U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–543 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–732

HARBERT AND SHAW NOMINATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO

CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT TO BE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND JOHN SPITALERI SHAW TO BE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND 

HEALTH

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 2

Bunning, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Kentucky ................................................. 3

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 1

Harbert, Karen Alderman, Nominee To Be Assistant Secretary for the Office 

of Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy ............................. 4

Shaw, John Spitaleri, Nominee To Be Assistant Secretary for the Office 

of Environment, Safety and Health, Department of Energy ............................ 7

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 13

(1)

HARBERT AND SHAW NOMINATIONS 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD–

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. 

Senator Bingaman, I understand that there is just an awful lot 

of simultaneous hearings this morning, and that probably accounts 

for the fact that there are not so many Senators here. 

So we are going to start with a chairman’s remark. 

Anybody on the committee that has questions will submit them 

in writing and then you all will answer those. What is a reasonable 

time for the submission of questions? 5 days? 

Senator BINGAMAN. The end of the week. 

The CHAIRMAN. End of the week, all right. By the end of the 

week, staff, would you inform your Senators that if they have questions, they should get them in? 

Let me welcome both of you: Karen Harbert and John Shaw. Ms. 

Harbert will be Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and 

Domestic Policy. We wish you the best. 

Ms. HARBERT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. John Shaw will be Assistant Secretary of Energy 

for the Environment, Safety and Health. Both of them are important jobs. As I said, we hope that you have the very best. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, before we begin the statements, I would 

ask each of you three questions. You have to stand up and raise 

your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. SHAW. I do. 

Ms. HARBERT. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Sit down. 

Before you begin your statements, I will ask each of you three 

questions addressed to each of you. I will begin with Ms. Harbert. 

Will you be available to appear before this committee and other 

2

congressional committees to represent the Department’s position 

and to respond to issues of concern to the Congress? 

Ms. HARBERT. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shaw? 

Mr. SHAW. I will, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict or create the appearance of such a conflict, should you be confirmed and assume 

the office to which you have been nominated by the President? 

Ms. Harbert? 

Ms. HARBERT. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings, 

and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate ethics officials and counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to 

my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Shaw. 

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings, 

and other interests have been reviewed by both myself and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have 

taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There 

are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge, 

sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you involved or do you have any assets held 

in blind trust? 

Ms. HARBERT. No, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shaw? 

Mr. SHAW. No, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now, we are going to move on. If the Senators have some brief 

opening statements, if you would like to give them, we will do that. 

Senator Bingaman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator BINGAMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for recognizing me. Let me just say that I intend to support both of the 

nominees based on what I am advised. These are both very important positions and they have particular relevance to our State, as 

you know, in several regards. 

I do have some statements that I will submit in writing. I have 

another hearing going on in the Finance Committee that I am required to attend as well. So I do appreciate them being here and 

I wish them both well. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Senator. 

Ms. HARBERT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I yield to Senator Bunning, I understand 

that each of you has some relatives here. That seems to me to be 

important because it means that you consider it important, important enough to have your family here. Ms. Harbert, would you have 

your family stand up and quickly introduce them? 

Ms. HARBERT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to introduce my mother, Josephine Hailey, who hails from the great 

3

State of Tennessee and who raised me to put integrity first. My 

husband, Michael Mitchell, and my mother-in-law and father-inlaw, Helen and Jerry Mitchell, all three of them from the great 

State of Pennsylvania. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shaw. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Today I am joined by my wife, Hilary Shaw. My daughters, Isabelle and Charlotte, are here with me today. My mother is 

here as well, Patricia Spitaleri, and I am joined by my father-inlaw, Jim Holman. My mother-in-law and father could not make it 

here today. They are traveling on business. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. That little one over there is one of them? 

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir, the little redhead is mine. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You have her close to the door so if something 

happens, they can run out. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bunning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BUNNING, U.S. SENATOR

FROM KENTUCKY 

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, we 

have two nominees: Karen Harbert, the nominee to be Assistant 

Secretary of Energy for International Affairs and Domestic Policy; 

and Mr. John Shaw, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Energy 

for Environment, Safety and Health. 

The nomination of Mr. Shaw is especially important, given the 

problems we have had that have plagued the DOE operation in its 

energy employees compensation program. Many of the workers at 

the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant have already received compensation for their illnesses due to the radiation and beryllium 

under subtitle B, the portion of the program run by the Department of Labor. DOL has processed more than 90 percent of the 

nearly 60,000 claims under the energy employment program. 

In contrast, however, more than 3,200 Kentuckians have requested help from DOE under subtitle D. These are Paducah workers exposed to toxic substances. These workers are still waiting to 

have their cases heard. None—that is zero—Kentucky workers 

have received compensation for their illnesses under DOE’s portion 

of this program. As the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, it will be Mr. Shaw’s job to oversee DOE’s responsibilities under the energy program. 

As you are no doubt aware, I, along with bipartisan supporters 

of more than 20 Senators, drafted the Bunning-Bingaman amendment to the defense authorization bill. The amendment moves the 

majority of the DOE operation to DOL for prompt claim processing 

and assures payment of benefits to deserving workers. The DOE 

has opposed these important reforms. I have worked hard and long 

with many of my Senate colleagues on this amendment and am 

hopeful it will stay in the conference. 

This is a big job and I expect Mr. Shaw will be receptive to suggestion and comments by Members of Congress. I hope that if the 

Senate confirms Mr. Shaw, he will work hard to make sure that 

4

DOE effectively manages the part of the energy employees program 

that they retain, such as record retrieval from the DOE facilities. 

I also hope he can assure a smooth transfer of operations if the program is moved to DOL. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Now, as you can tell, things are getting rather slim up here. So 

what we are going to do is ask that you make your statements, and 

they are both made a part of the record right now. So they are part 

of this transcript. I would ask each of you to summarize them as 

briefly as you can. I understand they are brief, but maybe make 

the statements even briefer. Let us start with you, ma’am. 

TESTIMONY OF KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT, NOMINEE TO BE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ms. HARBERT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. 

I am honored to appear today before you as President Bush’s 

nominee for Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Domestic Policy, and I am grateful for the opportunity to serve President Bush and Secretary Abraham to build upon the excellent relations that DOE currently enjoys with the members of this committee. 

The Assistant Secretary is DOE’s principal liaison to the Federal 

Government, other agencies, and other nations to ensure a unified 

policy voice on our energy sector. We live in a time when national 

security issues such as energy are no longer either domestic or 

international in nature. Fortunately, I have excellent road maps to 

guide my efforts, President Bush’s National Energy Policy and National Security Strategy. The experience and knowledge I have 

gained throughout my career and by serving in senior positions in 

the Federal Government and the private sector will be a strong 

foundation to lead the Department’s efforts to keep energy issues 

at the forefront of our national agenda here and abroad. 

Currently, as you may know, I serve at the United States Agency 

for International Development in charge of overseeing our foreign 

assistance programs in South America and the Caribbean. With an 

increasing appreciation for development assistance as an invaluable tool in achieving our national security objectives, I have established relationships across the foreign affairs agencies of the executive branch that will afford a ready-made interagency network, 

should I be confirmed. 

