U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

24–819 PDF 2006

YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: DIGGING FOR THE

TRUTH?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 29, 2005

Serial No. 109–89

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

——— ———

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

EX OFFICIO

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA

RON MARTINSON, Staff Director

SHANNON MEADE, Professional Staff Member

REID VOSS, Clerk

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 29, 2005 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Arthur, W. John, III, Deputy Director, Office of Repository Development,

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy ................................................................................................................ 38

Hevesi, Joseph, U.S. Geological Survey .......................................................... 13

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Arthur, W. John, III, Deputy Director, Office of Repository Development,

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy, prepared statement of ......................................................................... 41

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 29

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, article dated March 10, 2004 ..................................................... 9

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 62

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 5

Reid, Hon. Harry, a Senator in Congress from the State of Nevada

and Ensign, Hon. John, a Senator in Congress from the State of Nevada, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 60

(1)

YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: DIGGING FOR

THE TRUTH?

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY

ORGANIZATION, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Porter, Davis, Marchant, Mica, Issa,

Cummings, and Norton.

Staff present: Ron Martinson, staff director; Chad Bungard, deputy staff director and chief counsel; Shannon Meade, professional

staff member; Patrick Jennings, senior counsel and OPM detailee;

Reid Voss, clerk/legislative assistant; Mark Stephenson and Tania

Shand, minority professional staff members; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. PORTER. We welcome everyone here today. As you know,

there is a quorum present. The subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization will come to order.

Today marks the second hearing this subcommittee has held

with regard to its investigation into allegations that Federal employees have falsified documents relating to the Yucca Mountain

Project, a major public works project that carries with it the possibility of wide-ranging ramifications.

As I have highlighted before, there is no question that issues surrounding the Yucca Mountain Project are of paramount importance

to my constituents and the rest of the citizens of Nevada.

My critical feelings about the project in and of itself from day one

are well known. I do not need to repeat them at this point. But as

chairman of the subcommittee, my constituency now reaches a

much broader scope. In my role as chairman I represent the Nation’s concerns when it comes to Federal employee issues and it is

the subcommittee’s responsibility to examine all aspects of Federal

employee behavior and management issues.

Under this responsibility, the subcommittee has recently examined allegations of management and ethics concerns among high

level Federal scientists at the National Institute of Health and allegations of mismanagement at the Office of Special Counsel.

We are now faced with a similar challenge. The investigation of

alleged misconduct and mismanagement at the Yucca Mountain

Project is particularly important in that it carries potential cataVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Jan 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24819.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

strophic consequences and therefore demands close subcommittee

attention.

At the last hearing I noted in my opening statement that there

are many questions yet to be answered. Since that time the subcommittee has launched into a full and thorough investigation into

the allegations of employee misconduct and agency mismanagement.

Staff has interviewed many of the key Department of Interior

employees involved and has pored over many documents, spending

literally hundreds of hours.

I wish I could say that the investigation of this matter is going

smoothly and the investigative staff is getting to the bottom of the

truth. There are, however, still a lot of questions yet to be answered.

The main reason for the continued unanswered questions is that

an employee at the center of the allegations, Joseph Hevesi, has refused to meet with the investigators. Countless efforts have been

made to meet privately with Mr. Hevesi to examine the context and

intent of the e-mails he authored that seemed to call into question

the legitimacy of the science surrounding the storage of nuclear

waste at Yucca Mountain.

Without access to Mr. Hevesi, the investigation into the truth of

what took place has been hampered. To say that Mr. Hevesi is a

critical component of the subcommittee’s investigation is an understatement.

Please allow me to highlight a few of the e-mails that Mr. Hevesi

has drafted.

E-mail dated 12–17–1998, ‘‘Like you’ve said all along, the Yucca

Mountain Project has now reached a point where they need to have

certain items work, no matter what. The infiltration maps are on

that list. If the USGS can’t find a way to make it work, Sandia

will. But for now they are definitely counting on us to do the job.’’

E-mail dated 12–18–1998, ‘‘The bottom line is forget about the

money. We need a product or we’re screwed and will take the

blame. Everybody will say that they told us to go ahead without

a plan or budget in place. This is now CYA and we had better be

good at it.’’

E-mail dated 10–29–1998, ‘‘Wait till they figure out that nothing

I’ve provided them is QA,’’—quality assured. ‘‘If they really want

the stuff they’ll have to pay to do it right.’’

E-mail dated 3–15–99, ‘‘Now I’m going to give you the inside

scoop. I’m going to continue the regional modeling, even if it means

ignoring direct orders from Yucca Mountain Project management.

I have a pretty clear vision of the type of work that needs to be

done to stay alive for the long haul and it very definitely involves

getting product out there for the user and the public to see.’’

E-mail dated April 22, 1999, ‘‘Here’s the weird news: To get this

milestone through Quality Assurance, I must state that I’ve arbitrarily selected the analog sites. So, for the record, seven analog

sites have been arbitrarily randomly selected. Hopefully, these sites

will, by coincidence, match the sites you have identified. P.S.,

please destroy this memo.’’

E-mail dated April 23, 1999. ‘‘I am thinking that if I want to remain a viable player on the Yucca Mountain Project, which may

3

translate to continued funding, I need to show that we can get the

job done and provide the modelers with the results that they need.’’

