special Agents CARL W. FRIEDRICH and KENT
MONTGOMERY interviewed at Tukwilla,
Washington. special Agents FRIEDRICH and MONTGOMERY properly
identified themselves and questioned relative to his

activities and knowledge of his former employer, UNITED STATES
TESTING COMPANY, INC. (USTC) of Richland, Washington. No other
persons were present.

On June 21, 1989, Special Agent CARL WwW. FRIEDRICH reinterviewed
at Tukwilla, Washington. Special Agent

properly identified himself and questioned NICHOLS relative to

his act vities and knowledge of USTC., No other persons were

present. .

voluntarily provided the following:
Home Address:
Home Telephone:
Work Address:

Work Telephone:
DOB:
SSN:

provided the following information in response to
questions: . 3

ie presently employed bv as 4 Gas
Chromatograph (GC) Chemist. was formerly employed by usTC as
a _ in their Hazardous Substances Analysis Group from
1988 to 1989, stated that he only

conducted testing relative to Pesticides and PCBs.

THVESTERTS WONT H ESS “itkwilla, Washington

CONDUCTED PER TEDRICH/K. MONTGOMERY (vr ueTMTM

GIFS RAITT TERR TRAE e¥
iseo | “Poe9
i

ts th ty of the Office of Investigations and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents may not be reproduced without
werltien permission the report 4 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and its disctoaure to unauthorized persons is prohibited. Public avaitability to

be determined under $ U.S.C, $22.

EPA Form 2720-18 (7-63)


.

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Illness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Petitioner Authorization Form Page 2 of 2

Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. If you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form to this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.
Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently
valid OMB number.

Use of this form is voluntary. Failure to use this form will not result in the denial of any right, benefit, or
privilege to which you may be entitled.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


sees a an \
geass OFFICIAL USE ONLY
+4 eB.78
TOTAL
ga7207e0 , rarisrer hE yrs ge
AL ae — =a sigte

Kepos
8 tebledona, —,
. diallers
12 - fo .
. aici
1g oo
dor
eo =

7 oleae? =

re
ae

CHFOMATOPAC CRSA
tad nd S$

7,886
14,143
-
2.912
FILE 4
METHON raed

SEPM BAe PREIS 9

ALTERNET SEEN

°
3

t

!
vk. Al


11-10-09A09:21 Revo

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Iliness Compensation Act National [nstitute for Occupational Safety and Health

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 1 of 7

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Fallure to use this form or disclose
this number will not resuit in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled.

General Instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available in a separate packet):
Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A — G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. If there is more
than one petitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sections of parts A ~ C of the form that apply
to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided at the end of the form for this pur-
pose. A maximum of three petitioners is allowed.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

If you have questions about the use of this form, please call the following NIOSH toll-free phone number and
request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:
1-877-222-8570.

QA Labor Organization, StartatD on Page3
if you An Energy Employee (current or former), StartatC on Page2
are: QA Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), StartatB on Page2
yt A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), StartatA on Page 1

Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or

Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

A. Are you a contact person for an organization? O Yes (Go to A.2) x No (Go to A.3)

A2 Organization information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person

A3 Nam= of Patitinn Renresentative:

Mr/Mrs./Ms. First Name ~~ Middie tnitial Last Name
A4 — Addrace:

Stre~* Ant # P.O. Box

City tate 7in Code

A5 Telephone Number
A6 Email Address:

AZ x Check the box at left to indicate you havé attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization

If you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _


Radiological Exposure System Page 2
Internal Dosimetry Report . 02/08/2007 16:52

REXIC Soc Sec Num Sex: M Parameter Dates:
Emergency Search For: ) :


#22 concerning analyses results produced on computer printouts as a graph
in the form of peaks which indicate if a proper standard was used. “Peak
shaving” was accomplished by manipulating the computer program to bring
the peak within the desired range. This was a common practice throughout
the Hoboken and Richland facilities where computer graph printouts were
used, which means that all of Petitioner’s dosimetry requiring computer
graphic confirmation that a proper standard was utilized are suspect and
unreliable.

