U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–694 WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–497 

BURNISON AND WHITE NOMINATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MELISSA F. BURNISON TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS) AND ANNE MARIE WHITE TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT) 

JANUARY 18, 2018 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

TINA SMITH, Minnesota 

BRIAN HUGHES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

BRIANNE MILLER, Senior Professional Staff Member and Energy Policy Advisor 

MARY LOUISE WAGNER, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Burnison, Melissa F., nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy 

(Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs) ................................................ 6 

White, Anne Marie, nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Environmental Management) ..................................................................................... 11 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Burnison, Melissa F.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 6 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 9 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 29 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 2 

McConnell, Hon. Mitch: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 5 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

White, Anne Marie: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 11 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 13 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 35 

(1) 

BURNISON AND WHITE NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2018 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, the Committee will come to order. 

We were able to welcome, the day before yesterday, our newest 

member to the Committee, Senator Smith from Minnesota, who 

has joined us. I mentioned at that time that Senator Capito would 

be returning to the Committee. So it is good to have you back with 

us working on energy issues. Welcome back. 

We are here today to consider two nominations for the Department of Energy: Anne White, to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management, and Melissa Burnison, to be 

the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. 

Ms. White, the position that you have been nominated for is one 

of tremendous importance to many members of this Committee and 

to our nation as a whole. The Office of Environmental Management 

(EM) is responsible for the cleanup of the legacy wastes from our 

nation’s nuclear weapons research and development program. The 

work being done at the remaining 16 sites is often uniquely sitespecific and requires a high amount of training and expertise to be 

conducted safely. 

As Assistant Secretary, it will be your job to ensure this work is 

undertaken in accordance with applicable safety requirements. At 

the same time, you will be responsible for ensuring the prudent use 

of taxpayer dollars by encouraging contractors to stay on schedule 

and within cost. 

We recognize that this is no small challenge, given that EM is 

perennially on the Government Accountability Office’s ‘‘high risk’’ 

list. I look forward to hearing more on how you plan to correct 

some of the office’s long-standing deficiencies. 

Ms. Burnison, ordinarily we would not even be conducting a 

hearing for your nomination. The Assistant Secretary for the Office 

of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs is a privileged 

nomination that, absent objection, goes straight on the Executive 

Calendar for Floor consideration after a 10-day waiting and review 
2 

period. While we did receive an objection for your nomination, I 

would note here that it was unrelated to you or your qualifications 

for this role. I preferred to avoid this extra step and detour, but 

unfortunately that is not possible in what has been kind of a tough 

environment here in the Senate to confirm even the least controversial and most well-qualified nominees. 

So I thank you both for your willingness to serve our country. 

Given the positions that you hold, I do not think either one of you 

will be strangers to the members of this Committee. I ask for your 

commitment to work with us once you are confirmed. 

I will now turn to Senator Cantwell for any opening remarks 

that she may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I congratulate both of the nominees on being nominated. Of all 

the Department of Energy’s Presidential appointments, none is 

more important to my state than the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. 

The Office of Environmental Management is currently responsible for cleaning up 16 nuclear weapon sites in 11 states, but none 

of these sites is larger, more complex, more expensive, or more 

challenging than the Hanford Site in the State of Washington. It 

is an enormous task and one which requires skill, experience, and 

dedicated leadership. 

So I am grateful to have had the chance to discuss with you 

many of these issues in my office, and I know that you understand 

the seriousness of this undertaking. If confirmed, you will need to 

improve the safety culture at the site, and ensure health and safety 

for our cleanup workers, in addition to making sure that we had 

adequate funding and keeping the cleanup effort on track to meet 

cleanup milestones, which the Department, I know, is committed 

to. 

Hanford is unlike any other environmental cleanup operation, 

you will find, in the country. It was the proving ground for nuclear 

production reactors and developed a successful plutonium extraction process. This has left a legacy of a complex mix of chemicals 

and radioactive materials, and we have continued to be challenged 

as we try to remediate this. It is not only the complexity of the 

waste at Hanford that is an issue, it is just the sheer volume. 

Our country depended on Hanford to be its nuclear weapons material workhorse. The Purex facility extracted over 60 percent of 

our nation’s plutonium to be later fabricated at the plutonium finishing plant and a final product to be inserted into our warheads. 

The mission has changed at Hanford, but the risks remain. The 

Purex facility is now empty, and the plutonium finishing plant is 

in the midst of continued demolition and operation production. 

Both these facilities have been in the news over the last year. 

The Purex facility had a tunnel collapse and it contained highly 

contaminated materials. The demolition of the plutonium finishing 

plant has been fraught with two major contamination events and 

the health and safety of Hanford workers. 
3 

Our country owes a great debt to those men and women at Hanford who helped our country in time of great national security. We 

owe it to them to make sure we get the cleanup process right. 

That is why I want to make it clear to the Administration that 

we need a budget that doesn’t shortchange Hanford. This year it 

was $100 million less than what we thought was acceptable. Luckily, the budget was not enacted, and I hope that this year has 

served as a valuable lesson to the Administration that appropriate 

funding for Hanford is very important moving forward. Obviously, 

a robust budget and determined individuals dedicated to protecting 

the environment and surrounding communities is a must. In addition to the critical mission, the Department’s effort to complete the 

vitrification plan, as we discussed, will be a very big challenge. I 

hope we have the opportunity to continue to work together to make 

sure these issues are addressed in an aggressive way. I will get 

into some of the questions with you on the rest of the larger issues 

of moving waste once the facility is completed and vitrification logs 

are actually produced. 

The job of Assistant Secretary of Congressional Affairs is also important in maintaining a healthy working relationship between the 

Department and the Congress. 

Ms. Burnison will be the principle point of contact, and I am glad 

to see that you have had good experience working with both House 

and Senate colleagues at the House Natural Resources Committee 

and the Department in your various efforts. I congratulate you on 

your nomination this morning. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

At this time, I would ask each of the nominees to stand, please. 

The rules of the Committee which apply to all nominees require 

that they be sworn in in connection with their testimony. 

I would ask each of you— 

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? 

I failed to ask that you raise your right hand. 

Let’s do it again. 

[Laughter.] 

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? 

[Witnesses answer, I do.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, now it is official. 

Please go ahead and be seated. 

Before you begin your statements, I will ask you three questions 

addressed to each nominee before this Committee. 

Will you be available to appear before the Committee and other 

Congressional committees to represent departmental positions and 

respond to issues of concern to the Congress? 

Ms. BURNISON. Yes, I will. 

Ms. WHITE. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments or interests that could constitute a conflict or create an ap-
4 

pearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the 

office to which you have been nominated by the President? 

Ms. BURNISON. No. 

Ms. WHITE. My investments—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. White, can you push the button there for—— 

Ms. WHITE. My investments, personal holdings and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate ethics 

counselors within the Federal Government. I’ve taken appropriate 

action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of 

interest or appearance thereof to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And are either of you involved or do you have assets held in 

blind trusts? 

Ms. BURNISON. No, I do not. 

Ms. WHITE. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

We will now begin. 

Ms. Burnison, we will start with you and I would note that the 

Majority Leader, Senator McConnell, has provided the Committee 

with an introduction of you. Apparently, you began your Congressional career in Senator McConnell’s Senate office and clearly developed a passion for the work here and the institutions that we 

serve. 

I will be including, as part of the Committee record this morning, 

that statement from the Leader, himself. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
5 

Melissa F. Burnison to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy 

Introduction of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18,2018 

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, Fellow Senators: 

It's my privilege to offer my support for Melissa F. Burnison, a Louisville, Kentucky native, to serve as the 

Assistant Secretary of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Energy. President 

Trump has chosen another outstanding Kentuckian to serve in his administration. Through today's hearing, 

this committee will hear about her skills, experience, and abilities, which make her an excellent candidate 

for filling this position. 

Melissa began her congressional career in my Senate office, and during that experience, developed a 

passion for our work here and the institutions we serve. 

Melissa has since spent more than a decade working on important issues relevant to the Department of 

Energy. Specifically, Melissa joined the staff of Tennessee Congressman Zach Wamp, where she 

specialized in energy, science, defense, and national security issues with a particular focus on Department 

of Energy nuclear and science programs and the National Nuclear Security Administration defense 

programs. Melissa rose through the ranks to eventually serve as Congressman Wamp's legislative director. 

Employing that same passion for our nation's energy policies, Melissa subsequently worked for the House 

Committee on Natural Resources pursuing policy objectives such as enhancing domestic energy 

development and independence in the United States. Thereafter, Melissa served as a senior advisor at the 

Department of Energy- the agency she is now tasked to join once again. 

As members of this committee know, it is as important now as ever that our nation pursues a sound energy 

policy that enhances our ability to develop more of our domestic resources and subsequently rely less of 

volatile foreign energy sources. This goal can only be met through joint efforts of Congress and relevant 

administration agencies. The Department of Energy spearheads important research to ensure the U.S. is 

on the cutting edge of technological advancements in the energy and efficiency space. It also oversees 

important initiatives such as environmental cleanup operations at places like the Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant, in my home state of Kentucky. The Assistant Secretary for Congressional and 

Intergovernmental Affairs is critical to ensuring to proper communication between this body and the 

department. Given her years of relevant work experience, I believe Melissa will serve our nation and the 

Department of Energy well in this role. 

I would like to thank the committee for offering me the opportunity to provide remarks this morning in 

support of this nominee. I appreciate your consideration of Melissa's nomination, and I look forward to her 

confirmation. 

### 
6 

The CHAIRMAN. I just have to pause and note, it is kind of nice 

to have all women at the dais. 

[Laughter.] 

And to have two clearly qualified women who have been nominated for these very important positions this morning. 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh my God, look at that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. I was watching on television back there. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We started to make you a little nervous, didn’t 

we? 

[Laughter.] 

Good. We need to have this balance. Very important. 

I would ask that you limit your introduction, if you can, to about 

five minutes. Your full statements will be included as part of the 

record, and I invite you to introduce any family or those who are 

here to offer their support to you today. 

With that, Ms. Burnison, if you would care to begin please. 

Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF MELISSA F. BURNISON, NOMINATED TO BE AN 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (CONGRESSIONAL AND 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS) 

Ms. BURNISON. Thank you. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members 

of this Committee and to the professional staff of the Committee 

and also to the staff in each of the individual offices, it is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today as the President’s 

nominee for Assistant Secretary, Department of Energy, Congressional Affairs and Intergovernmental Affairs. I am humbled by the 

recommendation Secretary Perry made to the President, and I 

want to especially thank the Secretary for placing his trust in me 

by nominating me today to appear before you. 