E-mail dated November 15, 1999, ‘‘In the end I keep track of two

sets of files: The ones that will keep Quality Assurance happy and

the ones that were actually used.’’

A plain reading of the e-mails not only suggests that Mr. Hevesi

falsified data used in water infiltration modeling at the project, but

also casts reasonable doubt on the soundness of the science relied

upon to justify the project’s continued existence.

That is why it is absolutely essential that the subcommittee be

able to examine Mr. Hevesi and find out the truth behind the emails he has authored.

Mr. Hevesi is here today, but unfortunately not voluntarily. He

was compelled to be here today by a congressional subpoena.

This is not the way I like to conduct business. However when an

individual, especially a central figure in our investigation, refuses

to meet with congressional staff privately, there is no other alternative without shutting down the investigation.

With so much at stake in terms of the safety of Americans and

billions of taxpayers’ dollars, this investigation must go on without

delay and without further interference.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Hevesi will do the right thing today and

answer all of the questions directed to him by the members of the

subcommittee and not choose to invoke his fifth amendment privilege during questioning.

I am also looking forward to hearing the Department of Energy

witness, Mr. John Arthur, today. Since the subcommittee’s first

hearing, the Department has been uncooperative in the subcommittee’s efforts to obtain documents relating to the investigation. It

has consistently denied the subcommittee’s requests to meet with

key Department officials for their interviews.

Almost 3 months after one of the subcommittee’s various requests, the Department of Energy made a halfhearted last-ditch effort last Friday to appease the subcommittee, stating that the requested documents would not be transmitted; rather they would be

available for review in the Department’s headquarters. This is not

cooperation. This is unacceptable.

The Department claims no privilege that justifies withholding

the requested documents from Congress. Meeting the Department

officials and getting the relevant documents concerning potential

employee misconduct is essential in light of DOE’s own admission

in an internal document that these e-mails may create a substantial vulnerability for the program.

I also find DOE’s lack of cooperation particularly disturbing since

at the last hearing a DOE official testified that, ‘‘The critical importance of this issue requires action to ensure the scientific basis of

Yucca Mountain Repository Project is sound. The safe handling and

the disposal of nuclear waste and maintaining public confidence in

the safety of the repository are essential.’’

Assuming that the statement was more than just lip service as

believed by the Department, I find it curious that the Department

is not bending over backward to assist this Congress and this congressional investigation so the truth may come out.

4

The 19th Century American author and lawyer, Christian Astell

Bouvier, once said, ‘‘Truth like the sun, submits to be obscured, but

like the sun only for a time.’’

The subcommittee will not be deterred and will continue to seek

the truth behind these allegations. The truth will be told.

Again, I want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank

our witnesses for being here. I look forward to our discussion.

I would now like to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Danny Davis. Welcome, Mr. Davis.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:]

5

6

7

8

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I was unable to attend the first hearing on Yucca

Mountain regarding the discovery by Department of Energy contractors that e-mails written by a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist suggested that some quality assurance documents related to

water infiltration and climate studies had been falsified. While a

very important issue, the debate as to whether or not Yucca Mountain is an appropriate site to store nuclear waste is not within the

jurisdiction of this subcommittee.

However, it is alleged that Federal employees, USGS scientists

to be specific, falsified documents to support the very sensitive and

politically charged notion that Yucca Mountain is an appropriate

site to store nuclear waste. These are very serious charges. However, these scientists must be afforded the same rights that even

a common criminal would be afforded in our justice system: the

presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

It is important that we obtain the facts and understand the context in which these e-mails were written before we pass judgment

on these employees.

It is interesting to note that these same scientists are referenced

in a March 10, 2004, article in the Las Vegas Sun entitled, ‘‘Scientists Detail Yucca Water Threat.’’ Mr. Chairman, I would ask

unanimous consent to have this article inserted as a part of the

record.

Mr. PORTER. No objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

9

10

11

12

Mr. DAVIS. The article states that USGS scientists challenged

early DOE scientific models that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site,

suitable nuclear waste repository, due to the small quantities of

water that infiltrated the mountain. The USGS scientists found

that much more water flows through the mountain and hence there

is the potential for the water to reach and erode the canisters that

will hold the nuclear waste. It would appear from the article that

the USGS scientists who are now being accused of falsifying documents just a year ago provided the science to support longstanding

concerns raised by Nevada policymakers.

Mr. Hevesi, one of the scientists in question, will be testifying before us today. It is his opportunity to put his e-mails into context

and an opportunity for us Members to educate ourselves about

what these employees may or may not have done as it pertains to

falsifying scientific documents.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and

your continuous pursuit of information so that we can all know the

truth and hopefully be guided by the truth and nothing but the

truth.

I thank you and look forward to the testimony of the witnesses

and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Mica, do you have an opening statement today?

Mr. MICA. First of all, let me thank you for conducting this hearing. I think this does followup a previous hearing on the question

of whether Federal employees have been involved in falsifying documents.

Those are very serious charges. I think they are particularly serious because it does deal with a very sensitive issue and that is the

storage of our nuclear waste.

As everyone knows, this is a controversial program and it also

does pose a certain risk. I guess Nevada is the repository and the

people of Nevada have great need to be concerned if in fact some

of the data has been modified or falsified.

I think it is incumbent on the subcommittee to monitor the activities of our Federal employees and agencies.