All of the fraudulent practices are supported by numerous exhibits and

proofs gathered by the EPA that are specific to each practice described.
Most of these exhibits were put under seal and only a few have survived.
Two such survivors are the attached interviews of and

. UST was a subcontractor to Battelle NW which
had the contract with the DOE for all testing. All of UST facilities and those
of UST subsidiaries were suspended nationally from any further work at
Superfund sites over which EPA had jurisdiction. Battelle subsequently
sued UST for fraud.

Petitioner asserts that none of the Hanford dosimetry results for the
year 1987, 1988, and 1989, until the discovery of the fraud, could possibly be
deemed reliable. The fraud would have also infected the results of
Petitioner’s co-workers. Without reliable dosimetry data there is no way
that a reasonably accurate dose reconstruction for Petitioner can be
performed, and consequently Petitioner is entitled to SEC status.


17.

18.

19.

personnel and management by the carrying of samples and data
from Richland for analyses in the Hoboken laboratory and
vice versa. This practice is believed to have existed at
least since 1987 and affected EPA samples,pre~award samples,
and PE samples. This practice encompassed work done under
Inorganics and Organics contracts and was done with the
knowledge and assistance of management and without the
knowledge or consent of the EPA. (Exhibit C, p.1; Exhibit E,
p2).

At least during 1987 and 1988 data was fraudulently
reported as being analyzed on certain types of
equipment. For determinations of pH readings, UST
reported results to a degree of accuracy which could
only have been done on a pH meter. - UST also indicated
the use of an automatic sampling machine, Neither a pH
meter nor an automatic sampler was present or used at
the times this equipment was represented as having been
used. (Exhibit G, pp 3-4, pp7-8; pp 10-41).

EPA standards require a clearly defined analytical sequence
of standards and samples for PCB/Pesticides during which
standards are to be dispersed throughout the analytical
sequence. Instead, UST analyzed the samples as a group and
the standards as second group and indicated in the logbooks
by the letter “A" that the standards and samples were
injected in the required sequence by an automatic sampler.
This was done sqglely to conceal the fact that neither the
standards nor the samples were performed according to
contract requirements. This practice is believed ‘to have
taken place between May, 1987 and January, 1989. : (Exhibit G,
pp3-4; pp7-8; pp10~41) :

Each sample received by a CLP must be analyzed within
contract time requirements depending on the nature and
volatility of the substance. UST developed a pervasive
practice of analyzing samples past their expiration date but
reporting the sample preparation and analysis as !being
within contractual requirements. This is commonly referred
to as backdating. Since at least 1987, this prac ice was
used by UST in all analyses done under both Organics and
Inorganics contracts. Some 70%-80% of EPA work has been
estimated to have been affected at the Hoboken laboratory.
Supervisory personnel left written instructions for
technicians to run samples while entering into the computer
and/or log a time and date which would indicate that the
sample had been run earlier . These written instructions
were then destroyed. Backdating was also accomplished
through another method known as "cut and paste." ‘This is the
technique of pasting a false date which meets contract
requirements in place of the actual late date on ithe
generated data, photocopying the falsified document and

5



ii.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

(Exhibit A). John Aldock and Franklin Kramer have

represented UST in the past and should be copied at the time
of notice. .

On May 24, 1989, the Director entered into an Interim
Agreement with the Respondents. Under the agreement,
UST agreed to a voluntary exclusion of the Richland
laboratory. The UsT lab at Hoboken and all other UST
labs, both constituent and separately incorporated,

were temporarily reinstated pending further development
ef the investigation. (Exhibit B).

Additionally, UST agreed to implement an interim
corporate~-wide Corporate Responsibility Program
(Exhibit B, pp. 2, 3) to prevent,detect,and correct any
conduct similar to the improper conduct alleged; in the
Notice of Suspension dated April 6, 1989 (Exhibit A).

Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Interim Agreement, UST
agreed to an immediate reinstatement of UST's
suspension if the EPA, at any time, obtained adequate
evidence that current management or employees at the
UST Hoboken facility had engaged in misconduct :
regarding the provision of analytical services 9f a
nature that would justify suspension under the FAR
subpart 9.4 and 40 C.F.R. Part 32. .