In my current position, I viewed USAID’s relationships with Congress as a high priority and have expended significant effort to 

keep members and staff apprised of our programs, our budget 

needs, our successes, and our shortcomings. If confirmed, I can assure you that I will also endeavor to continue the development of 

a good working relationship with this committee and be proactive 

in keeping you abreast of DOE initiatives. 

I have lived and worked abroad all of my professional life with 

an emphasis on Latin America and the Caribbean. My job now is 

to improve people’s lives and improve U.S. relationships with countries in the hemisphere. During my tenure at a private energy 

5

firm, it was my job to liaison with host governments and demonstrate to them the necessity of making their energy sector a priority for improvement. As Assistant Secretary, my job would be to 

find that common ground where we can improve our energy relationships around the world, make the energy sector a priority, and 

do it in a way that improves people’s lives, protects our national 

assets, and protects the environment for generations to come. 

My experience with countries in this hemisphere is both broad 

and deep. As both the chairman and the ranking member know, 

our energy relationships within this hemisphere are growing in importance. In the private sector, I have also worked on energy issues 

in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, and I have been a part of pioneering privatization programs around the world, opening up other 

sectors to private sector investment. I look forward to returning to 

these parts of the world, if confirmed as Assistant Secretary. 

I have witnessed firsthand the value that DOE offers in commercializing environmentally friendly technologies to help us and other 

committed countries address global climate change. Should I be 

confirmed, I want to assure you that our work on global climate 

change will continue and be an expanding part of our international 

dialog. 

Our government has some of the most experienced professionals 

in their specific career areas around the world. I currently oversee 

about 1,000 employees, extremely capable and committed individuals, at USAID. And at DOE I have met the International and Domestic Policy staff, and I would be very privileged to lead that 

great team. Sound management practice is an important part of an 

Assistant Secretary’s mandate, and you have my assurance that, if 

confirmed, I will attend to the management needs of the office to 

allow the talents and contributions of the office to be fully realized. 

In conclusion, as you know, we face many great challenges in further expanding our national energy mix. Internationally, we see 

countries such as China and India vastly increasing their energy 

demands, and at home we must protect and modernize our energy 

infrastructure and promote the use of technology to ensure a constant, fairly priced supply of environmentally friendly energy. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a rare occurrence when an opportunity presents itself that allows you to bring forth all of your experience and 

knowledge for one job. I thank the President and the Secretary for 

this opportunity and I thank the members of this committee for 

considering my nomination. 

This concludes my statement and I would be happy to address 

any questions the committee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harbert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT

OF ENERGY

Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman and members of the Committee, I am 

honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Domestic Policy. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve President Bush and Secretary Abraham and to build upon the excellent relations that the Department of Energy (DOE) enjoys with the members of this 

Committee. 

First, Mr. Chairman, please allow me to introduce two important people here with 

me today. My mother Josephine Hailey here from Senator Alexander’s home state 

6

who raised me to put integrity first, and my husband Michael Mitchell, my most 

valued and cherished partner in life. 

The Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Domestic Policy is DOE’s 

principal liaison to other nations and to other Federal agencies to ensure a unified 

voice for our energy policy. We live in a time when national security issues such 

as energy are no longer either domestic or international in nature. On both the domestic and international components of the office’s portfolio, I have excellent road 

maps to guide my efforts, President Bush’s National Energy Policy and the National 

Security Strategy. The experience and knowledge I have gained throughout my career and by serving in senior positions in the Federal government and in the private 

sector will be a strong foundation to lead the Department’s efforts to keep energy 

issues at the forefront of our national agenda here and abroad. 

Currently, I serve at the U.S. Agency for International Development, charged with 

overseeing our foreign assistance programs in South American and the Caribbean. 

With increasing appreciation for development assistance as an invaluable tool in 

achieving our national security objectives, I have established relationships across 

the foreign affairs agencies of the executive branch that will afford a ready made 

interagency network should I be confirmed. In my current position, I viewed 

USAID’s relationships with Congress as a high priority and have expended significant effort to keep members and staff apprised of our programs, our budget needs, 

our successes and our shortcomings. If confirmed, I can assure you that I will also 

endeavor to continue the development of a good working relationship with this Committee and be proactive in keeping you abreast of DOE initiatives. 

I have lived and worked in the international arena all of my professional life, with 

a particular emphasis on Latin American and the Caribbean. I was born in Argentina to American parents during a time when the U.S. and Argentina did not see 

eye-to-eye on many issues, which ultimately didn’t serve either’s interests well. My 

job now is to improve people’s lives and improve U.S. relationships with the countries in this Hemisphere. During my tenure at a private energy firm, it was my job 

to liaison with host governments and demonstrate to them the necessity of making 

their energy sector a priority for improvement. As Assistant Secretary my job would 

be to find that common ground where we can improve our energy relationships 

around the world, make the energy sector a priority and do it in a way that improves people’s lives and protects the environment for generations to come. 

My experience with countries in this Hemisphere is both broad and deep and as 

both the Chairman and Ranking Member know our energy relationships with our 

hemispheric partners are growing in importance. In the private sector I also worked 

on energy issues in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. I have been part of pioneering 

energy privatization programs working with governments to open up to private investment. I look forward to returning to these parts of the world to solidify and expand U.S. interests. 

In the private sector, I witnessed first hand the value DOE labs offer in commercializing environmentally friendly technology to help us and other committed countries address global climate change. Should I be confirmed, our work on Global Climate Change will continue and be an expanding part of our international dialogue. 

Our government has some of the most experienced professionals in their specific 

career areas in the world. I currently oversee almost 1,000 extremely capable and 

committed individuals at USAID. DOE is no exception. I have met the International 

and Domestic Policy Staff and would be privileged to lead that great team. Sound 

management practice is an important part of the Assistant Secretary’s mandate. 

You have my assurance that if confirmed, I will attend to the management needs 

of the office to allow the talents and contributions of the office to be fully realized. 

We face many great challenges in further expanding our national energy mix. 

Internationally, we see countries such as China and India vastly increasing their 

energy demands. At home, we must protect and modernize our energy infrastructure 

and promote the use of technology to ensure a constant, fairly-priced supply of energy. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a rare occurrence when an opportunity presents itself that 

allows you to bring forth all of your experience and knowledge for one job. I thank 

the President and the Secretary for this opportunity and I thank the members of 

the Committee for considering my nomination. This concludes my statement and I 

would be happy to address any questions the Committee may have. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Shaw. 

7

TESTIMONY OF JOHN SPITALERI SHAW, NOMINEE TO BE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is 

my honor and privilege to appear before you today as President 

Bush’s nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. 

Mr. Chairman, I can think of no other position in government 

that offers the challenges and potential rewards as that of Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Should I be confirmed, I will seek to provide leadership and help the men and 

women in EH continue to meet their goal of assuring the health 

and safety of DOE employees and the protection of the environment in communities near DOE facilities. 

I appreciate your consideration of my nomination and I very 

much look forward to working with you and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN SPITALERI SHAW, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SEC- RETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, it is my 

honor and privilege to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee to serve 

as the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health (EH). As 

you know, on July 22, 2004, I was also appointed Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health in order to fill a position that had been vacant for 

several months. 