For those of you whom I have had the opportunity to meet with 

prior to this hearing, I want to thank you for your counsel. I also 

want to thank you for your expectations of this position and for 

providing me with your expectations of the Department. I look forward to working closely with you and with your staff throughout 

my tenure should I be confirmed. 

I also want to thank my husband, Scott Burnison, who is here 

with us today. It’s also a special day for him. It is his birthday 

today as well. And he and I have three little girls who are very active and fill every moment of our lives. And we’re very blessed to 

have them. So, Madam Chairwoman, with your permission, I’d like 

to introduce them to the Committee today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please. 

Ms. BURNISON. We have Catherine Burnison, Elizabeth, Scott, of 

course, and then Gudrun. So they are missing school today, but I 

understand Senator Barrasso might be handing out doctor’s notes, 

so . . . 

[Laughter.] 
7 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we welcome them all to the Committee and 

happy birthday to your husband. 

Ms. BURNISON. Thank you, thank you. 

Chairman Murkowski and members of the Committee, as I seek 

your approval for the appointment of this office, I would like to 

share a few thoughts about my experiences that I believe qualify 

me for this position. 

I have spent more than 15 years working in policy positions that 

involved the Department of Energy in some capacity. Most of that 

experience came from Capitol Hill as a Congressional staffer, myself, working in the energy policy arena. And thanks to that experience, I have the utmost respect for the work, the traditions and the 

people who make up this body. 

I also have spent two years working at the Department of Energy. That service enabled me to witness how dedicated the men 

and women are who support the Department’s critical missions. 

Should I be confirmed, I will draw upon my previous experience 

on the Hill, in the Department and in the private sector to ensure 

interactions with the Department’s Office of Congressional and 

Intergovernmental Affairs are guided by respect, integrity and 

clear communication. 

While on the Hill, I spent seven years working for Congressman 

Zach Wamp from Tennessee, who passionately represented Oak 

Ridge National Lab, the Y–12 National Security Complex, various 

cleanup missions throughout the site, the Tennessee Valley Authority and many other Department of Energy assets in the state. And 

I would note that Tennessee is unique in that it plays a role in just 

about all of the Department’s programs and missions in some form 

or fashion. 

It was home to the Manhattan Project, Clinton Engineering 

Works which was established even before the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission, the precursor to the Department of Energy. 

And it was in working with the people and the site at the foothills 

of the Appalachian Mountains that I gained an immense appreciation for the accomplishments of the greatest generation. It was 

those men and women whose determination and sacrifices built the 

DOE complex that exists today and continues to make our country 

great. 

Having learned the history of the DOE communities and then 

seeing firsthand the incredible developments in science, nuclear 

technology and even supercomputing at those sites makes me 

proud to, once again, have the opportunity to serve, should I be 

confirmed. 

With regard to the functions of the office I seek, I commit to 

being a responsive, timely and an open communicator. We will be 

as prompt as possible in my office, keeping you apprised of Departmental activities and be attentive to the priorities as you provided 

them to me. 

I also understand the importance of considering the impact of 

federal actions on labs, sites and the surrounding communities. I 

appreciate that each of the local governments, states and tribes 

have a unique relationship with its site. Communicating frequently 

with and listening to those concerns and recommendations of those 
8 

leaders and governments build trusting relationships that not only 

serve the Department but you as well. 

I will pledge to do my best to live up to the standards expected 

of those who hold public office. I thank you for the opportunity to 

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

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burnison follows:] 
9 

TESTIMONY OF MELISSA F. BURNISON, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY, 

CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the committee, and to the 

professional staff of the committee and staff in your individual offices, it is an honor and a privilege to 

appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of Energy for 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. I also want to thank Secretary Perry for the trust he has 

placed in me by recommending me to the President. I am humbled and excited for this opportunity to 

serve. 

For those of you whom I have had the opportunity to meet with prior to this hearing, thank you for 

providing your counsel and expectations of this role and of the Department. I look forward to continuing 

those conversations with everyone on the committee and working closely with you and your staff 

throughout my tenure should I be confirmed. 

I also want to thank my husband, Scott, for his support and understanding. He is indeed my rock. He is 

here today with our family. Scott and I are blessed with three very active little girls who fill every 

moment of our lives and they would certainly not be happy if I did not recognize them as well- Madam 

Chairman with your approval, I'd like to introduce Catherine, Gudrun and Elizabeth as well as Scott to 

the committee. 

Chairman Murkowski and members of the committee, as I seek your approval for appointment to this 

office, I would like to share a few thoughts about my experiences that I believe qualify me for this 

position. 

I have spent more than 1S years working in policy positions that involved the Department of Energy 

(DOE) in some capacity. Most of that experience came from Capitol Hill as a congressional staff person 

working in the energy policy arena, and thanks to that experience, I have the utmost respect for the 

work, traditions and individuals who make up this body. I have also spent two years working inside the 

Department of Energy. That service enabled me to witness how dedicated the men and women are who 

support the Department's critical missions as public servants. Should I be confirmed, I will draw upon my 

previous experience on the Hill, in the Department and in the private sector to ensure interactions with 

the Department's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs are guided by respect, integrity 

and clear communication. 

While on the Hill, I spent seven years working for Congressman Zach Wamp from Tennessee who 

passionately represented Oak Ridge National Lab, the Y-12 National Security Complex, DOE's 

Environmental Management cleanup projects, the Tennessee Valley Authority and numerous other DOE 

activities. Tennessee is unique in that it plays a role in most of DOE's missions and was home to the 

Manhattan Project, Clinton Engineer Works which was established even before the creation of the 

Atomic Energy Commission- today's DOE. It was in working with the people and this site at the foothills 

of the Appalachian Mountains that I gained an immense appreciation for the accomplishments of the 
10 

greatest generation. It was those men and women whose determination and sacrifices built the DOE 

complex that exists today and continues to make our country great. Having learned the history of the 

DOE communities and then seeing first-hand the incredible developments in science, nuclear technology 

and supercomputing at the sites makes me proud to have an opportunity once again to serve, should I 

be confirmed. 

With regard to the functions of the office I seek, I commit to being a responsive, timely and open 

communicator. We will be as prompt as possible in keeping you apprised of Departmental activities and 

be attentive to your priorities. I also understand the importance of considering the impact of Federal 

actions upon labs, sites and surrounding communities. I appreciate that each local government, State 

and tribe has a unique relationship with its site. Communicating frequently with and listening to the 

concerns and recommendations of local leaders and governments to build trusting relationships not 

only serves the Department but you as well. I pledge to do my best to live up to the standards expected 

of those who hold public office. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and I look forward to your questions. 
11 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Burnison, and again, welcome to 

your family. 

Ms. White, we would appreciate your statement and, again, if 

you would like to introduce anyone who has joined you here today, 

but welcome before the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE MARIE WHITE, NOMINATED TO BE AN 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT) 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of 

the Committee, and Professional Committee Staff, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you as the President’s nominee to 

be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management at the Department of Energy. 

My warmest thanks to you and your staff for taking the time to 

share the issues of concern regarding environmental management 

and for outlining your expectations of me in the role of EM-1, a role 

that involves fulfilling our moral obligation to clean up the nation’s 

environmental legacy challenges from World War II and the Cold 

War. 

I am honored to appear before this Committee and give my 

thanks to President Trump and Secretary Perry for the confidence 

they have placed in me with this nomination. If I am honored with 

a confirmation by the United States Senate, I will look forward to 

working together with you and your staff to resolve the challenging 

issues that confront the nation in the areas of risk reduction and 

environmental cleanup from the nuclear weapons production program. 

I’d like to introduce my family to the Committee. Here today 

with me is my father, Mike White, who began teaching me high 

school math in about second grade, and my mom, Donna White, 

who taught me the value of hard work and persistence. Thanks for 

all you’ve done. 

Also here are my sisters, Sara Hall, and her daughter, Hannah, 

my sister, Katy White, with my niece, Emily, and my nephew, 

Sam. A group of close friends are also here and have joined me 

here today. Without the support of my family, friends and colleagues, I would not be here today and I thank them all for their 

support. 

My Master’s Degree is in nuclear engineering, and I was fortunate enough to graduate at a time when the environmental restoration field was relatively new. With my interest in the nuclear field 

and appreciation for our environment, I determined that environmental cleanup work was a natural fit for me. 

I began my career performing physical cleanup work. My strategy was to learn the environmental cleanup business in the most 

basic way, which has been instrumental in understanding the challenges and opportunities facing the Department today and into the 

future. 

That experience was informative and provided a sound basis to 

help form my consulting firm in 1995. Since founding my firm, my 

years working within the commercial and government nuclear industry and the mentoring from well-respected industry experts 
12 

have helped me grow into an experienced leader and innovative 

problem solver. 

Over the past 25 years, I have consulted with commercial, government and international organizations solving complex problems 

here at home and in a number of foreign countries. I have worked 

at a number of DOE-EM sites, providing me with an appreciation 

for the complex technical and stakeholder issues the Department 

faces in the cleanup of its legacy EM facilities. 

Additionally, over the course of my career, I have been able to 

work on, visit and understand some of the world’s great nuclear 

and environmental challenges. Therefore, I consider this potential 

key leadership position at DOE-EM to be an opportunity to maximize my private sector experience and knowledge to assist the Department in moving forward to mitigate risk and work toward 

eliminating existing liabilities. 

Through the years I have had the good fortune to work and collaborate with a wonderful group of smart, technically savvy peers 

to solve complex problems through innovation, creativity and optimization. This work is not without some level of risk. The women 

and men in the field implementing plans and delivering projects 

are of primary importance in the cleanup mission. Without these 

individuals in the field, dressing out in protective gear and doing 

difficult physical work, there would be no cleanup and no risk reduction. 

Maintaining and further building trust with the workforce that 

we rely on to clean up our nation’s legacy environmental challenges 

will be a focus throughout my tenure, should I be confirmed. 

Should I be confirmed, I commit to you that I will work with this 

Committee, the conscientious staff within the Department and various stakeholders including Congress, Native American tribes, regulators, local communities and the dedicated workforce at each of 

the 16 sites for which EM has responsibility. My goal will be to enhance safety through risk mitigation and cleanup and eliminate 

overall taxpayer liability for legacy environmental issues. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members 

of the Committee, thank you again for this opportunity to appear 

before you as the President’s nominee for Assistant Secretary in 

the Department of Energy. 

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to answering your 

questions as you consider my nomination. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:] 
13 

OPENING STATEMENT 

ANNE MARIE WHITE 

NOMINATION HEARING 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Committee, and 

Professional Committee Staff, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you as the 

President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental 

Management at the Department of Energy (DOE). My wan11est thanks to you and your 

respective staffs for taking the time to share the issues of concern regarding 

environmental management and for outlining your expectations of me in the role of EM1, a role that involves fulfilling our moral obligation to clean up our nation's 

environmental legacy challenges from World War II and the Cold War. 