FACTS

The EPA Office of Inspector General has furnished the
compliance Branch with adequate evidence to believe
that UST management, contrary to CLP protocols, ‘and
during performance of Organics and Inorganics |
contracts at the Richland, Washington facility and the
Hoboken, New Jersey facility conspired, directed,

carried out, and otherwise condoned a scheme to defraud
the United States.

With the knowledge and participation of management in
both the Hoboken & Richland laboratories, initials of
personnel who met the required qualifications and work
experience criteria were forged onto logbooks and
analysis sheets to conceal the fact that the work had
actually been done by unqualified personnel.
Alterations of log book pages and destruction of
worksheets and pages of log books were also committed
at least between December, 1987 and August,1988:
(Exhibit C, pp 1, 3, 4; Exhibit G pp 5, 7, 8, 106-26;
Exhibit H, p 2; and Exhibit E, pp 1, 3, 4).

Contrary to CLP protocol and contract requirements, the
required chain of custody was breached frequently by UsT

4



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
illness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

7 OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Petitioner Authorization Form Page 1 of 2

Use of this form is voluntary. Failure to use this form will not result in the denial of any right, benefit,

Instructions:

If you wish to petition HHS to consider adding a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort and you
are NOT either a member of that class, a survivor of a member of that class, or a labor organization
representing or having represented members of that class, then 42 CFR Part 83, Section 83.7(c} requires
that you obtain written authorization. You can obtain such authorization from either an employee who is a
member of the class or a survivor of such an employee. You may use this form to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legibly.

For Further Information: If you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
toll-free phone number and request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and
Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-356-4674.

ual or Entity to Petition on Behalf of a Class of Employees for

Exposure Cohort

Name of Class Member or Survivor

Street Address of Class Member or Survivor Ant. # P.O. Box

City, State, Zip Code of Class Member or Survivor

do hereby enthariva:

Name

Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner
to petition the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of a class of employees
that includes:

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor)

for the addition of the class to the Special Exposure Cohort, under the Energy Employee’s
( (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385).

l 1e petitioner named above will have all the rights

€ 83.
LO-26~- OF

‘ Date

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


ACKINIAL [JOD AMY

1989, shortiv after usTc had received a suspension letter from
the EPA. went to see because he was concerned
that . Who had since left usTc. “av have told the EPA about
the cut an@ paste chromatogram. teld him that the cut
and paste chromatogram wae not what the EPA was referring to in
the suspension letter. told him that the suspension
letter referred to falaifying data all the time.

.-- algo recalled that around the time of the suspension
letter, he went, to office and looked for the letters
that. had showed him on August 29, 1988. knew
that kept the letters in his office in a file which had
-------—- Mame on it because he had seen them there since the
August 29, 1988 meeting. However, } discovered that the
letters were missing from the file. subsequently asked
' why the letters were no lenger in his file and
told him not te worry about it because it was “just employees

bitching.“

was provided a copy of the Data Package Report for EPA
Case 10015 dated August 26, 1988, and stated after reviewing the
document that page 723 is the photocopy of the above referenced
cut and paste chromatogram (Attachment "A"). In addition,

was provided a copy of * “““~nd@ chromatogram dated
"00/00/00" (Attachment "5"). stated after reviewing this
document that this was the chromatogram that he generated on the
second test of sample X1516, and that he used it to create the

cut and paste chromatogram. explained that the
chromatograms on both decuments are identies? because they were
in fact generated from the same test. added that under

normal conditions, it is virtually impossible for two
chromatograms to be identical.

stated that he "fixed" another chromatoeram approximately
two months later on EPA Case Number se explained
that he tested as part of the required 72 hour sequence a "PBLK"
sample on October 12, 1988. Upon reviewine the chromatogram, he
determined that it was not usable. did not recall
specifically what was wrong with the chromatogram, but did state
that it was necessary to retest the "PBLK" sample.

on + 1988, at approximately .
retested the "PBLK" sample and backdated the test results so that
it would appear that the test was actually performed on October
1988 at 2050 hours. explained that he accessed the
configuration system on his computer and changed the date and
time on the internal cleck of the gas chromatograph to
approximately the game date and time of the falied
1988 "PBLK" test. As a result, the chromatogram generated during
the second test on . 1988 indicated that the tast was
performed on October 12, 1988 at 2050 hours, which is within
minutes of the date and time of the failed test.