Before being appointed Acting Assistant Secretary, I held two senior positions at 

the Department of Energy (DOE)—first as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Environment, Safety and Health, and then as the Deputy Chief of Staff and White 

House Liaison. Prior to joining DOE, I practiced law in the private sector here in 

Washington, D.C. and also served as Majority Counsel for former Senator Fred 

Thompson on the Senate Committee on Government Affairs during the committee’s 

1997 special investigation into alleged illegal and improper campaign finance activity. 

As Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, I 

became familiar with the wide range of critical functions played by the Office. As 

the Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, where it was my responsibility to coordinate 

Secretarial initiatives with the various program offices, I again saw firsthand how 

EH serves the DOE program offices throughout the Department. In short, it became 

clear that it is the Office of Environment, Safety and Health that the DOE community comes to for the help they need not only to do their jobs safely, but to do them 

well. 

Secretary Abraham has made a personal commitment that the safety of our workers, respect for the environment, and the protection of the public health are paramount in all that we do. The Secretary looks to EH to help provide the leadership 

and tools needed to keep this commitment. The Department today has an excellent 

safety record—for example, over the past six years the numbers of workdays lost 

because of safety concerns has been cut in half and is now less than half that of 

private industry. 

While that is a record to be proud of, our data tells us we need to do better. Our 

data tells us that we have to improve our performance in two areas in particular—

electrical safety and the safety performance of subcontractors who come on to our 

sites for brief periods. As Assistant Secretary, one of my top priorities would be to 

improve the Department’s performance in these areas. 

In the short time that I have served as the Acting Assistant Secretary, I have become familiar with the wide range of responsibilities this office entails—from the 

Office of Facility Safety to Office of Health, the Office of Corporate Performance Assessment, the Office of Price Anderson Enforcement, and the Office of Environment. 

8

I know that many of the activities of these offices are of great importance to the 

members of the Committee and I pledge to work closely with this Committee and 

other Members of Congress on each of these areas of interest. 

An example of the breadth of EH activities is the Office of Environment. The Office conducts independent reviews of Environmental Impact Statements prepared by 

DOE Program offices to ensure they are technically adequate, legally sufficient, and 

compliant with all requirements; they ensure radiation protection of the public and 

environment through policies and guidance; and they promote the adoption of sound 

pollution prevention practices through the use of environmental management systems. They are providing DOE-wide leadership in helping meet the goals of Executive Order 13148, ‘‘Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental 

Management’’ by having environmental management systems in place at all DOE 

sites by December 31, 2005. 

I know that one of the issues of particular concern to this Committee is implementation of Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupations Illness Compensation Program Act and the Worker Safety and Health rule and I look forward to discussing 

these issues with the Committee members. 

Mr. Chairman, I can think of no other position in government that offers the challenges and potential rewards as that of Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety 

and Health. Should I be confirmed, I will seek to provide leadership to help the men 

and women in EH continue to meet their goal of assuring the health and safety of 

DOE employees, and the protection of the environment and communities near DOE 

facilities. 

I appreciate your consideration of my nomination, and I very much look forward 

to working with you and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw. 

Senator Bunning, do you have any questions? 

Senator BUNNING. I have got lots of questions, but I do not know 

if I should submit them all. I am going to ask some of Mr. Shaw 

because it is very important. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please do. You are in charge now, Senator 

Bunning. 

Senator BUNNING. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We will call a meeting to 

confirm you as soon as possible. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. HARBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. 

Senator BUNNING [presiding]. Mr. Shaw, as you know, the Department of Energy has many issues with Paducah from cleanup 

to workers’ compensation. I helped set up a Kentucky DOE office 

so that headquarters could more efficiently deal with that in Lexington, Kentucky. 

Given the complexities at the Paducah plant—have you ever 

been to Paducah? 

Mr. SHAW. Not yet, Senator. I look forward to coming down there 

shortly. 

Senator BUNNING. The sooner, the better. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir. 

Senator BUNNING. Mr. Shaw, DOE continues to fight against the 

bipartisan workers’ compensation amendment. DOE has squandered the past 4 years and $90 million of taxpayers’ money on this 

program. The result is still zero Kentucky workers and only 31 

claimants from other States have been paid. What are you going 

to do to assure that ill workers are taken care of not only in Paducah but around the country? 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Senator. I know that you and other members of the committee have worked very hard on this issue and that 

9

you care very deeply about DOE workers. I know that you have 

been very frustrated with the Department’s performance in this 

area. I also know that you know Secretary Abraham and his staff 

and myself are working very hard to improve this performance, and 

his commitment to this program and former DOE workers is without question. 

Having said that—and I know this is your amendment, sir—Congress will soon make a decision on whether to move the overall responsibility for this program over to the Department of Labor, a 

change a number of members of this committee, including yourself, 

support. Regardless of what that decision is—and I know you know 

the administration’s position is that it should stay with DOE—it 

will be critical during this time that DOE maintain a robust and 

healthy records retrieval capability. 

That has been my focus since assuming responsibility as acting 

Assistant Secretary. Based on your statement earlier, I want to 

pledge to you that should the program move to the Department of 

Labor, you will have not only my personal but my entire office’s full 

cooperation. The bottom line is my office needs to work harder and 

we need to work together to get the workers paid the compensation 

that they deserve, sir. 

Senator BUNNING. Mr. Shaw, DOE has still not identified a payor 

for as many as half of all the claimants who may be ill from their 

DOE work. It is now letting a new contract for all of the claims 

processing activities, and after 4 years, only 6 percent of the 25,000 

claims have made it through the physician panels. Given these 

facts, how will DOE be able to finish processing all 25,000 claims 

within its projected 2-year timeframe? 

Mr. SHAW. Well, Senator, to answer your question in two parts. 

First, the current contract that exists is under review by procurement because my understanding is that there is an awards process 

going on right now and no final decision has been made regarding 

a contractor to carry out this important part of the mission. 

As far as the Department of Energy’s ability to continue to ramp 

up production and continue to try to process claims through the 

physicians’ panels, I do not want to sit here and give you an exact 

date because I think you have heard exact dates from my office before. What I would like to be able to do is go back and look at the 

numbers that we have and give those to your office and staff so I 

have a chance to review them more thoroughly in order to give you 

a better answer. 

Senator BUNNING. At the last meeting we had on this specific 

issue, Mr. Card gave us a 2-year. That is why I brought it back. 

Mr. SHAW. I understand, sir. I think that it is my responsibility, 

as the acting Assistant Secretary and the nominee for this post, to 

make sure that I review these numbers thoroughly and give them 

to you and assess what I believe they are. 

[The information follows:]

DOE is currently processing approximately 150 cases per week through the physician panels. If that rate were to continue, we could assume that about 2,500 cases 

would complete physician panel review in approximately a 17 week period.

Senator BUNNING. Mr. Shaw, prior to your being nominated, the 

Department of Energy indicated that the early lung screening program that I fought to establish at the gaseous diffusion plant was 

10

a bad idea and should be stopped. Do you share this opinion about 

this valuable program? If not, what are your plans for the future 

of the program? 

Mr. SHAW. You are referring to the CT scan, Senator? 

Senator BUNNING. Yes. 

Mr. SHAW. I met with Dr. Markowitz recently and he brought to 

my attention this program that he works with at several locations. 

Quite frankly, Dr. Markowitz and I had a very good conversation. 