I am pleased to see that this is also initiated. I think we will

hear about that. I have read about additional investigations being

conducted both by DOE in the Office of Inspector and also the Secretary is ordering a technical review of water infiltration modeling

and analysis and also conducting other reviews into the records

system.

All of these actions, I think, are positive. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for helping initiate this. As a former chair of this subcommittee, I think oversight is one of our most important responsibilities,

particularly where it does deal with the health, safety and welfare

of our people.

So, I look forward to hearing the testimony. I, too, hope that this

won’t be an exercise in the witness just taking the fifth amendment. If he does, I think that we will find other ways to get answers and get to the bottom of whether or not documents have

been falsified and improperly handled by the agency.

Again, I am pleased to participate and I thank you for your leadership again on the issue. I yield back.

13

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Mica.

To get into procedural matters at this time, I would like to ask

unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to

submit written statements and questions for the hearing record.

Any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses will

also be included in the record.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits including an original subpoena which acknowledged the meeting time to be 2 p.m.

today be included. No. 2, a letter to Mr. Hevesi agreeing to appear

at the 10 a.m. meeting this morning, and also a document which

showed the additional subpoena that was issued for the change of

time for today’s hearing at 10 a.m. I would like to ask unanimous

consent.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and

other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be

included in the hearing record and that all Members be permitted

to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, it is so ordered.

It is the practice of the committee to administer the oath to all

witnesses. Would you please stand, Mr. Hevesi and Mr. Arthur,

and raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PORTER. Let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Thank you.

In our first panel today we will hear from Mr. Joseph Hevesi, scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior. You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Hevesi.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH HEVESI, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Mr. HEVESI. My only opening statement is that I have not been

completely uncooperative as you characterized. I have responded to

all document requests and will continue to do so.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Hevesi, we appreciate that. I would

now like to move into the question and answer segment. We appreciate your being here today. I understand that this is a very major

project impacting the country. Again, we appreciate you attending

our meeting.

I would like to begin the questioning by first asking you, have

you ever falsified any documents relating to the Yucca Mountain

Project?

Mr. HEVESI. I have never falsified any documents relating to the

Yucca Mountain or any other project.

Mr. PORTER. Did you ever feel pressure from any of your superiors to produce specific model results?

Mr. HEVESI. No, I never did.

Mr. PORTER. In one of your e-mails, exhibit 12 if you would like

to see it, what did you mean when you said ‘‘The YMP or Yucca

Mountain Project has now reached a point where they need to have

certain items work, no matter what?’’ Could you explain that?

Mr. HEVESI. I am meaning that the models need to function numerically. They need to perform the calculations. I am not referencing any other meaning beyond that.

14

Mr. PORTER. Well, in the next sentence you state, ‘‘If the USGS

can’t find a way to make it work Sandia will.’’ In the last sentence

of the paragraph you said, ‘‘But they fully realize the problems we

are having with the Director’s approval thing.’’

Can you explain what that means? Again, ‘‘If you can’t find a

way to make it work, Sandia will.’’ And then you went on to say,

‘‘But they fully realize the problems we are having with the Director’s approval thing.’’

Mr. HEVESI. Well, pertaining to making it work, again, that refers to having the models actually function. A model needs an input

file to work and to perform its task, so that had to work.

In terms of Director’s approval, the USGS normally requires Director’s approval to OK results or data for public release. The

USGS is required to release findings to the general public.

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘If you can’t find a way to make it work Sandia

will.’’ Could you explain Sandia’s role in the oversight of the

project?

Mr. HEVESI. I was working with Sandia scientists. We were on

a team.

Mr. PORTER. Did Sandia have a role of oversight? Were they contracted to work on the project as a subcontractor?

Mr. HEVESI. They were in the same position as USGS in terms

of performing scientific studies.

Mr. PORTER. But they fully realized the problems you were having with the Director’s approval thing. So, would you say Sandia

was aware of some of the challenges you were having in trying to

find a way to make it work?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. In the last sentence of the second paragraph you

state, ‘‘I can no longer wait for USGS to figure this out. I’m moving

ahead according to the PA-Sandia work plan we put together this

week.’’ Does this mean that you were going to work on something

without approval from USGS?

Mr. HEVESI. No, that is not what that means.

Mr. PORTER. Can you explain what that means?

Mr. HEVESI. Could you repeat the question again to make sure

I understand it?

Mr. PORTER. No problem. In the last sentence of the second paragraph you state, ‘‘I can no longer wait for USGS to figure this out.

I’m moving ahead according to the PA-Sandia work plan we put together this week.’’

Does this mean that you were going to work on something without proper approval?

Mr. HEVESI. No, it does not.

Mr. PORTER. What does it mean?

Mr. HEVESI. It means that I am going to move ahead with the

work that I was already doing.

Mr. PORTER. Even without approval from management?

Mr. HEVESI. No, it does not mean that.

Mr. PORTER. I am sorry. I guess I am confused. So, you are saying that you weren’t going to wait for management, you were going

to move ahead anyway and that is not in a direct contrary order

to your management?

15

Mr. HEVESI. Could you be specific as to what e-mail you are referencing?

Mr. PORTER. I would be happy to. It is E-mail No. 12 in your material there.

Mr. HEVESI. We were in the proposal phase of the work plan, so

the work was being set up and I was in the process of waiting for

the formal account to be set up through the USGS.