I am honored to appear before this Committee and give my thanks to President Trump 

and Secretary Perry for the confidence they have placed in me with this nomination. Ifl 

am honored with a confirmation by the United States Senate, I will look forward to 

working together with you and your staffs to resolve the challenging issues that confront 

the nation in the areas of risk reduction and environmental cleanup from the nuclear 

weapons production program. 

I would like to introduce my family to the Committee. Here today is my father Mike 

White who began teaching me high-school math in second grade and my mother Donna 

White who taught me the value of hard work and persistence. Thanks for all you've done. 

Also here are my sisters, Sara Hall and Katy White with my nieces and nephews Matt, 

Emily, Hannah and Sam. A group of close friends have also joined me today. Without the 

support of my family, friends and colleagues, I would not be here today and I thank them 

all for their support. 

My Master's Degree is in nuclear engineering, and I was fortunate to have graduated at a 

time when the environmental restoration field was relatively new. With my interest in the 

nuclear field and appreciation for our environment, I determined that environmental 

cleanup was a natural fit. I began my career performing physical cleanup work. My 

strategy was to learn the environmental cleanup business in the most basic way, which 

has been instrumental in understanding the challenges and opportunities facing the 

Department today and into the future. That experience was informative and provided a 

sound basis to help form my consulting firm in 1995. Since founding my firm, my years 

working within the commercial and government nuclear industry and the mentoring from 

well-respected industry experts have helped me grow into an experienced leader and 

innovative problem solver. 

Over the past 25 years, I have consulted with commercial, government and international 

organizations solving complex problems here at home and in a number foreign countries. 

I have worked at a number of DOE-EM sites, providing me with an appreciation for the 
14 

complex technical and stakeholder issues the Department faces in the cleanup of its 

legacy EM facilities. Additionally, over the course of my career, I have been able to work 

on, visit and understand some of the world's great nuclear and environmental challenges; 

therefore, I consider this potential key leadership position at DOE-EM to be an 

opportunity to maximize my private sector experience and knowledge to assist the 

Department in moving forward to mitigate risk and work toward eliminating existing 

liabilities. 

Through the years I have had the good fortune to work and collaborate with a wonderful 

group of smart, technically savvy peers to solve complex problems through innovation, 

creativity and optimization. This work is not without some level of risk. The women and 

men in the field implementing plans and delivering projects are of primary impmiance in 

the cleanup mission. Without these individuals in the field, dressing out in protective gear 

and doing difficult physical work, there would be no cleanup and no risk reduction. 

Maintaining and further building trust with the workforce that we rely on to clean up our 

nation's legacy environmental challenges will be a focus throughout my tenure. 

Should I be confirmed, I commit to you that I will work with this Committee, the 

conscientious staff within the Department and various stakeholders including Congress, 

Native American tribes, regulators, local communities, and the dedicated workforce at 

each of the 16 sites for which EM has responsibility. My goal will be to enhance safety 

through risk mitigation and cleanup and eliminate overall taxpayer liability for legacy 

environmental cleanup. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee, thank 

you again for this oppotiunity to appear before you as the President's nominee for an 

Assistant Secretary in the Department of Energy. Thank you for your time today. !look 

forward to answering your questions as you consider my nomination. 
15 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. White, and welcome to your 

friends and to your family as well. We appreciate that. 

I will start with a round of questions here. 

Ms. Burnison, to you, first. 

We are going to refer to you as our Congressional Liaison and 

that is a role that has varying levels of responsibility, but we recognize that you will also be responsible for coordinating the Department’s efforts with state, local and tribal governments. I know that 

you are not going to be the only one, but you are going to be an 

important figure in that. 

Can you tell us how you plan to approach each of these and how 

you will prioritize coordination with tribal governments? 

Ms. BURNISON. So, Senator Murkowski, as I stated earlier in my 

testimony, I appreciate the unique relationship that each site has 

with its local community and states and its tribes. And I suspect 

that nowhere is that more true than in the State of Alaska with 

the Native Alaskan lands. 

So, I, for example, as I understand it, there are challenges with 

high energy costs, for example with the Native Alaskans and my 

plan would be to look to rely on the Office of Indian Energy and 

those folks who have a history and an experience with working 

with these communities and with the tribes. 

And I also think it’s important to make sure that, as you stated, 

the intergovernmental side receives as much attention as the Congressional side. I know from my own personal experience, if we had 

a Tennessee Commissioner or local leader who was unhappy or 

frustrated in their interactions with the Department, we got a 

phone call from the Congressional Office or in the Senate office and 

that usually resulted in a phone call to the Department of Energy. 

That is certainly an option and a route to take, but I would hope 

that we—and I could bring to the position and the Department 

would be able to engage with those leaders more effectively on the 

front end so we could build credibility and trust with those folks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that, and I will look forward 

to working with you on some of these. 

We have had some frustration within the Office of Indian Energy 

not only getting attention to certain issues but really getting sufficient help for those that are certainly in need of it. So I put that 

on your radar screen. 

Ms. White, I mentioned in my opening about the GAO high-risk 

list and the fact that EM has been on this list for a number of 

years. 

According to GAO, the Office, and I am going to quote here, ‘‘has 

struggled to ensure that they have the capacity, both people and 

resources, to mitigate risks. They have also demonstrated limited 

progress in contract management, particularly financial management and have struggled to stay within cost and schedule estimates for some major projects.’’ So that is from the GAO. What actions will you take to address these concerns and move EM off of 

this high-risk list? 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you for that question. It’s an important one. 

What I intend to do is first, always ensure a safe work environment. And I view safety as a three-legged stool involving produc-
16 

tion, cost and safety. All three must be present and in relatively 

equal measure in order for projects to be successful. 

Also, our decision-making, it needs to be timely. It needs to be 

technically based and it needs to understand the very long 

timelines involved with our cleanup mission. 

Finally, we, when EM-1 makes a commitment or has a milestone, 

we need to treat them not as options or aspirations but real commitments that we must live up to. 

We can also make some improvements, I believe, in the way we 

contract work and manage our contractors. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I know that this is a question others will 

have so I will yield back my time right now and turn to Senator 

Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, congratulations on your nomination, Ms. White. There are 

many issues to talk about at Hanford, so sorry if I try to get in this 

round just because I have to go over to Commerce for several votes 

on nominees over there. But hopefully I will be back. 

So, quickly, do you believe that the Department of Energy has 

to meet the milestones of the tri-party agreement on cleaning up 

tank waste and not to come up with a new idea of how to reduce 

that responsibility but how to live up to that responsibility? 

Ms. WHITE. We have a moral and legal obligation to live up to 

the commitments made in our agreements. 

Senator CANTWELL. Great. 

Secondly, obviously, there have been several incidents lately. In 

May, a tunnel adjacent to the plutonium uranium extraction plant 

collapsed; in June, a radiological release from the plutonium finishing plant resulting in 30 workers testing positive for contamination. 

Will you commit to work with the local labor organizations, the 

Department, and the Hanford contractors to make sure that we 

have a safe environment including these options of air tanks that 

give workers more certainty on vapor issues? 

Ms. WHITE. So, the nuclear safety culture is, of course, extremely 

important in the work we do. As the one who has been to the field 

and done the work, I’ve benefited from that safety culture. 

In particular, the respiratory protection, you mentioned, as with 

any other safety device, there’s pluses and minuses. But should I 

be confirmed, I’d be happy to work with the unions, with the workers, with your staff, to determine the appropriate measures to take 

to be sure—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

I did like in our brief discussion that you said you liked to use 

innovation to solve some of these problems and I would say the 

challenge becomes when you have workers at one end of the cleanup site, using this equipment, and then being denied if in another 

area, it raises questions. 

And yes, you are right, the complexity of how to do the cleanup 

and the level of how to get that done safely is a big question. So 

thank you for that. 

And then, thirdly, obviously the finishing plant and our production of vitrified logs, one of the recommendations that this Committee received in the past was to separate out defense waste as 
17 

a way to get at a faster path to resolving that issue. As we try to 

meet the milestones for that, what do you think of the idea of separating the defense from commercial waste as a way to give it more 

certainty and a clearer path in a shorter time period? 

Ms. WHITE. With the current situation, with the pathway for this 

type of waste, I think that a defense only solution is definitely 

worth looking into. I haven’t fully studied the issue, but if confirmed I would look forward to working with you on that issue because I think it’s an option worth evaluating. 

Senator CANTWELL. Did you see anything wrong with what the 

Commission that our former Chair, Senator Domenici was part of 

and their recommendations of that and the past Administration’s 

efforts to move forward on that? 

Ms. WHITE. So, I have not seen or I have not carefully studied 

the report recently. I did, closer to the time it was issued. 

So I believe that a defense-only repository is definitely an option 

that we need to consider as we look at various ways in which we 

could execute our cleanup mission at Hanford and other sites as 

well. 

Senator CANTWELL. And what did you say in my office? You 

thought one of the big objectives was to have waste moving out of 

Hanford? 

Ms. WHITE. Oh, absolutely, yes. And I think there’s various and 

sundry ways to do that, including the defense waste repository. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to be back 

on the Committee with you—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Wonderful to have you. 

Senator CAPITO. ——and the Ranking Member, so thank you for 

that. 

Thank both of you for your willingness to serve in the public interest, and I know you are taking time from your families to pursue this and we certainly are very appreciative. 

Ms. Burnison, I am going to start with you because we talked 

about this in my office yesterday, but I wanted to reinforce it and 

I see I have my colleague, Senator Manchin, here as well. This is 

something that is extremely important to greater Appalachia, but 

certainly West Virginia as a state, and that that is an energy infrastructure package which is called the Appalachian Natural Gas 

Storage Hub. It is an ethane storage hub project. It is regional in 

nature. 

I hosted Secretary Perry in West Virginia in July. He is very excited about this in terms of a regional ethane storage because the 

market is there, also for security reasons I stated that during Hurricane Harvey the ethane storage facility in Texas had to shut 

down for a month. So having an alternative site that doesn’t necessarily compete but enhances our ability to have the redundancy, 

I think, is something that he certainly could see. 

Since that visit we have had greater interest from industry 

stakeholders, upstream, midstream and downstream and the advancement of an application from the Appalachian Development 
18 

Group, which is the folks working on this, to phase two of the Title 

17 loan program. 

We also have in place a Memorandum of Understanding from China Energy which outlines that $83.7 billion investment in West 

Virginia, centered around the developments of the Marcellus shale. 