We discussed some of the science and technology behind this, what 

I consider an important avenue for workers to have available to 

them, should they choose to look into obtaining these scans. I look 

forward to working with you and your office to see if this is something that should be provided in a more efficient fashion to workers. At this point in time, I know it is not widely available, but we 

are looking at ways to proceed and see whether or not it is the 

right thing to continue to do. 

Senator BUNNING. In other words, you have not made an opinion 

on this program at all? 

Mr. SHAW. No, sir. 

Senator BUNNING. It has been in effect for quite a while. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes. I know it has been in effect for quite a while, and 

right now my understanding is that my predecessor adopted an 

opinion that was against this. I certainly am willing to meet with 

all the parties involved and see if this is appropriate. 

Senator BUNNING. The Department of Energy has asserted that 

its path forward will provide a payor for every claimant. Yet, its 

proposal only indicates the Department will look for a payor but 

does not guarantee a payor for every claimant. What steps has the 

Department taken to ensure that all claims approved by the Department of Energy’s physician panels for illnesses suffered at the 

Paducah plant will be paid, including those who also have employment with USEC and those that could affect the Kentucky special 

compensation fund? 

Mr. SHAW. My immediate answer to you, Senator, is that the Department of Energy will continue to work hard to seek willing 

payors. We are not in a position, unfortunately, to order these people to pay. We do our best to seek out willing payors and have 

them pay the claims that these people deserve. 

In regards to USEC and the special cadre of workers that you 

mention, I would like to be able to provide those answers for you 

in writing. I am aware of it, but I would prefer, sir, if it is OK, to 

submit those to your staff. 

[The information follows:]

In Kentucky, specifically at the Paducah Site, DOE has identified Bechtel Jacobs 

as the ‘‘willing payer’’ for Paducah Plant employees of Union Carbide, Martin Marietta Energy Systems or Lockheed Martin Energy Systems who had exposures to 

toxic substances prior to July 1998. Based on the applications to date, we estimate 

that many of these workers will have a willing payer for occupational exposures for 

which DOE will issue ‘‘do not contest’’ orders, although in some instances this will 

require additional coordination with other state agencies. DOE continues to work 

with the current commissioner to identify means for allowing the Kentucky State 

fund to waive their defenses. DOE also continues to investigate mechanisms to pay 

claims without ‘‘willing payers.’’

Senator BUNNING. Okay, you can do that. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir. 

11

Senator BUNNING. This will be the last question. The DOE just 

sent a request for proposal, RFP, out for a new contractor to replace SEA, the current contractor that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, the General Services Administration, GSA, Inspector General, and others have found significant problems with. 

How long will it take DOE to transition from its current contractor 

to a new one? How can we be sure that the DOE will select a qualified contractor? Have any claimant experts, workers comp experts, 

or State workers comp agencies endorsed the DOE’s path forward, 

the DOE’s request for proposal, RFP, or the small list of companies 

to whom it was sent? 

Mr. SHAW. First, Senator, you raise and the GSA Inspector General and the GAO have raised some very serious issues. Please be 

assured that the Secretary takes this matter very seriously, and at 

this time we are responding accordingly. The Secretary appointed 

an internal review group to research the history of DOE’s relationship with several of the contractors that are applying for this, and 

right now we are going to have responses to provide to the GSA 

by September 24, in a few days. 

One of the things I would also like to do, Senator, is take again 

your question and provide you more thorough answers on paper, 

sir. 

[The information follows:]

During our market research, DOE did not hear from or learn of companies that 

were interested in participating in this procurement that would not be able to participate in a GSA schedule procurement, nor had DOE received inquiries from any 

such companies. 

Because of uncertainties concerning the Subtitle D program, the Department terminated the procurement in question and initiated a short term bridge contract with 

SEA. DOE is working closely with the Department of Labor to best meet the 

programs’s needs should the program be transferred to the Department of Labor.

Senator BUNNING. OK. You realize that the chairman of the Finance Committee is also doing a very intensive study about this 

same program? 

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir. I am aware of Senator Grassley’s concerns. 

Senator BUNNING. That is all the questions I have. I want to 

thank you both for being here to testify. 

This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:24 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(13)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 

CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, October 8, 2004. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On September 21, 2004, John Spitaleri Shaw, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health, testified as President Bush’s nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health. 

Enclosed are the answers to questions that were submitted by Members of the 

Committee for the hearing record. 

If we can be of further assistance, please have our staff contact our Congressional 

Hearing Coordinator, Lillian Owen, at (202) 586-2031. 

Sincerely, 

RICK A. DEARBORN, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[Enclosures.] 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1. Please outline the Office of Environment Safety and Health’s historical, current, and future plans for the Marshall Islands Program. 

Answer. Medical Program. On March 1, 1954, 253 people on Rongelap and Utrik 

Atolls were exposed to radiation resulting from fallout during the U.S. nuclear test 

Castle Bravo. Medical care was immediately assumed by the Atomic Energy Commission and has continued under successor agencies—the Energy Research and Development Agency and DOE. DOE is required to pay for a program of ‘‘adequate 

medical care and treatment for any person who has a continuing need for the care 

and treatment of any radiation illness or illness directly related to Castle Bravo.’’ 

Public Law 108-188, The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, 

continues this commitment into the future. 

The original medical program provided annual medical screening examinations, 

with an emphasis on detection and treatment of radiation related illness. Treatment 

for other diseases and conditions found upon examination was and currently is provided by the National Health Care System in the Marshall Islands. During the program’s early years, services were delivered aboard ship. In 1997, the program was 

changed to a land based program with doctors available to see enrolled persons in 

Majuro City and those living on Ebeye Island near Kwajalein Island. Quarterly visits to several remote islands filled out the land based program. 

During Fiscal Year 2005 execution, DOE will make funds available to provide 

medical screening examinations and treatment for the affected population. 

Environmental Program. The DOE environmental monitoring program was mandated in Public Laws 96-205 and 99-239 (Section 177). As originally authorized, it 

was to include periodic environmental characterization of Bikini, Enewetak, 

Rongelap, and Utrik Atolls to support decisions about resettlement. After more than 

20 years of characterization activities, the program now answers specific scientific 

questions related to resettlement decision making. The implementing agreement for 

Section 177 included whole body counting and access to DOE scientists for consultation and special studies. The historical agricultural and environmental studies performed on Bikini Island will be completed in FY 2005. 

The current program supports environmental monitoring technical support for resettling and settled populations on three of the four Atolls. Most activity is directed 

14

to Enewetak Island and Rongelap Island. This year the environmental contractor, 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was directed to complete the backlog of 

studies and technical summaries. DOE has exceeded the requirements of the Section 177 implementing agreement by building and training local technicians to operate three whole body counters in the Marshall Islands. These devices are the standard for determining a person’s actual intake of radioactive materials from locally 

grown foods. Any Marshallese citizen with a concern can arrange to have the procedure. Results to date show insignificant exposures. 

During Fiscal Year 2005 execution, DOE will make funds available to support a 

core program of whole body counting and reporting of results to the public, active 

resettlement environmental monitoring for Rongelap, and special studies of new 

food crops. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

SANDIA NEW MEXICO MEDICAL SCREENING

Question 1a. The former worker medical screening program at Los Alamos has 

been conducted by occupational physicians from Johns Hopkins and University of 

New Mexico, and is scheduled to be closed down this year. DOE has not initiated 

a former worker medical screening program at Sandia Labs in New Mexico. 