1000855<«


ia UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
3 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
wes
AL pare?
ACTION REFERRAL MEMORANDUM © ADMINISTRATION

AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Request for Suspension of United States Testing Co.,

Inc., (EPA No. 89-0021-00); Nationwide Consumer
Testing, Inc., EPA No. 89= 0021-01; Research & Testing
Co., Inc., EPA No. 89-0021-02; and Qualitest, Inc., EPA
No. 89-0021-03

FROM: sharon 0. Mitchell, rsqbheronl, Mth
peers Poss ist, eco
anne Bene shscal/ fatnanls onan counsel
Region 10 (S0-125) Zp,
THRU: Robert F. Meunier, Chief
Compliance Branch (PM-2167)
pavid J. O'Connor, Director Lbeud 0 Ge

Procurement and Contracts Management/Division (PM-214F)

Frank Dawkins, Compliance Specialis
Compliance Branch (PM-216F)

The following facts have come to my attention and; are
offered for your information in support of this request for the
immediate suspension of the United States Testing Co. Inc.,
Nationwide Consumer Testing, Inc., Research & Testing €o., Inc.,
and Qualitest, Inc. pursuant to the Federal Acquisitioh
Regulation (F.A.R.) Subpart 9.4, and Title 40, Code of: Federal
Regulation (C.F.R.), Part 32.

Contract Laborato Background

1. Under the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), contracts are
awarded to laboratories determined to have met the
requirements of the EPA for analyses of Superfund site
samples. Data of known and documented quality is
critical due to EPA's Superfund mission and due to the
need to successfully identify the nature of hazardous
materials present at Superfund sites in order to assess
the impact on human health and the environment.
Accurate data is the primary factor upon which all
implemental and operational decisions are made in:
carrying out remedial and removal actions at Superfund

1

Printed on Recycled Paper



Special Exposure Cohort Petition
under the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Act

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Page 4 of 7

ion of Employee Class Covered by Pet plete Section E.

E.1_ Name of DOE or AWE Facility: HAN PED

E.2 Locations at the Facility relevant to this petition: -

i FlLurowimm Finiotive PLANT;
200 _ AREA -

E.3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be
included in this class: , , 4

CHEMICAL OPERATOR, PLANT ENGiUVEER, OFERATIONS
4 A ] ia FIRE ATRL AN, an
E.4 Employ ; relevant to this petitio
Start 4484 End 2002,
Start End
Stat End
E.5 Is the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored or

recorded exposure incidents?: Yes Q No

If yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and a complete description (attach additional pages
as necessary):
Dee Atraceted Paces

Go to Part F.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _


impending due date, there was not enough time to rerun all of the
previous samples. She discussed the problem with
who was a Richland Division employee who assiste on
the testing. Per suggestion, and with the agreement of
they ran 4 new standard and cut and pasted the resulting
test data on top of the strip chart which showed the failed
standard test results. The cut and pasted strip chart was then

‘photocopied and included in the report which was submitted to the

EPA, Indicated that she helped assemble this report the
following day.

stated that because she and ut and pasted the
strip chart, the report submitted te ara may reflect inaccurate
concentration levels.

also recalled that during her trip te the Richlanda
Division, she tested on Richland's ICAP 9000 the Ionization
Coupled Plasma (ICP) samples which were part of the inarcaniea
pre~award samples that Hoboken received from the EPA.
explained that Instrument ¢ in Hoboken was inoperable due to a
failed generator, and as a result had caused a one month backlog
of sample testing. In addition, USTC had just returned to the
EPA 100 EPA samples that they could not teat because of equipment
failure. Before she left Hokoken for her trip to the Richland
Division, - instructed her to take the samples and test them
at Richland. recalled asking whether this was the
right thing to do, and told her not to worry about it
because the BPA would never Know. itated that the
gamples were important to USTC in Hopoxen pecause their current
inorganic contract was running out, and that they were under
pressure to get a new inorganic contract from the EPA.