The National Energy Technology Lab in Morgantown, the Office of 

Fossil Energy and the Department of Energy, in general, are key 

stakeholders in this initiative. It is really a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to transform a region that needs, not just economic 

development, but I think what we need more than anything, since 

it is our resource, in our respective states, we want to capitalize on 

that and see the benefits and economic benefits and job growth 

that are projected which are enormous, stay in our region. 

So I guess I am asking you to pledge to work with me and my 

staff and our constituents to continue to advance development of 

this Appalachian Natural Gas Liquid Storage Hub. 

Ms. BURNISON. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

And you did emphasize to me and impress upon me an importance of that issue in your region. And I do appreciate the economic 

driver that many of these developments bring to these regions. 

And you have my commitment and my pledge to work with you 

and your staff on this important issue going forward. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. White, I would like to thank you as well for throwing your 

hat in the ring here. I do chair the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

Subcommittee over at EPW, and I oversee the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and its regulatory programs over the civilian nuclear 

fleet. 

While that is a totally distinct agency, with its own jurisdiction, 

I do believe the challenges are very similar when you are looking 

at nuclear waste, the decommissioning process and environmental 

regulations, excuse me, the environmental remediation such as the 

Office of Environmental Management does. I think if we don’t get 

a handle on a long-term nuclear waste storage solution, the waste 

currently stored at civilian sites may become a fully federal remediation effort. 

Do you see an opportunity here to, sort of, break down those silos 

between the NRC and the Office of Environmental Management to 

get to best practices, to get quicker and better results and a more 

timely and probably, fiscally efficient manner? 

Ms. WHITE. Absolutely, I think that there are many lessons to be 

learned across the nuclear industry, within DOE, and there’s opportunities for cross pollination between the efforts at DOE which 

have done a great deal of decommissioning and demolition and the 

private sector which is getting ready to do a great deal of decommissioning and demolition of commercial nuclear plants. So I see 

a lot of opportunities for collaboration and lessons learned. 

Senator CAPITO. In your work in the private sector, did you work 

with both of these—the Office of Environmental Management and 

the NRC? Have you worked with both of those—— 

Ms. WHITE. I have worked with the NRC less than I have within 

the DOE environment, but yes, I’ve had some work that involved 

the NRC. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. 
19 

I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Welcome to both of you. I so appreciate your willingness to serve. 

I’ve got five minutes, and I am going to try to run through these 

real quick and then I am going to leave because I have two other 

hearings to get to. So, I apologize for not staying. 

But Ms. Burnison, let me start with you, and also, welcome to 

your incredible family and friends. It was great to see all the 

smiles out there this morning. 

While working at NEI, what was your role in crafting legislative 

initiatives and your engagement with stakeholders on Capitol Hill 

in support of Yucca Mountain? 

Ms. BURNISON. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

As I think many of us know, the nuclear industry has always engaged with legislative and federal policies that address the solutions to finding for spent nuclear fuel. 

And so, during my tenure there, of course, I engaged in those activities as well in educating Congress and the Senate on the impacts of not having a solution to spent nuclear fuel. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Did you advocate for and in support of 

transporting high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel to Yucca 

Mountain? 

Ms. BURNISON. Senator, I did provide Congress with the industry’s perspective on those impacts. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And that industry perspective was to 

support transport of that waste to Yucca Mountain, correct? 

Ms. BURNISON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Okay. 

And during your time at DOE were you in any way involved with 

DOE policy on the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada? 

Ms. BURNISON. No, ma’am. I was not. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. What position do you think the Administration should take on consent-based siting? 

Ms. BURNISON. Well, thank you, Senator, for that question. 

I appreciate the importance of having, as I stated earlier, state 

and community input in the process and I appreciate that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has set out a process for that and I appreciate that it’s an important issue. And I want to work with you and 

your office and look forward to having those conversations. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Do you believe local governments and 

key stakeholders and Indian tribes should have a say in whether 

waste is going to be located in their state or not? 

Ms. BURNISON. I do. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Do you think that should take precedence over whatever policy is set at the federal level? 

Ms. BURNISON. Well, Senator, I’m certainly not an expert in some 

of the other policies or precedents that may also take precedent, 

but I do believe that the Department of Energy has always and I 

think as we’ve stated here in this Committee before, held out safety 

as its number one goal, community input, but also that the Department’s obligation is to follow the law. 
20 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And if you believe that safety should 

take precedence as well, do you believe that safety and the sound 

science if science educates it is not secure and safe to be stored in 

a certain location that that should take precedence? 

Ms. BURNISON. Senator, I do believe that sound science should be 

a factor in that determination but again, the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act has laid out a process by which to determine that and NRC 

will ultimately have, I think, a decision in that, making that determination. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Ms. BURNISON. Thank you. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. I appreciate your answers today. 

Ms. White, in 2013 the Department of Energy attempted to move 

and store 400 canisters of waste from the Oak Ridge National Lab 

in Tennessee to our Nevada National Security Site which I know 

you know well. 

We felt, the Governor, many of us, including some of our Congressional delegates, that they were exploiting a regulatory loophole to classify that waste as low level hazard so that they can 

bury it in shallow graves there when in actuality it was and should 

have been handled as high level, radioactive waste. 

So my question to you is how much consideration should be given 

to concerns of the local community in the work that you do? 

Ms. WHITE. The local communities are extremely important to 

the work we do and gaining their support is extremely important 

to the work we do. 

We need to be transparent in our communications with them, 

start engagement early. If there’s problems or issues we encounter, 

again, early communication, public outreach, these are all very important things, we don’t—we’ve learned through a lot of hard 

knocks, if you will, that without the support of the public your 

projects are not cost effective. They can’t get done. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. So, can I get a commitment from you in 

situations like that that you would be willing to come into Nevada 

and address the concerns of our local affected governments, as well 

as Indian tribes when we have concerns about the operation that 

you are engaging in at the test site? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, if confirmed, I’m always willing and very eager 

to speak with the public, the stakeholders, your office, this Committee. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I noticed my time is up. The rest of the questions I will submit 

for the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Let’s turn to Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

As you and I have discussed in the past, the uranium industry 

is facing extraordinary tough times. Last year, the American uranium industry produced the lowest amount of uranium since the 

early 1950s. 
21 

My home State of Wyoming is the country’s number one uranium-producing state, and when prices are low, the hard-working 

people of Wyoming are hit the hardest. 

American uranium producers face unfair trade practices from 

government-owned producers in Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. They also have to compete with the Department of Energy. 

For over a decade, the Department has bartered the public’s excess uranium in exchange for decommissioning and other services. 

During that time, employment in the United States among uranium producers has dropped by over 50 percent. 

Ms. White, the uranium industry is facing extraordinarily tough 

times. When we take a look at this, when I look at this whole barter system that has come out of the Department of Energy, the barters have driven down uranium prices and shut down uranium production in Wyoming and in other Western states. The Government 

Accountability Office has found that these barters are illegal, and 

I have fought these barters for years, long before you were nominated for this position. 

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the issue with me in 

my office yesterday, but you are unable to give me a firm commitment to immediately halt these barters, something that Secretary 

Perry has told me that he wants to do. It is something he wants 

to accomplish. So for this reason, I am unable to support a confirmation at this time and would hold the confirmation until the 

Department ends its practice of bartering excess uranium. 

I think it is preserving good-paying uranium jobs and uranium 

security in America, in Wyoming. Other states depend on these 

from the jobs, and we would do as well from a national security 

standpoint. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, I appreciate the 

issues that you have raised and hopefully we will be able to work 

through these issues. 

Let’s go to Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. White, thanks for the time you made to sit with me yesterday. I am going to return to the issue which we discussed. 

As you know the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, 

New Mexico, is literally the nation’s only operating, underground 

repository for defense, transuranic waste. The continued safe operation of WIPP is critical to nearly all of DOE’s future cleanup efforts. 

I just want to ask you at this point, how familiar you are with 

WIPP and, if you are confirmed, will you make it a priority to visit 

WIPP and to sit down with the local community and the staff and 

leadership there to continue making sure that Carlsbad can play 

an active role in ensuring safe operation at that facility? 

Ms. WHITE. Thanks for that question and WIPP is, as you mention, a very important asset to the Department’s work in our efforts 

to complete cleanup at our various sites. 

I would love to come visit WIPP. It’s an interesting facility, I’ve 

been curious about it, and speak with your stakeholders and probably have a little green chili too. 
22 

Senator HEINRICH. Excellent. I appreciate both of those sentiments. 

As we talked about yesterday I was really pleased to learn that 

you spent a good part of your career in environmental management 

work at Los Alamos. Last month, DOE awarded a new contract to 

manage cleanup at the lab and one very important requirement of 

the new contractor is a mandatory set-aside for small business subcontracting. That is incredibly important for creating the, sort of, 

local ecosystem that supports the lab, especially in a remote location like Los Alamos. A second requires the contractor to have a 

plan for direct involvement and active participation in the local 

community. 

I think that maintaining good relations with the community, 

with tribal leaders, the local businesses, are all vital to the success 

of the labs. 

If you are confirmed, will you hold the new contractor accountable for complying with both the small business and the community commitment requirements of the contract? 

Ms. WHITE. I would, absolutely. 

Having been a small business owner in Los Alamos myself, I’m 

very supportive of small business in those community outreach efforts. 

Senator HEINRICH. Oh, we are thrilled with your background 

with regard to this, because it is very helpful to have that direct 

experience. 

Back to WIPP for just a minute. For a number of years I have 

certainly been concerned about the failure to properly maintain the 

basic infrastructure at WIPP to ensure that the facility can continue to be operated safely. 

WIPP is currently reporting a total maintenance backlog of about $25 million for critical upgrades to key fire safety systems, instrumentation and infrastructure. And as you know, we experienced an 

accident at WIPP a couple years ago that literally ground to a halt 

all disposal activities. The President’s budget for the current fiscal 

year was substantially below what WIPP needs for maintenance. If 

you are confirmed, would you commit to take a close look at the 

budget request for WIPP and to ensure that the current maintenance backlog is addressed as quickly as possible? 

Ms. WHITE. If confirmed I will have a close look at the budget, 

because I do understand the importance of that asset to carrying 

out our mission. I’d be happy to look at it and work with your staff. 

Senator HEINRICH. I look forward to working with you. 

Thanks. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to both 

of you for your willingness to serve and your commitment to public 

service and thanks to your families as well for that commitment. 

Ms. White, obviously, if you come to Colorado we will treat you 

to some Pueblo chilis, so we are happy to do that to make sure you 

get—I was giving him a hard time. Martin, Senator Heinrich, I invited them to come to Colorado for Pueblo chili, so we can have 

that competition. 
23 

Senator HEINRICH. You have chili in Colorado? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GARDNER. So, anyway, the Rocky Flats site, obviously, 

has a very important legacy with the Department of Energy, and 

I think in the early 1990s it was estimated that it would take 65 

years at $37 billion to clean up the Rocky Flats site. But by 2005, 

it was done at a cost of about $7 billion and now is a legacy management site and wildlife refuge. 