Has the DOE’s model used over the past 7 years been effective in serving the 

needs of the former workers across the DOE complex? 

Answer. It is my understanding that these pilot projects, which have served 

former workers from 11 DOE sites, have been very effective in identifying possible 

exposures, identifying the appropriate medical screening tests for workers with 

these exposures, conducting outreach, and in offering medical screening in convenient locations. 

Question 1b. Has this model been effective in serving the needs of former workers 

at Los Alamos? 

Answer. Yes, it is my understanding that this model has been very effective in 

serving the needs of former workers at Los Alamos. 

Question 1c. Would you support initiating a stand-alone medical screening project 

at Sandia Labs, similar to the model used at Los Alamos over the past five years? 

Answer. I am committed to the availability of appropriate medical screening for 

former DOE employees at all sites, including Sandia. Before we make a decision on 

how to best proceed with any change in the existing program, I believe we need to 

undertake a thorough review of the Former Worker Medical Screening Program in 

order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, the results achieved and the 

operational costs associated with the program. One of my first actions as Acting Assistant Secretary was to direct that plans to award a contract for a national screening program be put on immediate hold, until a thorough analysis of existing projects 

and the needs of DOE sites currently without screening programs can be concluded. 

If confirmed, I would look forward to working with you and your staff on this important matter. 

NIOSH-DOE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON HEALTH STUDIES

Question 2a. DOE’s Memorandum of Agreement with HHS with respect to Health 

Studies expires at the end of September 2004. This MOA covers health studies performed by ATSDR, CEH and NIOSH. 

A key area of concern is the impact of a new MOA on health studies on atomic 

workers by NIOSH’s Health Energy Related Branch (HERB). HERB performs epidemiological studies with funds transferred under this MOA. Congress had contemplated assigning this research function to HHS as part of the legislation in the 

late 1980s and early 1990s, but a compromise was struck with the Secretary, Admiral James Watkins, to have HHS perform this research through an interagency 

Memorandum of Agreement. For NIOSH to credibly and effectively perform health 

related research, it must have independence from DOE’s involvement in the selection of research areas, the types of studies, the methods of peer review, the establishment of committees, and the types of research proposals (extra mural and intramural). We are concerned that NIOSH’s independence could be eroded by DOE efforts to micromanage NIOSH and its energy related research agenda. 

What is your schedule for renegotiating this MOA? 

Answer. The MOU has been renegotiated by the staffs of HHS and DOE and is 

expected to be signed shortly by the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of HHS. 

Question 2b. As a party to the MOA, will you work to assure that NIOSH retains 

the independence which it deems necessary to credibly and effectively carry out its 

research, including the selection of research topics, the methods of peer review, the 

15

establishment of review committees, and the use of both intramural and extramural 

researchers. 

Answer. Yes, NIOSH independence is one of the factors important to the success 

of this program. The MOU was intended to provide independent scientific support 

as a means of restoring congressional and public trust in the results of worker 

health studies and public health activities at DOE facilities and in host communities. HHS and DOE agree that the program has been successful. The new MOU, 

as drafted, will continue NIOSH’s independence in the conduct of the studies, while 

responsibility for selecting and prioritizing the studies will be shared by the two 

agencies. 

Question 2c. What is the DOE’s FY 05 budget for worker health studies by 

NIOSH? For ATSDR studies? For CEH studies? 

Answer. The FY 2005 budget request for these activities is $13.5 million, which 

assumes $5.0 million for NIOSH, $5.0 million for ATSDR, and $3.5 million for 

NCEH. 

Question 2d. Are any new studies of DOE sites by ATSDR required by CERCLA 

or otherwise necessary at this point in time? 

Answer. It is my understanding that no new studies of DOE sites by ATSDR are 

required by CERCLA at this time. 

LOS ALAMOS HISTORICAL DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL AND ASSESSMENT, LAHDRA, PROJECT

Question 3a. Under the DOE-CDC Memorandum of Understand referenced in 

question 2, the Department of Energy funds the CDC to review historical documents 

at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to assess the radiation dosage that may 

have been released to the surrounding public the since the laboratory began operations. This project is a continuation of other successful projects carried out at Hanford and Oak Ridge’s Y-12 facility. There have been some concerns regarding the 

ability of the CDC to access the LANL documents due to security classification and 

funding from the DOE to the CDC to carry forth this project. 

Does the Department support this project? 

Answer. Yes, this project is a very high priority for both DOE and HHS. 

Question 3b. What is the status of this project? 

Answer. I understand that NCEH will award the contract in the near future. 

Question 3c. Has the issue of document access by the CDC and its contractors 

been resolved? 

Answer. Yes, an effective special security procedure to deal with access issues has 

been developed with NNSA support. 

Question 3d. What is the funding for this project in FY2005? 

Answer. FY 2004 funding is $1.0 million and FY 2005 funding is expected to be 

$1.8 million. 

RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Question 4a. The Department has historically funded the Radiation Effects Research Foundation to study the long-term effects of atomic bomb survivors in Japan. 

What is the FY2004 funding level? 

Answer. The FY 2004 funding level is $13.5 million. 

Question 4b. What is the FY2005 funding level, and if it has been reduced from 

FY2004 why? 

Answer. The DOE FY 2005 budget request for all Health programs, which includes the RERF program, is $45 million. During Fiscal Year 2005 execution, DOE 

will make funds available to support RERF activities. 

MARSHALL ISLANDS PROGRAM

Question 5a. The Office of Environment, Safety and Health is responsible for providing mandated medical care for the residents of Rongelap and Utrik who were exposed to acute radiation from the ‘‘Bravo’’ thermonuclear test in 1954, and for monitoring radiological conditions in all of the Northern Marshall Islands in support of 

cleanup and resettlement activities. DOE’s budget for these activities for FY 2002, 

FY 2003, and FY 2004 was $6.3 million, but there is no longer a line item in FY 

2005. 

What is DOE’s FY 2005 budget request for the Marshall Islands Program? 

Answer. The DOE FY 2005 budget request for all Health programs, which includes the Marshall Islands program, was $45 million. 

Question 5b. Please explain the new approach and assure the Committee that 

DOE will continue to help meet our nation’s unique responsibility to those individuals and communities that were so deeply affected by our weapons testing program. 

16

Answer. DOE will provide appropriate medical screening examinations and treatment of cancer for the remaining 109 people who were present on Rongelap and 

Utrik Atolls during the 1954 Castle Bravo test. In addition to this group, medical 

examinations and care are provided to about 90 others. The current program supports environmental monitoring technical support for resettling and settled populations on three of the four Atolls. Most activity is directed to Enewetak Island and 

Rongelap Island. This year the environmental contractor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was directed to complete the backlog of studies and technical 

summaries. DOE has exceeded the requirements of the Section 177 implementing 

agreement by building and training local technicians to operate three whole body 

counters in the Marshall Islands. These devices are the standard for determining 

a person’s actual intake of radioactive materials from locally grown foods. Any citizen of the Marshall Islands with a concern can arrange to have the procedure. Results to date show insignificant exposures. 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR CRAIG

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT

Question 1. Mr. Shaw, I am certain that the members of this Committee will explore with you their views and concerns regarding the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. I have met with a number of Idahoans—

retired workers from the INEEL and Argonne West—who have filed claims under 

this program. 

