Top bar

About POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database (FCMD)

The government awards contracts to companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations. In the absence of a centralized federal database listing instances of misconduct, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is providing such data. We believe that it will lead to improved contracting decisions and public access to information about how the government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money each year on goods and services. Report an instance of misconduct »

Fluor Corporation

Violations of Radioactive Safety Procedures

Date: 03/26/1998 (Date of Preliminary Notice of Violation)

Misconduct Type: Labor

Enforcement Agency: Energy

Contracting Party: Energy

Court Type: Administrative

Amount: $140,625

Disposition: Fine

Synopsis: The DOE issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation to Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. “[V]iolations described in Section I of the…Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) involve multiple and recurring violations of criticality safety procedures and posting limits at the PFP Facility in 1996 and 1997 which include the following: (1) placing containers of [radioactive] material in temporary storage in a Fixed Array Wagon and transporting the material in violation of criticality safety administrative controls; (2) multiple examples of subcontractor violations of a PFP criticality safety procedure (as it was applied to [a glovebox]) which requires all personnel to know and comply with criticality limits and postings; and (3) multiple examples of subcontractor failure to identify and correct criticality safety infractions.” “The violations described in Section II of the… PNOV include a number of work control failures that occurred shortly before or in response to [a facility] tank explosion in May 1997. These violations involved several examples of failure to comply with… approved operating procedures, and include (1) failure to perform surveillance of emergency breathing apparatus devices in accordance with your established surveillance frequency, (2) failures to make proper and timely notifications of the emergency condition, (3) not performing proper radiological surveys prior to personnel being released from the site, and (4) several instances of personnel failure to take cover when a "Take-Cover" condition was instituted.”