So, obviously, important work in many other sites in Colorado 

Department of Energy has been a part of and the cleanups that 

were handled by Environmental Management as well as now, within legacy management. Thank you for that. I think it can provide 

a model of what we can be doing around the country. 

Ms. Burnison, thank you very much for the time in the office to 

have a conversation about your goals and how you see the relationship with the Department of Energy and Congress and how we can 

work together. 

We spent a lot of time talking about NREL. NREL, the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, a primary national laboratory focused on advancing science and engineering of renewable power 

and energy efficiency, something I am very interested in and Colorado is very interested in. 

Also focusing on grid modernization, cybersecurity issues, advanced transportation systems, they are really pioneering in those 

fields, impact of NREL’s nearly $1 billion annually, nationwide, 

and 750 technology partnerships across the country, academia and 

government with small businesses making up about 25 percent of 

those 750 technology partnerships. I think what we have seen is for every $1.00 of investment at NREL results in about $5.00 in private sector investments that 

continually work to improve the economy, create jobs and new companies and spin-offs and that commercial transfer has been incredible at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

I would just like your commitment that you will continue to work 

with me and my colleagues in the Senate to make sure the investment in NREL continues, that it produces the jobs coming along 

with that investment and that we protect those opportunities that 

NREL has to further advance our country. 

Ms. BURNISON. Of course, Senator. 

And I would just state that I have a soft place in my heart for 

the labs, in particular, and I appreciate that they are the jewels of 

the Department. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BURNISON. I look forward to working with you. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both of 

you all for your willingness to serve. It is hard to recruit good people to be involved in public service today. I appreciate it. 

Ms. Burnison, you may be familiar with a carbon project in 

Texas called Petra Nova. 

Ms. BURNISON. Sir, somewhat. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 
24 

Petra Nova was developed by a private company but it was successful, in part, because of the federal cost sharing with the DOE. 

Following the success of Petra Nova I was disappointed to see that 

the GAO, Government Accountability Office, determined that the 

DOE impounded funds Congress appropriated for the Advanced Research Projects Agency, and we will call this ARPA-E, for energy, 

okay? 

We learned this last December when GAO sent a letter to Congressional committees outlying their findings and, as you might 

know, the Administration proposed the elimination of ARPA-E that 

would prevent us from having this public-private type of relationship. I think they believe that they are convinced the private sector 

is going to step in and finance some of these projects by themselves. We have not found that to be the case. The fact of the matter is the Loan Program Office in ARPA-E has been successful and 

they still are successful, important programs. That is going to be 

necessary to solving our nation’s energy problems. 

I don’t know how familiar you are with that. That may run a little bit in controversy to where the Administration, or some within 

the Administration, thought everything should go absolutely, 100 

percent, private. We can’t find these projects and finally be successful unless there is investment, and the DOE has always been a 

good partner to work with. 

I would just like to hear your thoughts or comments on that. 

Ms. BURNISON. So, thank you, Senator Manchin. 

I’ve not been briefed on the details of that particular situation. 

I understand, however, the issue that you raised and that it’s important to you. 

And so, in my role—— 

Senator MANCHIN. It is important to the country, with all due respect, because you are not going to find, I mean, there is still going 

to be, in my state, we produce an awful lot of fossil which is coal, 

natural gas. 

I will reiterate what Senator Capito said about the storage hub. 

It is extremely important, not just for my state, but for Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, but also for the security of energy for the 

United States. 

We are not weather-prone in that part of the country. As you see, 

the disruption we had from hurricanes and all that. So it would be 

a mid-Atlantic energy hub that protects and provides energy the 

country needs. 

We are going to be using coal for quite some time, not to the extent that we have, but we will use it and we need it, but you have 

to find different ways of using it. And if there is technology there, 

we can use it in a much cleaner fashion. Without the DOE, we 

don’t go anywhere. 

Ms. BURNISON. And I appreciate that, Senator. 

And I was not, obviously, part of the budget process, but I can 

commit to you that in my role at heading up the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs that I will work with you and 

your office and I will make sure that we carry your views and your 

state’s views back into the Department. 

Senator MANCHIN. Ms. White, we don’t have any nuclear power 

stations in West Virginia and we have no nuclear sites for disposal 
25 

either. We do have one 15-acre legacy site in Parkersburg and we 

would love to have you come and see how we can move forward on 

this because it is going to be a responsibility for, who knows, 100, 

maybe 1,000 years from now. They have been testing it every 10 

years and they found it not to have any levels that were of, that 

affect the drinking water, but still, it is a legacy site. 

Right now, the DOE manages the site according to the site-specific plan that requires annual inspections and evaluations. According to the DOE’s own fact sheet the facility, the encapsulated materials, will remain potentially hazardous for thousands of years and 

the material that was placed there was zirconium and that was to 

produce metals. They were necessary for the construction of nuclear reactors used in the U.S. Navy. We have been a big supporter 

of all this. 

The prime example of the legacy site continues to pose a longterm risk. How can we manage this? Is it a possibility to ever get 

this property back into some type of productive use? 

Ms. WHITE. I’m not familiar with the site of which you speak. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, we are going to invite you to come visit. 

Ms. WHITE. I know, I’d love to come visit. 

Senator MANCHIN. It is not that far away, you can do it. 

Ms. WHITE. But you don’t have any green chilis, so I don’t know. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. We have pepperoni rolls that will knock you 

dead. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. WHITE. So, I’d love to come visit the site and become more 

familiar with it, work with you and your staff to look at what some 

options might be. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, just give me a little oversight, environmental management. What is your thought process on just the environmental management, whether it is the legacy site or there is 

a potential legacy site? 

Ms. WHITE. Right. 

So, in general, as I mentioned, safety, that goes almost without 

saying. It’s one part of a three-legged stool. You have to have cost, 

production and safety. It’s very important. 

Also, decision-making, decisions need to be made timely and they 

also need to understand the long timelines involved in nuclear, as 

you rightly brought up, thousands of years. 

And they need to have a strong technical basis and a cost basis 

and they need to get—— 

Senator MANCHIN. May I have a—— 

Take Yucca Mountain—I am not from the West, but I have been 

to Nevada and I have been to the Yucca Mountain site. 

There had to be a time, time past, that someone thought that the 

geological formation, that it would be a proper place, it would be 

a safe place and we invested billions and billions of dollars to make 

that safe. 

So, someone has got to make a decision when products, when we 

start using nuclear, not just for our defense of our country, but for 

the commercial. And there has to be a way to contain and dispose 

of it, but not destroy the land that can’t be used forever. 
26 

So, with all these new products that we might be using, that is 

what I am saying, someone has to make that decision. How do we 

handle this? 

This property here which is a valuable piece of property, if it 

could be back in, could be put back into production. Will it ever be 

able to be put back into production? How many sites? How many 

pieces of property? How many things have we produced that we 

have taken off the market forever? Does that ever come into a decision or should it come in to the decision-making process? 

Ms. WHITE. So, the decision-making process about the specific 

things you’re talking about that comes through a regular—— 

Senator MANCHIN. We are saying someone had to think that zirconium might have thousands of years of effect. 

Ms. WHITE. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. Nuclear waste might have consequences for 

thousands of years. Everything that we produce that we need, 

these are all, they produce energy that we need. But for some reason no one has thought about what the after effect and what generation pays the price and can we ever put anything back in production or can it be mitigated? 

Ms. WHITE. So, Yucca Mountain is not within my purview. 

Senator MANCHIN. No, I am just using that as an example of 

what—— 

Ms. WHITE. Right. 

Senator MACHIN. I would like to ask you, as you are in your job, 

what do we do with Yucca Mountain? What can we use it for? We 

own it. We have invested into it. What could it be used for? 

Ms. WHITE. And I’d love to speak with your staff about that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, if it was made to handle nuclear it 

should be able to handle about anything. We would be glad to dig 

up the zirconium and take it to Yucca Mountain to take care of zirconium if they don’t want nuclear waste. 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t know about the specific site, Senator, I’m 

sorry. 

Senator MANCHIN. These are tough ones. We can’t even solve the 

problems either, so don’t worry. Just because you don’t have an answer, we don’t either, so, we are all in the same boat here. 

But someone has got to speak to these things somehow in the future, and it has been going on for far too long. 

Thank you so much for being here. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Ms. White, what you have heard both from Senator Barrasso and 

with Senator Cantwell with her questioning about Hanford, there 

are members, there are Senators, who have issues that have been 

long-standing within their states. Of course, the Senators from Nevada and Yucca Mountain. 

Senator MANCHIN. Every time they come—— 

The CHAIRMAN. ——consent-based. But it does, kind of, speak to 

some of the frustration. 

I think these are very difficult issues. These are very complicated 

issues. The cleanup at Hanford is just very, very difficult. 

But the issue that Senator Barrasso has raised about the uranium and being given assurances from one Secretary to another 
27 

from Republican Administrations to Democrat Administrations and 

not feeling like there is an effort to work through these issues. And 

thus, I think the frustration that you heard with Senator Barrasso. 

But I do think that as new secretaries come and go and make 

promises, that they’re going to do better and then those who are 

very closely involved with these issues don’t see a positive outcome 

or don’t see that result, that causes greater frustration and possibly 

contributing to just further delay in addressing some of these environmental issues. 

And I don’t know that there is a magic formula to fix these other 

than hard work, commitment, resourcing it appropriately, but really sticking with some of these very long-term, complicated issues. 

So we have big things that we address here in the Energy Committee. There are big things that the Department of Energy faces 

on a daily basis, things that are important, not only from an environmental perspective, but from a safety perspective, from a jobs 

perspective and from an economic and energy security perspective. 

We appreciate your willingness to step up and take on some of 

the big issues and work with this Committee. My advice to those 

who agree to serve within the Administration is the closer that you 

can keep your connections and your relationship with members of 

Congress in addressing their concerns and being responsive, the 

easier it is to work through some of these difficult and long-standing issues that face our country. 

Again, thank you for your willingness to serve, and we will be 

working to move our nominees as quickly as we can out of the 

Committee. 

I have been frustrated because we had to send back some of our 

good folks at the end of the year, a process that happens here in 

the Senate. My intention is to try to get, whether it is Department 

of the Interior or Department of Energy, these vacancies filled as 

quickly as we can. 

With that, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(28) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
29 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Melissa F. Burnison 

Question from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Question: Do you commit that, if confirmed, you will be responsive to information requests 

from all Members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, consistent with the White House 

Director of Legislative Affairs' letter to Senator Grassley last July? 