I believe the DOE has made many efforts under the leadership of Secretary Abraham and Deputy Secretary McSlarrow to get this claims processing system on track 

somehow. I understand that some Senators feel that the Labor Department will do 

a better job. It is their right to hold that view. 

But when I have met with my constituents, the thing they want most of all is 

just to get access to the information they need, in a timely fashion, and to keep the 

claims process moving. Although I do worry that by ‘‘switching horses mid stream’’ 

from Energy to Labor—we might slow the system down—I support any solution that 

will move these people through this program with expediency and fairness. 

Whatever ends up happening with the transfer of this program, do you commit 

to working with all of our offices when we have individuals workers that cannot get 

access to their exposure records—or the history of what they were exposed to? If 

workers from Idaho feel they are being stonewalled by DOE, or denied access to information about their work history, will you work with me to resolve it? 

Answer. I want to assure you and the Members of Congress, along with DOE 

workers and their families, that no matter how the issue of overall management of 

the program is resolved, DOE will aim to maintain a healthy and robust program 

to obtain the worker health and exposure records needed to address EEOICPA applications. Should Congress transfer responsibility for administering certain 

EEOICPA responsibilities to the Department of Labor, we will work closely with 

them for a seamless transition and effective working relationship. If any worker 

feels stonewalled or denied access to information about their work history, my office 

will work with you to resolve their concerns. 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR KENNEDY

Question 1. The Office of Environment, Safety and Health has been funding beryllium screening for former employees of DOE’s beryllium vendors in Massachusetts 

through the former worker medical screening program. Boston University was assigned the responsibility to carry out this medical screening program for former employees of Wyman Gordon and Norton (now St. Gobain) by DOE with a $250,000 

cooperative agreement. The program has been very effective and additional beryllium-exposed workers have been identified in eastern Massachusetts. 

Will you ensure that additional funding is provided to complete this beryllium 

screening program? 

Answer. It is my understanding that this program has been very effective in identifying beryllium disease in former employees of beryllium vendors. Should I be confirmed we will complete medical screening of former Norton employees and initiate 

medical screening for beryllium-exposed workers in eastern Massachusetts consistent with funding availability. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

Question 1. Mr. Shaw, I know you are aware of the screening program for former 

Hanford workers exposed to on-the-job hazards, and I appreciate your willingness 

17

to meet with my office on this subject. While the larger DOE Energy Employees 

Compensation Program has been mired in controversy and mismanagement, at least 

the Hanford screening program has been successful. It has led to the early detection 

of cancers, provided ongoing screening for long-latency illnesses and resulted in 

more than 360 successful compensation claims through the State of Washington. 

Frankly, it is one of the few success stories in our effort to take care of those workers the federal government inadvertently put in harms way. 

That is why I’m troubled by the notion that DOE now wants to reinvent the wheel 

and dismantle programs that are actually working, in favor of a centralized program 

that could very well offer fewer services and less care. Essentially, that’s what DOE 

proposed earlier this year before you arrived—with existing programs originally 

scheduled to end on October 1, or in two weeks. While that deadline in some cases 

was extended until next spring, workers are still being left with nowhere to go. 

Since June, the program administered by the University of Washington has had to 

turn away more than 500 former Hanford workers who want to be examined. These 

programs—and the workers they serve—have been left in limbo. 

Mr. Shaw, will you commit to extending the Hanford former worker program as 

soon as possible, so these workers on waiting lists can get the medical screening, 

follow-up care and assistance they so richly deserve? 

Answer. Recognizing the concerns expressed by you and other Members of the 

House and Senate, one of my first actions as Acting Assistant Secretary was to direct that plans to award a cooperative agreement for a national screening program 

be put on immediate hold until a thorough analysis of existing projects and the 

needs of DOE sites currently without screening programs could be conducted. If I 

am confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I commit to working with Hanford stakeholders in conducting that analysis. I further directed that all existing programs, 

including the former worker medical screening program at Hanford, continue offering full services through next Spring. At that time, we will have the results from 

our analysis and a better understanding of the financial resources required and 

availability of funds for these important programs. 

Question 2. I am aware that the extension through March of next year was issued 

last month. But even if DOE were to approve a change in ‘‘scope of work,’’ to make 

it possible for more workers to get exams in the next few months, it is my understanding that there would not be enough time to provide the follow-up care and assistance for those workers. And even if the program were able to ramp up from a 

stand-still to granting the maximum number of exams per month, that would still 

leave in limbo more than half of the more than 500 workers now on the medical 

exam waiting list. And that’s to say nothing of the more than 3,000 who are at an 

earlier stage in the process, who have been identified and have an interest in taking 

advantage of the screening. 

We believe that, to get through this backlog, the program needs to remain in place 

for three years—and that’s even before another 30,000 workers have been located. 

But in the very least, can you commit to extending this program through all of fiscal 

year 2005? I see that as the only way that this program can continue to function 

in a way that will not result in workers getting the rug pulled out from underneath 

them. 

Answer. As I mentioned previously, I have directed a complete and through analysis of the Former Worker medical screening program. When we have the results 

from that analysis, with a better understanding of financial resources required to 

best meet the needs of former workers at Hanford and all DOE sites, we will be 

able to make such a determination. 

Question 3. Mr. Shaw, I know that you are also aware of the concerns that are 

being raised about the health and safety of current workers at the Hanford tank 

farms. Earlier this summer, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) published a Health Hazard Evaluation for the tank farms, and ‘‘determined a potential for significant occupational exposures and health effects from 

vapors released from the hazardous waste storage tanks’’ at Hanford. 

Obviously, this is of grave concern to all of us concerned about Hanford. One of 

the NIOSH recommendations, in particular, grabbed our attention. Specifically, 

NIOSH recommended medical monitoring for current tank farm workers who want 

it. Already, current worker monitoring programs exist at sites in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio. And in reviewing the legislation that created the existing monitoring program, it seems that DOE already has the statutory authority to put one 

in place at Hanford. A few questions on this topic:

• Do you agree with NIOSH that establishing an independent medical monitoring 

program for current Hanford tank farm workers would be beneficial? 

18

• Do you believe this could be accomplished by expanding DOE’s existing cooperative agreement with the University of Washington, which has run the screening 

program for former production workers at Hanford? 

• Would you commit to working with us to put this program in place?

Answer. I know that this is an important issue your office has been following 

closely over the past several months. I have reviewed the NIOSH report and concur 

with their recommendation that tank farm workers ‘‘concerned about possible workrelated health problems should be fully evaluated by a physician, preferably one familiar with occupational conditions... and that individuals with definite or possible occupational health problems should be protected from exposures that are presumed to cause or worsen disease.’’

I understand that AdvanceMed Hanford, the current health care provider at Hanford, with input from tank farm workers, has developed a comprehensive medical 

surveillance program for tank farm workers, especially those workers with potential 

exposures to the head space gases (waste intrusive workers). A second medical 

screening program is available for workers potentially exposed to mercury. There is 

also a separate program designed for workers in the tank farm area (such as maintenance and custodial workers) but who are not identified as hazardous waste workers. 