Mr. PORTER. Let me move on from this one. You state in the next

to the last sentence, ‘‘What I really need now are some warm bodies to review the work I’ve been doing.’’

Does this mean that you didn’t receive support from management

at that time?

Mr. HEVESI. The proposal that I put forward was asking for more

resources.

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘What I really need now are some warm bodies to

review the work I’ve been doing.’’ What you are saying, your proposal was for additional moneys?

Mr. HEVESI. It was for additional resources to move forward efficiently with the work.

Mr. PORTER. Is that referring to money, funding?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe so. I don’t recall exactly, but in terms of

resources I am referring to people to help with the QA and to help

with the program development.

Mr. PORTER. What do you mean in the last sentence when you

quoted, ‘‘Live by the sword, die by the sword?’’

Mr. HEVESI. I do not recall what I meant by that statement.

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘Live by the sword, die by the sword.’’ It is quite

interesting that would be in an e-mail regarding finding a way to

make the project work and you don’t remember why you said, ‘‘Live

by the sword, die by the sword.’’

Mr. HEVESI. No, sir. This e-mail is dated 1998 and I place things

in e-mails out of emotional response and I do not recall what I

meant by the statement.

Mr. PORTER. Then in general you state the emotional response.

What was happening at that point in time? Maybe you can’t remember why you used those words, but you do remember the emotion.

What was happening to create this emotion for you to feel that

you might need to say something like this?

Mr. HEVESI. During this time there was one opportunity and a

final opportunity in a way that had developed that I was a part of

encouraging to develop a better version of the model to handle the

future climate inputs.

To me and to my colleagues assigned to working on this it was

very important that we complete that improved version. The

timeline for doing that was very tight.

Mr. PORTER. Did you find that there was a problem accomplishing the goal because of the time constraints that you were put

under? Is that why it was an emotional time?

Mr. HEVESI. We knew that we could accomplish the goal, but we

also knew it was going to be tight. We knew there was not going

to be much leeway in the timeline.

Mr. PORTER. So you were feeling pressure at that point to get the

job done?

16

Mr. HEVESI. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. OK. Mr. Davis, do you have questions?

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hevesi, did you falsify scientific measurements for the Yucca

Mountain Project?

Mr. HEVESI. No, I did not.

Mr. DAVIS. To your knowledge, did any other USGS scientist falsify any documents?

Mr. HEVESI. To my knowledge they did not.

Mr. DAVIS. Were quality assurance procedures clearly outlined

and defined for scientists to follow?

Mr. HEVESI. In some cases the quality assurances procedures

were evolving, so they would change at times at that point in the

project.

Mr. DAVIS. Were they always specific in writing or were there

times when there was verbal communication relative to these assurances?

Mr. HEVESI. They were specific in writing. In some cases there

were several revisions or versions of the procedure.

Mr. DAVIS. So there were combinations of communication relative

to the procedures which were used?

Mr. HEVESI. That is my recollection, yes.

Mr. DAVIS. Last March USGS scientists testified before the U.S.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that the Government’s

early models showed a high degree of lateral movement of water.

That model indicated that much of the water flowed off the Yucca

Mountain.

The USGS scientists noted that more recent studies showed that

much of the water moved vertically through fractures in the rock.

The implication of the scientists’ findings was that water can penetrate the mountain and possibly corrode the canisters containing

the nuclear waste.

What role did you play in developing the models that found that

more water flows through the mountain than originally thought?

Mr. HEVESI. The models themselves do not find or not find that

there is more water in the current climate flowing through the site.

That comes from field measurements and field data. The models

are calibrated or they are made to be consistent with that field

data.

My role was to develop the model itself, the Fortran programming, the inputs, to process the outputs and to supply that to end

users. It was my role to try to make this model consistent with the

field data. My role in the field data collection itself was more limited.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you do e-mails in code? I mean do you have some

kind of code that you use? You mentioned that sometimes you respond emotionally. Of course, code would indicate that somebody

on the receiving end of whatever one was sending would have to

be able to decipher or what that was. I mean, do you have any

codes?

Mr. HEVESI. There was no code. What you see are raw, emotional

responses.

17

Mr. DAVIS. So there would not be a recipient on the other end

who would be able to pick out and derive a meaning specifically related to something that you had indicated?

Mr. HEVESI. No, not to my knowledge. It is plain English, no

code.

Mr. DAVIS. Could you explain why you kept two sets of files?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes. The program that I ran had in some cases

input files that could not use header information. So, these are just

columns of numbers with no identifiers in the first row.

The QA requirements did require those identifiers. It is easier to

decipher the input files. So, the two sets of files are one set that

has the header line and the other set does not have the header

line. All the numbers in those files are identical. So, in essence,

they are identical files.

Mr. DAVIS. And would someone who accessed those files be able

to delineate or understand clearly the meaning of the material?

Mr. HEVESI. The header information does add meaning to the

files, but not to the degree where an outside individual would readily understand these files.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Why were you called back a few months ago to

work on the project?

Mr. HEVESI. Excuse me, would you repeat the question?

Mr. MARCHANT. Why were you called back to work on the project

a few months ago?

Mr. HEVESI. There were several reasons. I was providing consultation support to colleagues that were revising the AMR document. They were working to improve the document.

Mr. MARCHANT. Who contacted you to come back?