Answer: If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress and with your office on the 

important issues affecting your states within the Department's jurisdiction. I will be responsive 

to requests as appropriate and as timely as practical 

Question from Senator Steve Daines 

Question: Should you be confirmed, will you promise to work with my office and Montana's 

state, local and Indian tribal governments in your role as Assistant Secretary of Congressional 

and Intergovernmental At1'airs to promote energy independence, an all-of-the-above energy 

portfolio, and American made energy solutions? 

Answer: If confirmed !look forward to working with your office and stakeholders on the 

important issues affecting your state within the Department's jurisdiction and I understand the 

importance of energy independence, an all-of-the-above energy portfolio, and American made 

energy solutions. 

Questions from Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Question 1: Through grants, technical assistance and a memorandum of understanding with the 

state renewed in 2014, the Department of Energy has played an important role in helping Hawaii 

develop its own sustainable energy resources and reduce its dependence on imported oil. Hawaii 

is already getting 26 percent of its power from renewable sources, on the way towards its goal of 

receiving 100% of its power from renewable sources by 2045, the most ambitious goal in the 

country. Your biography describes your history of working at the Nuclear Energy Institute and 

on working for Representative Wamp with a special focus on nuclear and science programs. Can 

you describe any of your past work on renewable energy, energy storage, or the energy 

efficiency technologies that will be critical to meeting Hawaii's future energy needs? Will you 

commit to working with me to ensure that the Department of Energy continues to assist Hawaii 

with its transition towards sustainable energy? 

Answer: When [previously worked at the Department of Energy, I served as a senior advisor in 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). During that time, I was able to 

gain an acute understanding of the advancements the Department was making in areas like solar, 
30 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Melissa F. Burnison 

wind, geothermal energy, and energy efficiency. I was assigned to the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy because of my previous experience as the point staff person 

for the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus from 2004-2010. In that role, 

our Caucus actively worked to promote tax and technology innovation policies. As a result in 

2007, I was awarded the "Unsung Hero" award from the Alliance to Save Energy. If confirmed, 

I hope to use this understanding, along with the knowledge I gained working within the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and through my private sector experience, to work 

with your office on the priorities affecting your state within the Department's jurisdiction. 

Question 2: As part of my responsibility as a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources and to ensure the fitness of nominees for appointed positions, I am asking 

nominees to answer the following two questions: 

a. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual 

favors, or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? 

Answer: No 

b. Have you ever faced discipline, or entered into a settlement related to this kind of 

conduct? 

Answer: No 

Questions from Senator Tammy Duckworth 

Questions: As you may know, late last year my Senate colleagues requested specific documents 

that were authored by Murray Energy from the Department of Energy (DOE). Their concern, 

which I share, is that specific industries and special interest groups who supported President 

Tmmp's presidential campaign have inappropriate access to the Administration. If this is true it 

would undermine the Administration's charge of working in the public interest. 

Although the Murray Energy plan is in DOE's possession, a Senate colleague of mine asked for 

this document and was given the attached response. It said that he has to wait for a Freedom of 

Inforn1ation Act (FO!A) request to be processed. However Section 552(c) of title 5, United 

States Code, state "[the FOIA] is not authority to withhold information from Congress." 

Please clarify whether if confirmed, you would recognize a request for congressional oversight 

information submitted to DOE by a United States Senator as constituting a request for 

information "from Congress." If you do not believe DOE withholding information from a United 

States Senator violates 5 USC Sec. 552(c), please define in detail every type of request you 

will recognize as being "from Congress" pursuant to 5 USC Sec. 552(c), and every type of 

2 
31 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18,2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Melissa F. Burnison 

request from a United States Senator, Representative or Committee you will withhold and claim 

requires a FOIA submission. 

Answer: Because I am not currently at the Department, I cannot speak specifically to this issue 

and the manner in which the request is being handled. If confirmed, I commit to following the 

law and working with you and your Senate colleagues to resolve this matter as timely as 

possible. 

3 
32 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Melissa F. Burnison 

December !3, 2017 

The Honornble Sheldon Wbilebnu....:; 

United State<; Senate 

WMhington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Whitehouse: 

This Ml<:r is in response !o your Dce;,tmbcr 5!el!i0'! l'llJ.'1lnling certain informational the 

Department of Energy. 

to eo!Jiacl Ms. Jennifer Loraine, Deputy 

at (202) 586-54.50. 

Sillcerely, 

Rick Perry 

4 
33 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Melissa F. Burnison 

Questions from Senator Cortez Masto 

Question I: Can you describe the extent of your work on Yucca Mountain while you worked at 

the Nuclear Energy Institute? 

Answer: My work on Yucca Mountain primarily involved seeking funding to support the restart 

of the licensing process within NRC. 

Question 2: What was your role in crafting legislative initiatives and your engagement with 

stakeholders on Capitol Hill in support of Yucca? 

Answer: My primary responsibility in this area was appropriations. I did not work on any 

authorizing legislative initiatives. 

Question 3: Do you intend to use this experience on Yucca to push for its implementation 

within the Administration and in the guidance you provide to the Secretary? 

Answer: In general, drawing upon previous experiences is useful in performing many of the 

duties of the office, but because the Chief Financial Officer is the lead on budget at the DOE and 

since I have not yet been fully briefed on the Department's policies related to spent fuel and 

nuclear waste, I do not know what degree of relevance my previous experience on this issue will 

have should I be confirmed. I will be happy to follow up with you on this question should I be 

confirmed. 

Question 4: During your time at DOE, were you in any way involved with DOE policy on the 

proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada? 

Answer: No, my time at DOE was within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy and the Office of Environmental Management. 

Question 5: What position do you think the Administration should take on consent-based siting? 

Answer: 

I believe that finding a resolution to the dilemma of nuclear waste is critical for our Country. In 

the process of reaching such a resolution, the views of stakeholders are important and should be 

viewed and considered. CmTently, Congress established a process as outlined by the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. My role at the Department will not be to set policies, but to serve as a liaison 

between the Department and Congress and Intergovernmental stakeholders. 

Question 6: Have you read the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future 

2012 Final Report to the Secretary of Energy? If so, do you agree with the major 

recommendations of the BRC report? 

5 
34 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Melissa F. Burnison 

Answer: I am familiar with the BRC Report. I agree with many of the recommendations of the 

report but not all, but, again, my role at the Department, should I be confirmed, will not be to set 

policies. 

Question 7: As you know, the Nevada National Security Site belongs to the National Nuclear 

Security Administration, but the low-level waste mission is managed by the Office of 

Environmental Management. This management structure can obviously create problems 

allowing both entities to point fingers at the other should something go wrong. What is your 

view on what could be done to bring better management and oversight to the Site? 

Answer: I would suggest that the Office of Environmental Management or the NNSA would be 

more appropriate to respond as I will not set policies for the Department in my role as the 

Assistant Secretary of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. However, I will work with 

your office to better understand your position should I be confirmed. 

Questions from Senator Tina Smith 

Question 1: You have spent a considerable amount of time working in Congress, both in the 

Senate and House of Representatives. Can you describe what working in Congress taught you 

about the important relationship between the legislative and executive branches, and, if 

confirmed, how you plan on bringing those lessons with you to the Department of Energy? 

Answer: My previous experience working in Congress gave me great respect for the work and 

traditions of Congress and taught me the importance of checks and balances. Applying the law 

and understanding legislative intent are critical to successfully implementing the programs at 

DOE. I will also bring the lesson of transparency in how decisions are made, knowing that 

answers aren't always simple or straightforward. My experience as Congressional staff will 

inform my interactions, facilitate effective information sharing and help build credibility with 

both Members and staff. I also understand the need for prompt communication and, if 

confirmed, pledge to communicate accurate information as promptly as possible. 

Question 2: Will you commit to responding to Congressional requests quickly, thoroughly, and 

transparently-no matter which side of the aisle the request comes from? 

Answer: 

If confirmed, !look forward to working with Congress and with your office on the important 

issues atiecting your states within the Department's jurisdiction. I will be responsive to requests 

as appropriate and as timely as practical. 

6 
35 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18,2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

Questions from Ranking Member Cantwell 

Question 1: Will you commit to work with and communicate clearly and often the State of 

Washington, Department of Ecology, local Tri-City stakeholders, and the Washington delegation 

on any proposed changes to projects at Hanford before final decisions are made? 

Answer: Yes, if confirmed I commit to communicating clearly and often with the State of 

Washington, Department of Ecology, Congress including the Washington delegation, and other 

stakeholders before major proposed changes to Hanford projects are finalized. 

Question 2: The Richland Operations Office and local unions recently established a Hanford 

Resource Center with the purpose of helping infonn current and former Hanford employees on 

available Federal and State compensation programs. Will you be an advocate of this center and 

establish similar centers at other sites under your purview? 

Answer: I view the safety of the workforce, along with the public and the environment, as a top 

priority. While I have not been fully briefed on the Hanford Resource Center and the specific 

work it perfonns, I believe it is important for the workers at DOE sites to have the resources they 

need to engage with available worker compensation programs. If con finned, I commit to 

learning more about the Hanford Resource Center and evaluating whether other similar 

mechanisms may be appropriate for other EM sites and consistent with the law. 

Question 3: The Manhattan Project National Historical Park is an incredibly important part of 

the Tri-Cities and nation's history. There is currently an etTort at the Hanford site and the other 

locations to expand the park boundaries. Will you work with local stakeholders and the National 

Parks Service to ensure these proposed changes are feasible? 

Answer: I agree the Manhattan Project National Park is a valuable resource to educate 

Americans about the birth of the atomic age in this country and the critical role local 

communities near DOE sites played in this historic effort. While I have not been fully briefed on 

the expansion of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, I commit to hearing input from 

local stakeholders on the issue to better understand and consider stakeholder proposed changes to 

the Park's boundaries. 

Question 4: The Department has been working to augment Order 435.1 to change certain 

classifications of waste, which will have implications for the treatment and disposal of Hanford 

waste. The Department must continue to communicate with the Department of Ecology and the 

Washington State delegation about why it is proposing to make these changes and what its 

ultimate disposition plan is for Hanford waste. Will you ensure that the changes are consistent 

with the Tri-Party Agreement and commit to brief me and the delegation, along with the 

Department of Ecology, in advance of any decisions on this topic? 

Answer: I am aware of the Department's evaluation of Order 435.1. [f confirmed, I commit to 

learning more about this issue and the potential impacts to the Department's cleanup mission at 
36 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

sites such as Hanford and the Tri-Party Agreement. I also commit to continuing to brief you, 

your stall~ and other members of Congress, along with the Washington State Department of 

Ecology as the Department continues its evaluation of this DOE order. 