If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I will work closely with the program management at DOE headquarters and the Office of River Protection to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs and determine if they are adequate to protect the tank 

farm workers. My office will work with you and the Members of Congress, Environmental Management, site management, and the affected workers to ensure that the 

occupational medical needs of the tank farm workers are met. 

Question 4. I want to return to DOE’s proposal, issued earlier this year, to consolidate its existing medical screening programs into a single national vendor. The DOE 

proposal would consolidate sites that have not had screening programs (but certainly need them), with those—such as Hanford—that have had 5 years of program 

activities. 

I am concerned that this one-size-fits-all screening program, as described on the 

DOE’s web site, appears to eliminate some of the most desirable elements contained 

in the existing medical screening programs—substantial local presence, independent 

physicians, active involvement of workers in education and outreach, and a credible 

way to tailor medical examinations to the specific hazards at a given site. It appears 

that DOE’s national vendor proposal was developed without an external review, and 

without the input of affected stakeholders. 

I have already asked that you take action to ensure that the successful Hanford 

program be continued this year. However, I also recognize the fact that DOE may 

want to extend screening programs to other sites that have not yet benefited from 

them. 

In charting a ‘‘path forward’’ for this program, would you agree to set up a consultative process to solicit the views of the affected workers, occupational medical 

professionals, the existing screening programs and NIOSH? 

Answer. Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, one of my first directives as Acting 

Assistant Secretary was to postpone plans to award a contract to establish a national program until such an analysis can be conducted. If confirmed as Assistant 

Secretary, I will certainly consult with affected workers, occupational medical professionals, the existing screening programs and NIOSH in conducting that analysis. 

Question 5. Mr. Shaw, as I know you are aware/as I’ve previously mentioned, 

there has been growing concern about the safety of today’s Hanford cleanup workers. I have already mentioned the report issued this July by NIOSH, which found 

that ‘‘vapor constituents may be present at sufficiently high concentrations to pose 

a health risk to workers.’’ Partially as a result of that NIOSH report, more concerns 

have been raised about potential hazards posed to tank farm workers, resulting 

from the presence of a dangerous form of mercury recently discovered at Savannah 

River. And meanwhile, the Chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board 

earlier this month weighed in, questioning the effectiveness of DOE’s Integrated 

Safety Management System for Hanford. As I understand it, the office you would 

head has oversight of these Integrated Safety Management Systems. 

Mr. Shaw, these are a few of the reasons I’ve felt like the DOE Environment, 

Health and Safety Office has been missing in action over the past few years. If confirmed, what are you going to do differently in your approach to safety of Hanford 

cleanup? 

Answer. I understand your frustrations. As you know, it is the mission of the Office of Environment, Safety and Health to provide the corporate leadership, performance goals, assistance, policies, programs and feedback to enable DOE to excel in 

19

mission performance while achieving excellence in safety and environmental stewardship. As you stated, ISM is an integral part of achieving our goals. A major concept of ISM is the integration of safety awareness and good practices into all aspects 

of work so that work is conducted in such a manner that protects workers. Safety 

must be embedded in every element of each job—not a stand-alone program or a 

program that is imposed after the fact. 

Under the concept of ISM, safety is the responsibility of line management and 

managers must be accountable. Oversight of ISM is provided by the Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance, an independent office that reports directly 

to the Secretary. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, it will be my responsibility to 

provide corporate leadership for ISM. I will take an aggressive approach to assuring 

full and effective implementation at all DOE sites, including Hanford, by being a 

leader, a hands-on manager, and a motivator. It will be my intent to work with the 

Office of Environmental Management and River Protection to augment their technical expertise in the development of a comprehensive worker safety and health program appropriate to the hazards present at the Hanford Tank Farms. We will also 

bring in any additional technical expertise needed to assure that Line Management 

and the contractor embrace any such program and implement it in an efficient and 

cost effective manner. 

As Acting Assistant Secretary, my philosophy is to work very closely with line 

management at headquarters and the field on the implementation of ISM and Quality Assurance programs at DOE sites. EH understands the issues facing the entire 

complex and brings the unique ability to bridge program lines and share best practices to correct deficiencies. I have worked with line mangers and the Deputy Secretary to issue a DOE Policy on environment, safety and health goals that establishes a goal of zero injuries and accidents and will require goals and metrics for 

improving safety performance. ISM implementation is essential to accomplishing 

these goals and I am responsible for reporting on our progress to the Secretary and 

Deputy Secretary. Should I be confirmed I look forward to reporting our progress 

to Congress as well and being accountable for the overall safety and health program 

for DOE. 

Question 6a. In that same report from this July, NIOSH references a previous 

study it completed in 2000. NIOSH noted in its report this summer that DOE has 

not yet implemented its recommendations from four years ago. In it, NIOSH found 

that, even today:

• Complete rosters of current and former DOE cleanup workers do not exist; 

• Accurate and complete chemical exposure, work history and medical records 

data are not available; 

• Individual workers cannot consistently be linked to their exposure and medical 

data, as DOE has failed to standardize data collection; and that 

• At the present time, the necessary information is not available to conduct exposure assessments and hazard studies of cleanup workers.

Over the past few months, we have debated how to compensate former energy employees we inadvertently made sick during the Cold War and World War II—and 

how difficult that is, because of the poor records we kept at the time. I would like 

to think DOE has learned some lessons since then about worker health and safety, 

and how to track occupational hazards. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the 

case. 

Have you reviewed the 2000 NIOSH study, which recommends the creation of 

‘‘rule-based, enforceable, complex-wide monitoring and data collection standards’’ for 

workers at DOE cleanup sites? 

Answer. I have reviewed the 2000 NIOSH study recommending ‘‘rule-based, enforceable, complex-wide monitoring and data collection standards.’’ If confirmed as 

Assistant Secretary, I plan a review of activities related to worker safety and health 

at the Hanford Tank Farms. Working with the Congress and other stakeholders, we 

will create a meaningful path forward to address this issue. 

Question 6b. If confirmed, would you commit to developing standards, consistent 

with NIOSH’s recommendations? 

Answer. Yes, I believe it is important that appropriate worker safety and health 

standards are developed and enforced. In the course of developing our Worker Safety and Health rule (10 CFR 851) we will work with OSHA, NIOSH and stakeholders 

to be sure that the appropriate standards are in place to protect workers from these 

types of chemical exposures. 

20

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LANDRIEU

Question 1. I understand that as part of the reprogramming request to Congress, 

there was a plan proposed to get the program moving aggressively. I believe that 

included a ramping-up of claims processed by the contractor and sent to the physician panel at a rate of 200-300 per week, or clearing the backlog of claims by the 

end of next year. Is the contractor that processes claims currently meeting that 200-

300 per week promise and on track to meeting that goal? 

Answer. Upon receipt of appropriations transfer funds in June 2004 in the 

amount of $23.3 million, DOE authorized the Navy to authorize the claims processing contractor to ramp up its operations to process. Currently, the contractor is 

processing more than cases per week. If there is continuity of funding into FY2005, 

we should be able to meet out goal. 

Question 2. One of the problems raised over the past year is the requirement that 

there be a ‘‘willing payer’’ in each state. In other words, someone to cut the check. 

Can you tell me if the DOE contractor that processes claims has anything to do with 

that problem? 

Answer. The responsibility for paying claims or for identifying ‘‘willing payers’’ for 

claims does not involve the DOE claims processing contractor. 