Mr. HEVESI. I was initially contacted by Ron McCurley, I believe,

either Ron McCurley or Dan Levin.

Mr. MARCHANT. Specifically, what missing computer files were

you brought back to retrieve?

Mr. HEVESI. There are control files for the models. It is part of

the model inputs. I had thought that these were already in the

TDMS system. In 2004 it became evident that maybe they were not

in the system and this was the request.

Mr. MARCHANT. Were you able to find them?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes.

Mr. MARCHANT. What was the significance of your finding those

files?

Mr. HEVESI. I am not sure how significant that was because the

files, it would be possible to recreate these files even if the files did

not exist. But it is more work to recreate them. It is more efficient

to just have the original file.

Mr. MARCHANT. Prior to DOE’s public announcement of the emails of mid-March did anyone from DOE or USGS management

in headquarters contact you in an effort to solicit your insights as

to the context of the e-mails you authored and if so, would you

identify the official or agency.

Mr. HEVESI. Prior to what date?

Mr. MARCHANT. Mid-March.

18

Mr. HEVESI. No, I received no contact. I believe my initial contact

was March 16th or 17th. I don’t recall exactly.

Mr. MARCHANT. At that time, did either of those agencies go

through the e-mails with you and ask for explanations of the emails and what you meant by the e-mails?

Mr. HEVESI. At my initial contact, a couple of days after I initially became aware of the situation, there was a USGS meeting to

discuss the e-mails.

Mr. MARCHANT. Do you think you were given a reasonable time

to explain? Do you think that they handled it reasonably and you

were able to fully explain what the meaning of the e-mails from

your perspective were?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes, I do.

Mr. MARCHANT. Have you felt supported by the agency in confronting the allegations?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes.

Mr. MARCHANT. I understand USGS has referred you and others

to the USGS Solicitor’s Office in California for guidance. Have you

ever felt misguided or misinformed by anyone within the agency or

the Solicitor’s Office?

Mr. HEVESI. No, I have not.

Mr. MARCHANT. Did anyone other than your attorneys advise you

not to speak to us?

Mr. HEVESI. Repeat the question, please.

Mr. MARCHANT. Did anyone other than your attorneys advise you

not to speak to this committee?

Mr. HEVESI. No, not in terms of the direct advice, no.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend you for coming here. I have been on the other

side, many years ago, and it was only trying to talk about the

promise of free trade with Mexico.

The grueling was enough that I didn’t think I wanted to come

back again. I can only imagine what it feels like to be here to discuss a few e-mails out of 10 million e-mails and then be told this

must be the epicenter of all that is important.

I wanted to ask you just briefly, throughout the e-mail in question and the whole QA program, were you given policies and procedures and guidelines that allowed you to go through this process

effectively or were there some frustrations and if so, what were

they?

Mr. HEVESI. There were very definitely policies and guidelines.

The Yucca Mountain Project and the studies I was involved in are

unique in that we were undertaking in some cases the model development studies that have not been performed before. So, we were

doing unique procedures that were being developed as we were

doing the work.

Mr. ISSA. Do you feel that you were given adequate training for

this? Is there such a thing as adequate training to prepare you for

this zero failure sort of environment that you were put in?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes, I had adequate training. I had Fortran training

programming and course work, college course work on the science

and continued that training through my employment.

19

Mr. ISSA. How would you characterize the, if you will, the level

of scrutiny, including here today? Do you think it has been fair considering the seriousness of a nuclear storage facility or do you

think that candidly we are looking for the proverbial needle in the

haystack, even if it is the shortest needle you ever saw?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe this level of scrutiny is 100 percent warranted.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that. I appreciate your dedication.

Can you explain for us what were the tiger teams, how they were

implemented in the quality process and perhaps educate us a little

bit on how you achieved the level of detail in scrutiny that you had

to be part of?

Mr. HEVESI. I am somewhat reluctant to define the tiger teams

because I am not sure I ever really knew 100 percent what they

were. It was part of a review process. My recollection is an action

of PVAR procedures.

But it is difficult for me to answer that exactly because I am just

going by memory on that.

Mr. ISSA. I will try to close with the question that I like to give

people who we put in the hottest light of our country. What should

we be doing here in this committee or in the Congress to further

the process both of obviously a successful nuclear storage facility

and perhaps less of this time-consuming outside the ordinary process type activity?

What could we do different to prevent in the future exactly what

you are going through today and perhaps some of the stumbling

points that have confused people as to whether or not Yucca Mountain is safe or whether there was a cover-up?

Mr. HEVESI. Perhaps a higher degree of public involvement. Part

of the frustration that I was having was not being able to produce

the public literature that I was hoping to produce through this

process.

The USGS tries to put the information or it has to, it is required

to put the information and the findings out to the public in the

form of reports and maps. I would have liked to have seen that

process to be more efficient.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. PORTER. On E-mail No. 30, Mr. Hevesi, you state that ‘‘The

model was to be consistent with field observations and had to reflect reality.’’

You stated that, ‘‘Here’s the weird news. To get to this milestone

through Quality Assurance I must state that I have arbitrarily selected the analog sites. At first I was going to include your e-mail

as supporting information in the data package and discuss the

work we had used in the worksheets consisting of candidate sites,

but since there is no DTM for the results, the message I am getting

from Quality Assurance is that I can’t use or refer to those results.’’