Question 5: Vapors have been a persistent safety issue. The Department and contractors have 

only recently, in the past three years, begun a concentrated effort to address this by instituting 

improved engineered controls, safety equipment, and monitoring systems. On November 28, 

2016 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued a report with four 

recommendations to improve worker safety. The Department and its contractor, Washington 

River Protection Solutions, are in the process of implementing these recommendations. Will you 

ensure that the offices under your direction continue this effort to eliminate exposure to harmful 

chemicals by ensuring these offices on an annual basis request reviews of safety practices by the 

OtTice of Enterprise Assessments and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

to review that the recommendations are being implemented in an effective and timely manner 

and to assess what other additional steps need to be taken? 

Answer: I view the safety of the workers and the public, and protection of the environment as 

top priorities. While I am not yet at the Department, I understand DOE has placed a significant 

emphasis, and resources, on the issue of chemical vapor safety at Hanford. If confirmed, I 

commit to learning more about this issue and working with you and other members of Congress, 

and other stakeholders to further strengthen safety for the workers at Hanford. 

Question 6: The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant construction pathway has been 

altered several times. It is now being suggested that no money be spent on addressing technical 

and engineering problems associated with the treatment of high-activity waste to instead focus 

on Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste. It has been brought to my attention that this approach will 

result in the loss of engineers that have focused on the High-Level Waste Facility. It is 

incredibly important to retain staff that have worked on High-Level Waste and to continue to 

work on developing a treatment pathway for high-activity waste. Will you commit to continue 

work on the High-Level Waste Facility at an appropriate funding level? 

Answer: I understand the importance of the Department's efforts to treat radioactive tank waste 

at the Hanford Site. While I am not yet at the Department, I understand progress is being made 

on Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLA W) to initiate waste treatment in the near-term. If 

confirmed, I will review the plans and status for management and dispositioning of other forms 

of tank waste, including High-Level Waste (HL W). If confirmed, I will also review the status of 

EM's ef1orts to decide issues relating to the technologies to be considered for supplemental 

treatment of low activity waste and the staffing needs for the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant project. Of course, funding levels are ultimately the decision of the 

President and Congress. 

If confirmed, I commit to working with you and other members of Congress to continue making 

progress in pursuing a sustainable path forward for this project. 

2 
37 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

Question 7: How do you plan to incorporate the National Laboratories, in particular, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory as a resource for the Environmental Management and Hanford 

cleanup mission? 

Answer: I agree with Secretary Perry that the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the 

Department's other national laboratories are the crown jewels of the Department. I believe their 

expertise and capabilities can play a significant role in helping us with our cleanup challenges. 

While I am not yet at the Department, I understand the Office of Environmental Management 

(EM) has established a National Lab Network, which I believe is co-chaired by PNNL, to better 

utilize the varied and unique capabilities of the national laboratories. If confirmed, I commit to 

learning more about the benefits PNNL and the other national laboratories can bring to the EM 

mission. 

Question 8: If confirmed, what is your plan to ensure the 56 million gallons of Hanford high 

level waste is safely and timely treated into a protective and legally compliant waste form? And 

how do you plan to get that waste out of the state? 

Answer: Understanding the nature of various tank waste, as well as options for treating those 

wastes in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner, will be a high priority for me. If lam 

confirmed, I will work with the State of Washington, Congress, and other stakeholders to ensure 

we are making sustainable, risk-informed, and fiscally responsible decisions regarding the 

processing and disposition of these wastes. 

Question 9: Do you believe that the President's FY 2018 budget, which cut Hanford spending 

by about $120 million, is sufficient for the Office of Environmental Management to meet the TriParty Agreement and the court ordered cleanup milestones at Hanford? 

Answer: If confinned, I will commit to exploring the cost and commitments associated with the 

Hanford cleanup mission. 

Question 10: Will you commit to working within the Department to institutionalize a review 

process for major safety events and set more appropriate safety standards that will be sustainable 

beyond your tenure? 

Answer: I am committed to ensuring the safety of our workforce, the public and protection of 

the environment. It must be valued above production, budget, and schedule. A robust safety 

culture requires constant vigilance that examines our safety posture, and ensures lessons are 

learned from major safety events and reflected in our safety standards. 

Question II: What are you going to do to prevent safety lapses in the future? How will you 

keep contractors accountable? 

Answer: I believe contractors must be held accountable for their perfonnance which includes the 

safe execution of projects in compliance with DOE safety requirements. If confirmed, I will be 

3 
38 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

looking closely at EM's contracts and mechanisms to ensure that EM's contractors are 

accountable for safety performance. 

Question 12: Will you commit to continue the current Department initiatives of transparency 

and clear communication with the Unions to make sure the workers they represent are receiving 

the proper training and equipment needed to get the job done safely? 

Answer: If confirmed, worker safety and building mutual trust between the Department and the 

work force will be a priority throughout my tenure. I commit to working with DOE contractors 

to ensure open and transparent communication with the workforce, consistent with applicable 

laws and agreements, and ensuring that proper training and the appropriate safety equipment is 

utilized to accomplish the mission safely. 

Question 13: In January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future 

urged the previous Administration to reconsider the policy of commingling high-level 

radioactive defense and civilian spent nuclear fuel in a single repository. In response to the 

Commission's recommendation, in January 2015, Secretary of Energy Moniz recommended that 

a separate repository be developed for defense wastes. In March 2015, President Obama 

accepted Secretary Moniz's recommendation and made a finding under section 8 of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982 that a separate repository for defense wastes is required. Do you agree 

with the Secretary's recommendation and the President's finding? If not, please identify any 

specific objections you have to the recommendation or finding. 

Answer: Although I have not been fully briefed on the Department's plans for pursuing a 

defense only repository, I am aware of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations. If 

confirmed, I commit to working with the responsible DOE office and to exploring appropriate 

options for the disposal of high level waste. 

Questions from Senator Ron Wyden 

Question 1: Getting Hanford cleaned up is one of my major priorities, but after years of effort 

and billions of dollars, the situation at Hanford is as precarious as ever. The tanks are leaking. 

The clean-up schedule is extending for decades, yet the budget keeps growing. 

I understand you have 25 years of experience in the nuclear field as a consultant and smallbusiness owner. However, the Environmental Management Program (EM) is a multi-billion 

dollar organization developing first-of-a-kind nuclear waste cleanup projects. 

a) What experience and skills do you have that would enable you to run a Federal program 

this large and this complex? 

4 
39 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18,2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

Answer: As you may know, I hold a master's degree as a nuclear engineer and I began my 

career performing physical cleanup before forming my own small business in 1995. Over the 

past 25 years I have gained invaluable experience working in almost every capacity of the 

environmental restoration industry ranging from commercial, to governmental and international 

organizations. This experience has provided me with an appreciation for the complex and 

technical challenges the Department faces. Over the years, my company has subcontracted to the 

major EM contactors at a number of the EM sites. In addition, I have successfully provided 

leadership at a variety of cleanup sites and often in the most challenging circumstances. 

b) What is the largest project -- in dollars and technical scope --- for which you have had 

full and direct management responsibility? 

Answer: My role has traditionally been to provide strategic leadership and guidance to those 

who provide the hands-on management oflarge EM cleanup projects. Having been a small 

business owner I developed management skills that are scalable. I will ensure I have the project 

management personnel on my staff to assist me with these aspects of the job. Due to the decentralized way in which EM budget is dispersed, the majority of project management occurs at 

the Federal Project Director level (at the sites). The role ofEM-1 is very similar to my previous 

experience, namely to provide strategic leadership, create culture change by pulling people along 

rather than pushing them and making decisions, as needed. Finally, the role ofEM-1 is to be 

accountable for meeting commitments, communicating with stakeholders, including the 

committee, in a clear way that fosters trust and collaboration in order to complete projects and 

site cleanup efforts. If confirmed, I commit to do this. 

c) What professional skills have you developed that translate to this new challenge? 

Answer: I came into the strategic advisor role because I had done work in regulatory 

compliance, radiation worker protection, nuclear safety and waste management. This breadth of 

experience allows me to understand the intricacies, and competing interests of the various parts 

of environmental projects and makes me an effective problem solver. 

Further, I have worked on large cleanup contract proposals with many of the large EM 

contractors. My work included developing cost, schedule, and budget and project management 

approaches to multi-billion dollar cleanup contracts. Those skills translate into what I believe 

EM-I needs to do which is provide strategic leadership, make timely decisions, and understand 

the regulatory and other considerations that result in the timely and successful completion of 

cleanup activities. 

Question 2: Nuclear cleanup is a very challenging issue. As someone who has followed this 

issue for more than three decades, I have seen a lot of people step into this position yet not 

achieve what they intended. As discussed in our meeting, I want to know what you would do to 

change the way business is done at EM. Similarly, in your testimony, you responded, in part, to 

Chairman Murkowski's question about actions you would take to move EM off the Government 

5 
40 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

Accountability Otiice (GAO) High Risk list by noting EM could make improvements in the way 

work is contracted, and how EM manages their contractors. I would like specifics: 

a) What is the first thing you would do to change the way business is done at Hanford and at 

other DOE cleanup sites around the country? 

Answer: If confirmed, the first thing for me will be to understand EM's commitments. If EM 

cannot meet its commitments, I will evaluate what I cannot deliver upon and why. I will also 

deepen my understanding of the projects, risks, and stakeholder expectations. I believe it is 

imperative to have a fully informed, technically sound, and fiscally responsible approach as the 

basis for making and meeting commitments. I understand that there is a significant amount of 

work at Hanford and across the complex for which contracting actions will need to be taken in 

the next few years. If confirmed, I intend to become very engaged in how we structure these 

procurements to set the stage for the next 5-l 0 years of cleanup. 

b) What specific ideas do you have as to how EM can improve its procurement and 

management of contractors? 

Answer: If confirmed, I will work with the site oftices to ensure that EM is providing 

appropriate oversight of the contractors, and where appropriate and consistent with law, expand 

the use of the owner's agent/owner's representative concept to help with projects and perform 

the work in a safe manner at the best value for the government and the American taxpayer. 

c) How would you return public confidence in this office? 

Answer: If confirmed, I will set clear expectations within EM that we will complete our cleanup 

work safely, on time and on cost; meet our regulatory commitments; and partner with our local 

communities. I commit to placing safety above schedule or cost and communicating issues 

timely. 

Onestion 3: As documented in the 2016 GA0-16-618 report, "Department of Energy: 

Whistlcblower Protections Need Strengthening," the DOE has a poor record in protecting 

whistleblowers and addressing concerns they raise. Many DOE whistleblowers that have come 

forward and been the subject of retaliation have been in the Environmental Management 

contractor workforce, including a significant number at Hanford. 

a) If you are confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that Environmental Management 

contractor employees who make whistleblower disclosures are protected? 