In addition, while was at the Richland Division,

sent to her USTC Hohoken's graphite furnace sample data.

took the data and incorporated the ICP test results into one
report, signed off on the package and sent all of the test
results to the EPA via overnight mail while from the Richland
Division. Per instructions, ashe recorded USTC in
Hoboken as the return address on the overnight mail receipt so
that it would appear to the EPA that the test results were
conducted and sant in from Hoboken.

stated that POSNER told her that the Richland niviaian
always did what he wanted, and that and of
the Richland Division were nothing. explained that

had a lot of power at USTC. ~

recalled that while at UsTc in Hoboken, she told
that she was having trouble getting all her work done on time.
told that to meet the work load, she was “helping
the standards along", which refers to getting the standard within
the 10% window by either spiking the sample when it is to low, or

Y

| ITIL IS IIE NAPE TP 2

RARE Me


specifically recalled that and were among
those employees who received such instiucu.un. explained
that for organic testing, the instrument had to pe caliprated
every 24 hours. The tests wera backdated less than 24, hours so
that it would appear that the sample was tested during the 24
hour calibration period. This enabled the operator 2 conduch
more tests jn the 24 hour calibration ps Me had DES tat
the test results generated on backdated EPA sample tests are
questionable because the instrument was not recalibrated before
testing. a

recalled ¢*-* created a stressful, high pressure
work environment i He required the employees to work long
hours for the purpose of improving production.
During January of 1987, announced that a’
employees would receive a 25% pay cut. He told shat she
was not getting enough samples done, and that te get the money
hack she had to up production. stated that they had a
lot of samples f- 46 and POSNER wanted them done fast.
indicated that iad an expense account and company car, and

that it was all contingent on his department making money.

recalled that instructed her to spike samples with
& known amount of the target compound before testing so that it
would be easier to identify the target compound. This eliminates
the risk of masking, which is when another compound hides the
presence of the target compound. If someone forget to spike a
sample prior to testing, the sample was spiked and tested again
independently without the EPA required blank and standards tests.
GAMBINO stated that this was improper and could affect the
concentration levels of the target compounds reported to the EPA.

Tn 1983/1984, of +h~ traction Laboratory told

that she was directed by to batkdate extraction
logsheets so that it would appear uw... che organic extractions
were done within the holding times.

recalled that during 1984, approximately 100 BATTELLE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY samples received from usT¢tg
Richland Division were run in her laboratorv. 2xplained
that for the entire month of October 1987, ,.-. ef the
Richland Division tested the samples at USTC in Hoboken heorange
the Richland Division's mercury analyzer was broken.
returned again with OZANICH for a period of one week in December
of 1927 and tested some more of the samples. indicated
that and recorded the tests in Richland Division
logbooks, and surmised that the logbooks indicate that the tests
were run on the broken mercury analyzer.

recalled that in 1985, the Richland Division was in the
process of setting up their laboratory and was unable te an ane



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
\liness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Page 3 of 7

Special Exposure Cohort Petition

Labor Organization Information — Complete Section D ON

D.1. Labor Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
D.2 Name of Petition Representative:

D.3 Address of Petition Representative:

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
D.4 Telephone Number of Petition Representative: ( )

D.5 Email Address of Petition Representative:

D.6 Period during which labor organization represented employees covered by this petition
(please attach documentation): Start End

D.7 ‘Identity of other labor organizations that may represent or have represented this class of
employees (if known):

Go to Part E.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


IMAIAL gto ve
; , Hc FICIAL USE ONLY
PESTICIDE E $1 ONS FANBORDS:: SUMMARY
Evaluation of Retention Time Shift for Dibutylchlorendate

1 Name: U2S.T. CO.

Contract: SBY8G031

<

Lab Code: USTCWA Case Now: 10316, SAS Newt oo. SDG Noss YED4@1 |
Instrument ID: GCISR_ GC Cedutarn, ID: 4