How do you explain the e-mail concerning these seven analog

sites and why you didn’t pick the analog sites randomly?

Mr. HEVESI. I used the sites that Rick Forester was recommending. This e-mail is just discussing the technicality of how we reference that work. The e-mail itself is not 100 percent accurate beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Jan 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24819.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
20

cause at the time I am writing this I am not aware of leeway in

terms of using a to-be-verified status for this type of an input.

Mr. PORTER. You said that the model was to be consistent with

field observations and it had to reflect reality. So what you are saying is that you were not aware of all the circumstances at the time

you wrote this e-mail?

Mr. HEVESI. Are you discussing the data inputs or the procedures?

Mr. PORTER. Actually, both.

Mr. HEVESI. The procedures on the to-be-verified status of data

were going through a stage of development at that time.

Mr. PORTER. The procedures?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe. That is to the best of my recollection.

Mr. PORTER. Did you say procedures for what?

Mr. HEVESI. Data inputs or data that was being used for a model

or a process that was not referenceable directly to the TDMS at

that point in time.

Mr. PORTER. So you didn’t have a procedure at that time? Do I

misunderstand?

Mr. HEVESI. I don’t recall if it was a written procedure or if it

was undergoing development at that point in time.

Mr. PORTER. In E-mail No. 16, we recognize that you didn’t write

this e-mail, but it was addressed to you. Please explain the best

you can. For example, the first couple of sentences, ‘‘The bottom

line is forget about the money. We need a product or we’re screwed

and will take the blame. Everybody will say that they told us to

go ahead without a plan or budget in place. This is now CYA and

we had better be good at it.’’

How often did you and your colleagues conduct work without a

plan or a budget in place?

Mr. HEVESI. In science, you need to develop or perform some

level of scoping exercise in order to judge whether what you are

proposing to do has a possibility of occurring or concluding. So, it

is something that you have to do as a scientist.

Mr. PORTER. You have to move forward without a plan as a scientist; is that what you are saying?

Mr. HEVESI. No. You have to perform scoping exercises.

Mr. PORTER. Your e-mail said, ‘‘In all honesty, I’ve never felt well

managed or helped by the USGS Yucca Mountain folks. In fact, as

you know, I’ve often felt abandoned. This time it’s no different or

worse and we have to work together to get out of this one. I’m still

overwhelmed trying to protect the rest of the program from the

ravages of what’s happening in Denver (funding, which we seem to

be blamed for because we got funding) and the current HDP fiascos

in the ESF.’’

Would you please explain what the HDP and ESF mean?

Mr. HEVESI. I am not sure I recall what that means. I don’t even

see it in the memo. Could you point that out?

Mr. PORTER. Yes. It is in E-mail No. 16. Let me grab the original

here. It is signed Allen. On the bottom line it says, ‘‘Forget about

the money. We need a product or we’re screwed.’’

Do you find that paragraph? It is down toward the bottom.

Mr. HEVESI. And you are asking specifically about the HDP fiascoes and the ESF?

21

Mr. PORTER. Yes. What does that mean?

Mr. HEVESI. I do not know what that means. My involvement in

the program at this point was very limited in the ESF. I was primarily working with the Fortran codes at this point in time.

Mr. PORTER. Does this then reflect that you and your colleagues

were managed poorly? Do you think you were managed poorly at

this time?

Mr. HEVESI. I do not believe we were managed poorly. Can you

define exactly what you mean by managed poorly?

Mr. PORTER. Well, it seems to be consistent throughout regard

the e-mails regarding poor management and quality assurance

problems. This is another one where it said, ‘‘In all honesty I’ve

never felt well managed or helped by the USGS folks. In fact, as

you know, I’ve often felt abandoned.’’

Do you feel that is the sense of the employees, that they weren’t

being managed properly?

Mr. HEVESI. I think at certain points in time there is a sense of

that, but in general I would not characterize it that way. In certain

points in time, and this includes myself, you have a limited perspective or you may have a limited perspective on a situation so

you may not know the full story and that resolves itself.

Mr. PORTER. So, you are stating that there are points in time. Do

you think then that these points in time could affect the quality of

the work on the project and the ability to meet deadlines?

Mr. HEVESI. Not to my awareness, not in terms of the quality of

the science, no.

Mr. PORTER. Now, this particular e-mail which was No. 16, did

you write this e-mail?

Mr. HEVESI. Are we discussing No. 16?

Mr. PORTER. That is correct, the second paragraph.

Mr. HEVESI. I did not write E-mail 16.

Mr. PORTER. Again, in my summary or overview of some of the

e-mails, it talks about management and your frustration with management. You mention the emotional side at times.

Did you ever make any formal complaints to the USGS or DOE

project management on any problems with management or with

the project?

Mr. HEVESI. I never made formal complaints.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Hevesi, do you know how DOE came to realize

the Yucca Mountain had to be engineered to safely contain the nuclear waste canisters?

Mr. HEVESI. Could you be more specific with that?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, to arrive at the decision that Yucca Mountain

had to be engineered, that is to be scientifically analyzed and studied in order to safely contain or hold the canisters.

Mr. HEVESI. I believe it was always an engineering problem. I believe the site was selected out of the three in 1984 and it has always been an engineering problem.

Mr. DAVIS. Were you involved in any of that science?