Answer: A robust safety culture is critical to achieving the Department's mission, including a 

workplace where all employees feel free to raise concerns and ask questions. I know firsthand 

how important this is, having been a contractor at a DOE site. The people closest to the work are 

the ones who are best able to identify issues early and identify ways to improve performance. 

6 
41 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

I believe EM should make a concerted effort to strengthen and raise awareness of the various 

programs available to employees through which they can raise safety issues. If confinned, I 

would be happy to work with you on this important issue. 

Question from Senator Steve Daines 

Question: While Montana does not contain any active environmental cleanup sites, we are 

home to one-third of the nuclear triad, which the Department of Energy plays an active role in 

managing. An effective nuclear deterrent is critical to maintaining peace from a position of 

strength; and I applaud the Administration's focus on modernizing our strategic assets in a safe 

and environmentally responsible manner. As the Department of Energy begins implementing the 

President's vision, will you keep me apprised of new developments related to the Minuteman III 

and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent? 

Answer: I have not been fully briefed on these issues but if confirmed, I will certainly 

communicate your request for information on any new developments related to the Minuteman 

II! and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to those DOE officials who may have 

responsibilities for such matters. 

Questions from Senator Martin Heinrich 

Question 1: With my support, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary James Owendoffrecently 

notified the mayor of Carlsbad, NM, that he had instructed the Carlsbad Field Office to work 

with NWP to create a dedicated section ofWlPP's website for a Community Assurance 

Program. To improve communications with the public, the CAP will include all incoming 

correspondence from entities that have regulatory or oversight authority ofWIPP, including 

DOE, EPA, NMED, MSHA and DNFSB. The CAP was requested by the community to help 

increase public accountability and ensure safe and efficient operation of the facility. If you are 

confirmed, will you work with community leaders to improve transparency in the oversight and 

regulation ofWIPP and ensure the CAP is fully implemented in a timely fashion? 

Answer: While I have not been fully briefed on CAP, I believe engagement with stakeholders is 

important to accomplishment of our mission. If confirmed, I commit to working with 

community leaders, members of the New Mexico congressional delegation, and other 

stakeholders to foster the transparency and oversight at WIPP. 

Question 2: As the assistant secretary you will be responsible for managing WIPP, the nation's 

only operating underground repository for defense transuranic waste. However WIPP is also a 

deep underground salt mine and as such provides its own unique set of safety hazards and 

concerns. As the mine's owner, DOE is responsible for ensuring WIPP is operated safely and in 

full compliance with the Mine Safety Health Administration's regulations. MSHA's most recent 

quarterly inspection of WIPP identified 22 safety violations, a 50% increase in citations over 

MSHA's previous quarterly inspection. If you are confirmed, what will you do to hold the 

7 
42 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

contractor accountable for compliance with MSHA's and other applicable safety regulations at 

WlPP? 

Answer: WIPP is a crucial component of the entire Environmental Management complex, and if 

confirmed ensuring the safety of the workforce would be top priority. 1 believe contractors must 

be held accountable for their performance which includes compliance with safety requirements. 

If confirmed, 1 will be looking closely at the EM's contracts and mechanisms to ensure 

accountability for performance. 

Questions from Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Question 1: Since the Office of Environmental Management (EM) was established in 1989, it 

has overseen the completed cleanup of radioactive wastes at 91 sites that had been involved in 

nuclear energy or nuclear weapons research and production. When do you expect the cleanup of 

the 17 remaining contaminated sites to be finished, and how much do you estimate that will cost? 

What do you consider to be the biggest impediments to getting the jobs done on time? 

Answer: l understand that, based on EM's most recent estimates, cleanup of the remaining scope 

will be completed around 2075 with an estimate of the cost for completion between $213-258 

billion. I have not been privy to the bases for these estimates, but if confirmed I will receive a 

full briefing on this matter. 

One impediment is that often cost and schedule estimates for work are based on less than full 

information until cleanup progresses. 

Question 2: What do you consider to be the most effective ways to communicate the Office of 

Environmental Management's cleanup plans to communities near the sites still awaiting final 

cleanup, and, if confirmed, what do you hope to improve in your outreach to those communities? 

Answer: Maintaining a regular dialogue with stakeholders including members of Congress, Tribes, 

regulators, and local communities is a priority. If con finned, I look forward to visiting EM's sites, 

learning about the challenges EM faces and speaking directly with the stakeholders in each 

community. If confirmed, I hope to learn more about the approaches EM currently utilizes to 

engage with communities and continue to facilitate opportunities that foster a meaningful 

dialogue. 

Question 3: As part of my responsibility as a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources and to ensure the fitness of nominees for appointed positions, I am asking 

nominees to answer the following two questions: 

a) Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual 

favors, or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? 

8 
43 

Answer: No 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

b) Have you ever faced discipline, or entered into a settlement related to this kind of 

conduct? 

Answer: No 

Questions from Senator Cortez Masto 

Question 1: How much does science factor into your decision-making? 

Answer: Sound science and technical excellence must be the foundation for all decisions to 

ensure the safe and efficient execution of EM's cleanup mission. I have always prided myself on 

having strong technical and scientific bases for my decisions. 

Question 2: How much consideration should be given to concerns of the local community in 

your work? If they feel that something EM is doing is unsafe for their community, would you 

consider some sort of corrective action? 

Answer: I view the safety of the workers at its sites, the public and protection of the 

environment as top priorities. If confirmed, I commit to working with stakeholders to understand 

their safety concerns and ensure those concems arc addressed. 

Question 3: Do you believe decisions made by DOE to move forward on a project should take 

precedence over a community or state's opposition particularly if that community or state is 

concerned such a decision would have a negative impact to their safety? 

Answer: I believe decisions should be based upon both sound science, and a dialogue with 

affected stakeholders. Such dialogue will ensure that DOE has fully communicated its technical 

information and fully considered the concems and technical or other information the community 

has. 

Question 4: If a community/state does not provide their consent, what should take precedence, 

the community or DOE policy? 

Answer: I believe decisions should be based upon both sound science, and a dialogue with 

affected stakeholders. Such dialogue will ensure that DOE has fully communicated its technical 

information and fully considered the concerns and technical or other information the community 

has. 

Question 5: In your capacity as an independent consultant, have you ever been in any way 

involved with the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada? On whose behalf was this 

work performed? 

9 
44 

Answer: No 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

January 18, 2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

Question 6: the President's FY2018 Budget Request includes funds "to restart licensing 

activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and to initiate an interim 

nuclear waste storage program." What actions are currently taking place at EM and/or DOE to 

initiate an interim storage program at Yucca? 

Answer: I am unaware of any EM or DOE actions to initiate an interim storage program at 

Yucca. Further, Yucca Mountain is outside EM's scope of responsibility. 

Question 7: As you know, the Nevada National Security Site belongs to the National Nuclear 

Security Administration, but the low-level waste mission is managed by the Office of 

Environmental Management. This management structure can obviously create problems 

allowing both entities to point fingers at the other should something go wrong. What is your 

view on what could be done to bring better management and oversight to the Site? 

Answer: The Nevada National Security Site serves an essential role in supporting the 

environmental clean-up program. If confirmed, I will work closely with NNSA to ensure our 

missions are executed in concert and coordination with each other. 

Question from Senator Rob Portman 

Question: As you know, the Department of Energy is responsible for decontaminating and 

decommissioning sites that were previously used by the government to enrich uranium for the 

government's nuclear defense system and for commercial power plants. The uranium enrichment 

plant in Piketon, Ohio, known as the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, was in operation for 

over 50 years and shut down in the early 2000's. Since then, the Department of Energy has been 

cleaning up the site, which totals $380 million per year. 

One constant issue with moving forward on cleanup is stable funding. Today, about 15% of 

annual cleanup funding comes from the sale of the government's uranium stockpile. But the 

price of uranium has dropped by about 30% since cleanup at Piketon began, which has put the 

entire barter program in jeopardy. Needless to say, funding from barter sales for the cleanup at 

the site has become more and more uncertain. I have talked with Secretary Perry about moving 

away from barter to fund the cleanup, and he agrees. However, this will require a commitment 

from the Administration to request, and for Congress to appropriate, the necessary annual funds 

to clean up the site. 

If confirmed, will you commit to working with me to find a long-term solution to fund the 

cleanup at the Piketon site? 

Answer: If confirmed, l commit to working with you, your staff and Congress as a whole to 

develop a long-term solution to fund the cleanup at the Piketon site. 

10 
45 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resom·ces 

January 18,2018: Pending Nominations 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Anne Marie White 

Questions from Senator Tina Smith 

Question 1: If you are confirmed, you will be in charge of overseeing an office with an annual 

budget of more than six billion dollars. Can you describe your previous management experience 

that prepares you for this role? 

Answer: I hold a master's degree as a nuclear engineer. I began my career performing physical 

cleanup before forming my own small business in 1995. Over the past 25 years I have gained 

invaluable experience working in almost every capacity of the environmental restoration industry 

ranging from commercial, governmental, and international organizations. This experience has 

provided me with an appreciation for the complex and technical challenges the Department 

faces. Over the years, my company has subcontracted to the major EM contractors at a number 

of the EM sites. In addition, I have successfully provided leadership at a variety of cleanup sites 

and often in the most challenging circumstances. 

Question 2: Due to the nuclear materials involved, the active sites overseen by the Office of 

Environmental Management are obviously very dangerous cleanup projects. What specifically 

will do you do to mitigate risk to the workers, surrounding communities, and the environment 

when approaching these projects? 

Answer: I view that the safety of the workers at its sites, the public, and protection of the 

environment as top priorities. I believe contractors must be held accountable for their 

performance which includes the safe execution of projects in compliance with safety 

requirements. If con finned, I will be looking closely at the EM's contracts and mechanisms to 

ensure accountability for performance. 

Question 3: I understand the Department of Energy contracts out a significant amount of work 

on these cleanup projects, including to small businesses like yours. What improvements do you 

think could made to the contracting process on these projects? 

Answer: While I have not been fully briefed on EM's small business contracting efforts, if 

con finned, I will explore potential improvements to those efforts. 

Question 4: There have been a number of instances within the Department of Energy in which a 

contractor has had a major safety incident during the completion of a project. However, many of 

these contractors have still been able to collect an award from the government for on-time 

completion. How specifically would you hold contractors accountable if they do not perform as 

expected? 

Answer: If confirmed, I will explore various contracts and contract management approaches 

currently in use. If confirmed, I will work to ensure EM procures the contractor behaviors and 

outcomes the Department needs, including the safe delivery of the cleanup mission. 

0 11