Dates of Analyses: 10/32/88 t+ 10/13/98

' EGA CAR SAmeLS” T "pate TT TIMe OP KT

| SAMPLE NO. | . oD 1 ANALYZED | ANALYZED | D 1 ot

| sessesemenes lameness | pengomoos (oem ses | amos [om]
O1/2VaL9 1 $ 10/42/88 | 1017 t-a.2 4 1
OB IEVALB ! 10/12/88 1 1103 1 -O.4 ' ot
O31EVALC : 1 10/12/788 | 1147 $ O08 4
O41 INDA ‘ { 10712788 | 1230 [ @oO1 Ff
OS( INDE t i 40712788 | 1314 1 Oo6t 1
06 (TOXARTY ! ' 10/12/88 | 1357 i aft t
O71ARLIOIE 1 ARNO ! 10/12/88 1 2441 1oo2r 4
OBIARLAAL ? ARLES 1 10/12/88 {| 1524 1 4: 4
OP ARI 222 { ARTES ! 10/42/88 1 1608 1 &4t ft
IGTARLE4D {! SRLB4E $ 19718789 {| 1651 1 ast it
LU ARIE45 1 AR1E48 1 49/7328/88 ! 1738 1 024 3
1alaRiass | AR1Las4 1 40/18/86 { 1818 1 2 1 1
ASIPRLK 1 S8:4e538P-1 | 10/12/88 | 2001 t+t.0 1 1
S41P BLK ! a8146a54SP-1t | 10718788 1 2050 1-08 1 1
151 YE941 = 1 BBL4001GP-1 | 10/12/7868 1 2133 (+O8 1 1
{S'YSS4tMS-DL | AALss04SR-t | 10718/88 1 2217 (-0.4 ¢ 1
ATIYESI4IMSEN: TH! AWL4NO1Sk-1  § 10/12/88 | 2300 { OO f 1
181 EVALB { VAL t 10/48788 1 2344 1 O74 8
ADIVE942 -DL 1 BBISGOESR-1 1 10/43788 1 0027 $0731 !
’ ROLYES43~-DL | B814003SF=1 1 10713788 |} O114 1-O,2 2
S81 YES44—DL ( 8814004SP~1 | 10/12/88 | 9154 i-23 1 3!
B21VE94S~-De ! SG146008SP-1 | 10713788 | 0238 1$-O.2 i t
S31YES*B-nL 1 8814006SP-1 1 16713/88 1 9321 $ Ot 1 ot
47 (NOR { IMDS 1 10/13/88 1 0408 ( o8 1 1
OS 1VEIG7 HD 1 ABL4007SF-1 § 10712783"! 0448 H1G0,9 5 #!
261 YED48=—DL. 1 8814008SR-1 | 10/13/88 | OSe3 f-O.f 1 4
271 YES49+DL. | BB1400SSP-1 | 10743788 | 9615 1-G,e i 3
281 YEISS~DL { BB14010SP-1 | 16713789 1 O8S9 1 -O.4 $1
B91 INDA ! INDRA 1 10713788 | O742 $$ O75 4
ZOlINDB { TNDE 1 19/43/88 ! GERE f Beco:
311 PRLK 1 BBI4AS4SP-1  § 10/18/88 1 2080 t-aa! |
! t ! 1 mos

* Values
On. 3% Fo

{£,4% for vacked malumna,

FORM VIII PEST-2


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services|

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Illness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 2 of 7

Survivor Information — Complete Section B if you are a Survivor or representing a Survivor.

B.1. Name of Survivor:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:
B.3 Address of Survivor:

Street Apt # 7 P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
B.4__ Telephone Number of Survivor:

B.5 Email Address of Survivor:

B.6 _—- Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse Q Son/Daughter Q Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandchild

Go to Part Cc.
Employee Information — Complete Section C UNLESS you are a labor organization.
C1.) Nama af Fmnloven:
Mr/Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name

C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):

Mr./Mrs./Ms, First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C3 Social Security Number of Employee: = _
C.4 Address of Employee (if living):

wny wi mp vee
C.5 Telephone Number of Employee:
C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a_ Employee Number (if known):

C.7b Dates of Employment: Start i¢8 End 1?