Mr. HEVESI. I was involved in collecting some of the field measurements. Are you discussing primarily drip shields? I am not sure

I understand what specifically you are referring to.

22

Mr. DAVIS. I guess what I am trying to determine is how much

work had to be done to arrive at the feeling or the understanding

or the recognition that this is a safe place to store the waste.

Mr. HEVESI. When I first joined the program we were involved

with developing a site characterization plan that was all-encompassing. As the project moved forward, that plan was narrowed

down and focused.

Mr. DAVIS. In your opening comment you indicated to the chairman that you had in fact been responsive and that you had responded to document requests. Was there any particular reason

that you didn’t respond to the invitation to personally meet with

staff?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes. I had indicated to the subcommittee staff that

I preferred to have these meetings after the investigations that are

still ongoing were concluded.

Mr. DAVIS. You indicated that you wanted the investigations to

have taken place and then you would be prepared or willing to

have further discussions or meetings?

Mr. HEVESI. I was trying to focus on one situation at a time rather than having two parallel situations.

Mr. DAVIS. There have been some notions and you may have or

may not have an opinion about this, but you may have, that there

had not been enough resources allocated or generated to fully do

the work that needed to be done and that perhaps there was not

as much as consistency with the scientists involved in the project.

Do you think that Congress has actually made enough resources

available for you and your colleagues to do the kind of work that

you need to do?

Mr. HEVESI. I don’t think I am at a level to have the knowledge

to answer in general terms. In a specific sense, and this is my answer as a hydrologist specifically involved with the surface-based

studies, I would have liked to have seen a little more resources

being put into the surface water studies.

It is a desert. There is not much surface water. But from a hydrologic standpoint, it is still important.

Mr. DAVIS. Would you say it is not unusual for you to express

sometimes a bit of frustration about something that I am working

on and maybe feel that I am not getting to where I want to be

quickly enough or that there are some impediments that I can’t get

around?

Mr. HEVESI. I tend to have those frustrations more than most,

yes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Based on your work experience, how do you view

DOE’s management of the Yucca Mountain project?

Mr. HEVESI. Again, I am not certain—I am not at a level, I do

not feel that I am at a level to really answer that question.

Mr. MARCHANT. How would you characterize the overall management culture and work environment of the project while you were

there?

Mr. HEVESI. From a scientific point of view, it was a very good

environment in terms of having the opportunity to study hydrologic

issues that in another sense may not be studied. This project is

23

unique in terms of making a 10,000 year or 1 million year prediction.

Mr. MARCHANT. At any time during your career at Yucca Mountain did you feel the management pressure to complete your work?

Did they give you unreasonable deadlines?

Mr. HEVESI. There were deadlines that would require a more

simplified approach to solving a scientific issue, but that is always

going to be the case. As a scientist we have the tendency to put

too many resources into a problem because we are after the right

answer, which is the true answer. In often cases you can never get

to that point.

Mr. MARCHANT. So they would basically come in and say is this

good or bad and you would feel like they needed more of a black

and white answer and a scientist is really not ever prepared to give

that kind of an answer?

Mr. HEVESI. Could you repeat that? I am not sure I understand

that question.

Mr. MARCHANT. Well, in the business I work in, I go to my engineers all the time and say is this good soil or bad soil, if I go out

to a project. I feel like sometimes to them that is too black and

white a question because they want to give me a much more complex answer than that.

Is that the way it is at DOE; they come in and say is everything

OK out there or is it not OK. The scientist is more likely to want

to give a more detailed answer than that.

Mr. HEVESI. The scientist has a tendency to give too much detail.

I definitely had that tendency and it was the role of oversight to

decide when an answer was adequate for the intended use. So,

there were reviews to get to that point.

Mr. MARCHANT. Did you ever feel like the incentives, the bonus

incentives that were offered by the DOE or its outside contractors

were pushing things along faster than you were comfortable with?

Mr. HEVESI. Those incentives never pushed me directly. I was

aware of the schedule being potentially affected, but I directly

never benefited from that.

Mr. MARCHANT. Did you feel like that was what was pushing

you? When you felt pushed and you felt like you were under time

constraints, did you feel like it was the bonus system that might

have been doing that?

Mr. HEVESI. I knew the schedules were tight. I have no specific

information that I can answer that question with 100 percent sureness.

Mr. MARCHANT. In the latter years of your work at Yucca, did

DOE allocate more funding toward the engineering efforts rather

than to scientific studies on the modeling work?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe so, but again, I am not at a level to ensure

100 percent accuracy with that. I needed the funding for the surface-based studies and the infiltration modeling was diminishing.

That is as far as I can really answer that question.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you very much.

Mr. PORTER. We will go back to the e-mails again. Will you look

at E-mail No. 8? Can you give us some background and context to

the statement regarding working with the engineers because that

is where the funding was going?

24

Also, please explain the last two sentences, ‘‘Wait till they figure

out that nothing I’ve provided them is quality assured. If they really want this stuff they will have to pay to do it right.’’

Mr. HEVESI. I would like to answer the second part of that first.

Mr. PORTER. Certainly.

Mr. HEVESI. This had started out as a scoping exercise. I believe

it was being referred to as an engineering calculation. When we

initiated the work it was very unclear whether this would lead to

something that would need to be qualified or not.

So, the need to have this qualified came in after I had performed

the work.

Mr. PORTER. And then background and context regarding your

working with the engineers and where the funding was going.