Question 3. Another issue that has been raised is the piling up of processed claims 

now needing a final decision by a physician panel. Can you tell me if the DOE contractor that processes claims has anything to do with that problem? 

Answer. Physician Panel activities are not the responsibility of the DOE claims 

processing contractor. 

Question 4. Let me close by then asking you what I asked Mr. Card in March. 

I would be interest in your perspective. Do you believe the contractor that processes 

EEOICPA claims for DOE has performed its duties as tasked and directed by the 

Department? 

Answer. Yes. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Has DOE found a willing payer for Alaskan claimants?

• If yes, please identify the willing payer(s) DOE has found. What percentage of 

Alaskan claims will each willing payer be responsible for? 

• If no, has DOE completed its search for willing payers for Alaskan claimants? 

• If DOE has not completed its search for a willing payer for Alaskan claimants, 

please state when DOE believes it will complete its search. 

• Please list all entities (including all levels of subcontractors) that DOE has determined are not available as willing payers for Alaskan claimants.

Answer. DOE has identified contractual relationships with the following contractors in the respective time frames that will allow DOE to issue a ‘‘do not contest’’ 

order. DOE can only issue such an order if the particular worker was employed by 

the contractor at the time frame specified for the contractor in the chart, and the 

worker’s illness was caused by exposures to toxic substances at DOE facilities during that timeframe. To date, no such cases have arisen. If such cases do arise, DOE 

will issue appropriate ‘‘do not contest orders.’’

1965-72, 1995 .............. REECo .................................... Bechtel Nevada (BN) 

1965-72, 1995 .............. EG&G Measurements, Inc. .. Bechtel Nevada (BN) 

1995 ............................. Raytheon Services Nevada ... Bechtel Nevada (BN) 

1965-72 ........................ Holmes & Narver .................. Bechtel Nevada (BN) 

1965-72 ........................ Fenix & Scisson of Nevada ... Bechtel Nevada (BN) 

1965-72 ........................ Wackenhut Services, Inc. ..... Wackenhut Services, Inc. 

DOE has not found a legal way to order contractors other than those above to ‘‘not 

contest’’ workers’ compensation claims. Although DOE’s search for ‘‘willing payers’’ 

continues, DOE, at this time, does not expect additional ‘‘willing payers’’ to be identified for Alaska. The following are contractor employers identified on applications 

for which DOE has not identified a legal way to order the companies to ‘‘not contest’’ 

State workers compensation claims:

Contractors for whom ‘‘do not contest’’ order can not be issued: 

Beck CRK 

Universal Services 

Kiewit Centennial 

Grasle Electric 

21

S.S. Mullins 

Chris Berg 

Piquniq Management Corp. 

Taywood, Berg, Riedel 

Walsch Co 

Western Marine 

Parco 

AP&H 

J B International Construction 

Alaska Plumbing and Heating 

Alaska State Trooper 

TVA Muscle Shoals 

USI 

Evergreen Helicopters 

City Electric 

Scofield Electric 

ERA Helicopters

Question 2. A number of Alaskans have had claims pending with the DOE for an 

unacceptably long time. Please explain what DOE is doing to expedite the processing of claims for Alaskans. 

Answer. DOE has increased the pace of its EEIOCPA Subtitle D case processing 

operations. As of September 27, 2004, DOE has received 101 cases that involve employment at an Alaska facility. Of these,

• 29 have been completed. 

• an additional 28 have been prepared for physician panel review, and are either 

under panel review or pending assignment to a physician panel. 

• 38 are under development. 

• 7 are awaiting development.

Question 3. Several Alaskans with positive Physician Panel determinations have 

not received any meaningful assistance from DOE in pursing their positive determinations with the Alaska Workers Compensation Board. Please provide a narrative 

explanation of what DOE believes are its responsibilities to assist claimants who 

have received positive Physician Panel determinations. 

Answer. EEOICPA authorizes DOE to assist workers in seeking State workers’ 

compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to toxic substances at DOE facilities. 

That assistance includes helping applicants retrieve records from DOE sites and 

providing those records to a panel of physicians appointed by NIOSH. The panels 

provide determinations as to causation and applicants who receive a positive determination also may be entitled to have a ‘‘do not contest’’ order issued to their DOE 

contractor employers in the State workers’ compensation proceeding. DOE also assists applicants receiving positive physician panel rulings with the State workers’ 

compensation application process. DOE cannot, however, provide legal advice or represent applicants in State proceedings. In addition, the Alaska resource center provides assistance to Subtitle D applicants who have received a positive physician 

panel determination by providing information on the Alaska workers’ compensation 

system and processes; the workers’ compensation forms; and assistance with gathering required medical information. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. According to your DOE web site, ’cases at panel’ is the number of 

cases that are currently being reviewed by a Physicians Panel. 2,504 cases are currently ’at panel’. On the same site, DOE says there are 190 physicians reviewing 

cases. That means that there are more than 13 cases with each and every doctor. 

At DOE’s claimed rate of review—20 working days, or one month per case per doctor—there is more than a year’s backlog currently at panels. It has taken 4 years 

to get the first 1,500 cases through panels, now another 2,500 are languishing at 

panels. How long will these reviews really take? 

Answer. DOE is currently processing approximately 150 cases per week through 

the physician panels. If that rate were to continue, about 2500 cases would complete 

physician panel review in approximately a 17 week period. 

Question 2. According to DOE’s web site, as of July, 107 claims had been filed 

in state workers’ compensation. What is DOE doing for the other 424 claimants with 

positive panel findings? Has DOE contacted these claimants or ’assisted them in filing with the state’? What is DOE doing for claimants without ’willing payers’—in 

states like Kentucky? 

22

Answer. DOE is contacting applicants with positive determinations who have not 

yet filed for State workers’ compensation. Resource Center staff assists applicants 

in filing compensation applications, particularly in the States where applicants must 

initiate the process. DOE contractors are expediting their filings, reviews, and payments of these cases. 

In Kentucky, specifically at the Paducah Site, DOE has identified Bechtel Jacobs 

as the ‘‘willing payer’’ for Paducah Plant employees of Union Carbide, Martin Marietta Energy Systems or Lockheed Martin Energy Systems who had exposures to 

toxic substances prior to July 1998. Based on the applications to date, we believe 

many of these workers will have a willing payer for occupational exposures for 

which DOE will issue ‘‘do not contest’’ orders. DOE continues to work with Kentucky State officials to identify means for allowing the Kentucky State fund to waive 

its defenses. DOE also continues to investigate mechanisms to pay claims without 

existing ‘‘willing payers.’’

Question 3. The DOE’s proposed regulations for worker health and safety at DOE 

sites did not follow Congressional intent of DOE having similar safety rules as 

OSHA has. After many Congressional offices, including mine, told the DOE this, it 

agreed to rewrite the regulations. Do you know when the DOE plans to issue new 

proposed regulations for worker health and safety at DOE? 

Answer. Recognizing the concerns expressed by you and other Members of Congress, as well as the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and other stakeholders, the Secretary directed that the draft rule be pulled back and rewritten to 

better reflect these concerns. I believe the revised proposed rule will be issued shortly for public comment. I look forward to hearing your views on this revised version 

once it is issued.

Æ