C.7c¢ Employer Name:
C.7d Work Site Location, HAWFURD, Ricteaw) WAsHina7en/

C.7e Supervisor's Name:

Go to Part E.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _


24

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

The allegations set out supra in paragraphs 14-24 not
only took place during the time periods denoted, in each
allegation but involved management and employees who
were employed at the Hoboken facility at the time the
Interim Agreement was signed. (Exhibit C, pp1-4;Exhibit
D,p2;. Exhibit E, ppl-4; Exhibit F, pp2-3; Exhibit G,
pp2-5, 7-8, 10-41; Exhibit H, p2; Exhibit I, p27
Exhibit BB).

Causes For Suspension

Under paragraph 9 of the Interim Agreement (Exhibit A,
p 9), UST agreed that... "If at any time EPA obtains
adequate evidence to believe that current UST :
management or employees at the UST Hoboken lab facility
have engaged in misconduct regarding the provision of
analytical services that would justify suspension under
the FAR and 40 C.F.R. Part 32, UST agrees that the
Director may immediately reinstate UST's suspension."
From the foregoing facts, the EPA believes that .
adequate evidence has been provided to the Director for
the reinstatement of the suspension of UST.

The information contained in this request, together
with its attachments, constitute adequate evidence and
cause for UST's suspension under the FAR Subpart 9.407-
2(a)(1) and (3) and, if true, may ultimately result in
uUST's debarment from federal procurement activities
under the FAR §9.406~-2(a),{(b) and (c).

The information referenced in this request, together
with its attachments, constitutes adequate evidence and
cause for UST's suspension under 40 C.F.R. §32.405(a),
(b) (1) and (2) and, if true, may ultimately result in
UST's debarment from federal assistance activities
under §32.305(a)(1), (3), (b)(1) and (da).

In¢lusion of UST Branches

UST's unincorporated constituent branch laborato: ies,
not specifically named herein, but located in various
places throughout the United States and elsewhere, are
included in and covered by any suspension issued!
pursuant to this request under the F.A.R. §9.407+1(c),
40 C.F.R. §§32.420 and 32.325(a) (1). !

uUSt's wholly owned, separately incorporated, subsidiary
laboratories constitute "affiliates" under the F; :A.R.,
§9.403 and 40 C.F.R. §32.105(b). Because they are
engaged in providing analytical services and because
the nature of UST's alleged misconduct is so extreme
and extends to the management level rendering all

7



sites and for the support records for decisions which
determine cost recovery from potentially responsible
parties. In order to insure data of known and
documented quality, stringent quality control
procedures and chain-of-custody procedures are
incorporated into the CLP contracts. (Exhibit AA, pp8,
14, 52, 55).

In order for the EPA to determine whether a laboratory
has the potential to perform work under a CLP contract
among other things, a laboratory must successfully
analyze pre-award performance evaluation samples: and
submit to on-site inspections conducted by Agency
officials to determine whether the laboratory meets the
contract requirements for personnel and equipment and
as a facility. Additionally, the laboratory must:
demonstrate adequate standard operating procedures
which insure a defined quality of analytical
operations, maintenance of data integrity, and chain-
of-custody requirements. Finally, the laboratory must
be among the lowest competitive bidders. (Exhibit AA,
pp53-54).

Once qualified, a CLP Laboratory must adhere to clearly
defined protocols incorporated within a contract's
statement of work (SOW) as well as contractual
requirements and standard operating procedures
regarding equipment, personnel education, applicable
work experience, documentation and chain-of-custody
procedures. The Agency monitors adherence to contract
requirements through evaluation of quarterly blird
Performance Evaluation (PE) samples, Gas
Chromatograph/Mass spectrograph (GC/MS) tape audits,
data package audits and on-site inspections conducted
on a scheduled and as-needed basis. (Exhibit AA, pp63-
66) :

In order to monitor data quality and insure chain-of-
custody of samples, CLP contract awards are laboratory
specific. In other words, if Company A owns laboratory
B and laboratory C, a contract awarded to laboratory B
must be performed solely by Laboratory B, even if
laboratory C has qualified as a CLP. Any deviation from
the SOW must be authorized by the Agency's Contracting
Officer or laboratory C must be listed as an alternate
laboratory site under laboratory B's contract. CLP
laboratories are patently aware of this restriction.
(Exhibit AA, p90) i

There are three major types of organic analyses
in an Organic Contract: volatile, semi-volatile (‘commonly

referred to as acid-base-neutral or ABN) and PCB/Pesticides.

2

ncorporated



OFFICIAL USE

ee Sta, Mey Ci :

72 % OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,

% £ OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS :

%y eo :

He pape 3
INTERVIEW OF

On August 15, 1989, EPA OIG Special Agent CARL W, FRIEDRICH and
DOE OIG Special Agent DONALD G. FARMER interviewed _._.. __

Special Agents FRIRNRTCH and FARMER properly identified
themselves and provided to an immunity letter dated
August 15, 1989 from Assistant United States Attorney ROBERT $.
LINNELL, Eastern Mistrict of Washington, United States Department
of Justice. was then questioned relative to her
activities and knowledge of her former employer, UNITED STATES
TESTING COMPANY, INC., Hoboken, New Jersey. No other persons
were present, ,

OMB RTAN TY Ye mI TERT ese OM

Special Agent FRIEDRICH recontacted by telephone on
September 14, 1989 to obtain additional information relative to
UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC. The information obtained has
been incorporated into the body of this report.

voluntarily provided the following information:
Home Address:
Home Telephone:
Work Address:

* Work Telephone:

DOB:
SSN:
provided the following information in response to
questions:
is presently employed as a Sales Representative for
CLAYTON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. Sha received in a
IRVESTIGATION CONDUCTED ON EDA
1989 i — =
GunoucTED BY OTFILE NUMBER
._ FRIED! :
ATE DICTATED TRANSERIGE! jay ~ _
1989] ; 1989

‘This report ts the property of the Ottice of Investigations end le loaned to your agency: It and Ils contents may not be reproduced without
written permisslon..The report 4 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and tts disclocure to unguthovized persone bs prohibited, Public availsbllity to
be determined under $ U.S.C. $22,

COR CA ITER EF.



by adding water to the sample when it is to high. knew what
“helpin~ the standards along" was and that it was wrong.
told to do what she had to do to get the work done.

overheard a conversation that was a part of which f
inoluded discussions about techniques that USTC was using to i
falsify test data. This included enhancing the spectra and
backdating test results.

never showed any techniques for falsifying inorganic 2
test data because she di@ not know anything about inorganic Py
testing. k

indicated tha told her that the | Section had 5
two sets of lomhs-te one zor the EPA and one for the work they i
actually did. stated that she never saw a second set of F
legbooks. . 2

vecalled that during the middle part of 1987, she had a
problem getting a standard to wor’ -“{le teetin« =n EPA sample
for tin in the graphite furnace. tor” that she
anvlanth get the standard te work for it wav cumsng out to high.

netructed her to add more water to the «tanaawa to get it

te work. C.-.--..- admitted that she followed

instructions even though it was improper and in essence doctoring
the sanple. estimated that ehe did thie on two to three
times.

stated that she never instructed her employes” *~ “-‘sify
tests, nor did she let them see her falsify tests.
explained that whenever her employees had a problem with
standard, she would come back at night after they had Toft the
facility and add water to the standards for then.
indicated that she never discussed POSNER's instructions to fix
the standards with .

added that she overheard instruct to
add water to standards. ndicatea that knew that
adding water to standards was improper.

stated that saw cut and paste test
results and then proceeded to cut and paste test results on her
own. indicated that this occurred during a two to three
week ‘period at the end of 1987 on samples that were being tested
in t*- ---ite furnace. stated that when she discovered
that had done this, she told her not to cut and paste
test results. explained that knew the pressure
that she was under and was just trying to help out.

recalled that she heard on many occasions instruct
USTC employees to backdate their instruments. This included
employees who tested organic and inorganic samples. She