Mr. HEVESI. The funding in my circle of colleagues and the people I was working with, we knew that the funding was being directed more toward the underground work and also toward the engineering work.

Mr. PORTER. You said, ‘‘Enjoyed the ranting and raving. We are

trying to work with the engineers because that’s where the funding

is going. Leveling the top of the mountain seemed humorous, but

it gave me the chance to make some more cool figures. This little

task is history. Wait till they figure out that nothing I’ve provided

them is quality assured. If they really want the stuff they’ll have

to pay to do it right.’’

Again, would you explain to me what you were saying? I guess

I don’t understand.

Mr. HEVESI. I had performed the engineering calculation with

the model. I finished that and I was happy to provide that information to the engineers. It was never clear to me that this work would

need to be quality assured.

When it became evident that there would be a possibility that it

would need to be quality assured, I did not see the resources there

to do that because I knew that would require a lot more resources.

So, I was concerned that an assumption was being made that the

quality assurance could move on without having the resources in

place to do so.

Mr. PORTER. It just seems—and I appreciate what you are saying, that you didn’t think this needed to be quality assured. You

know, it is almost like, you know, I could be wrong, but it is almost

like when you said, ‘‘Wait till they figure out that nothing I provided them was quality assured,’’ it is like is that a surprise? Was

that going to be a surprise?

Mr. HEVESI. That is very poor wording on my part in this e-mail.

I did not intend, I had no intention of this coming across as a surprise to the engineers. I am simply stating that there may be some

miscommunication in terms of assumptions that work was being

supported as being quality assured.

Mr. PORTER. Do you and did you feel that the quality assurance

program was adequate?

Mr. HEVESI. When a product needed to be quality assured, then

yes. But when we were doing work that may or may not need that

quality assurance, then it was not there and that was the case in

this case.

25

Mr. PORTER. Bear with me. This is science, so I am asking you

from your professional perspective. What you are saying is that not

all work was quality assured. Did you have to go back and redo it

if it needed to be quality assured?

Mr. HEVESI. No. The work was sound. It is just a matter of the

documentation of whether those results would need to go to the

TDMS or not.

Mr. PORTER. Let us move on to E-mail No. 21. You said, ‘‘I’m

going to continue the regional modeling, even if it means ignoring

direct orders from Yucca Mountain management.’’

You need to explain this to us, please.

Mr. HEVESI. What I am saying in this e-mail is actually not really correct. I have a limited perspective on what management knows

or doesn’t know at the time I am writing this e-mail and I was corrected on that perspective.

So, the e-mails are only reflecting a process of doing the work.

They are not reflecting final outcome.

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘I’m going to continue the regional modeling, even

if it means ignoring direct orders.’’

What were their direct orders?

Mr. HEVESI. I don’t recall what their direct orders are.

Mr. PORTER. So, do you think you ignored their direct orders? It

sounds that way, whatever they were.

Mr. HEVESI. It would not be possible for me to ignore their direct

orders because management was aware of all the work that I was

doing through my supervisor and then through his managers.

Mr. PORTER. Then I must ask why at the end did you state, ‘‘So

delete this memo after you’ve read it?’’

Mr. HEVESI. This was a personal correspondence between myself

and my colleague, so the discussion here is on a personal level.

Often we—it is just on a personal level.

Mr. PORTER. So, what did you determine what was going to be

personal and what was going to be professional? It seems to me

this whole e-mail has to do with the project.

Mr. HEVESI. I am not sure I understand.

Mr. PORTER. We are looking at E-mail 21, correct?

Mr. HEVESI. Correct.

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘I’ve been trying to figure out what’s really coming

at us with the Tiger Team.’’ I know that you were asked that question earlier and you didn’t know what the Tiger Team was.

‘‘So far we have learned that they don’t have a solid plan of action,’’ whoever the Tiger Team is. I am adding that editorial comment even though you don’t know who they are.

‘‘I have formulated a potential impact list.’’ Now you continue in

the e-mail, ‘‘Now I’m going to give you the inside scoop. I’m going

to continue the regional modeling, even if it means ignoring direct

orders.’’

You refer to the Tiger Team again. ‘‘In the end, it’s going to be

reports that move anything else forward. Tiger Team efforts will

just be vaporized. So, the work may be slowed, but I will not let

it stop. At this point I am still working to the plan that we’ve all

spent a significant amount of time on to make things happen for

1999. That’s the inside scoop. The position we will take for the

M&O planners may be much different. So delete this memo.’’

26

Why is this a personal memo that you would say to delete? This

looks like it all has to do with your job.

Mr. HEVESI. Well, our concern as scientists was to solve the technical problem of the science, of the work itself.

Mr. PORTER. And?

Mr. HEVESI. And we were ensuring that would move forward.

Mr. PORTER. By deleting the document?

Mr. HEVESI. By deleting what?

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘So delete this memo.’’ What on this memo was on

a personal nature that was not related to your job?

Mr. HEVESI. Just my level of communication is at a personal

level. I realize that this is a non-professional memo.

Mr. PORTER. You had answered earlier to my colleague that you

didn’t know about the Tiger Team, who they were, but you referenced them a couple of times. Are you sure you don’t know who

the Tiger Team is?

Mr. HEVESI. I knew it had to do with the QA review. I didn’t

know specifically how that review would be conducted.

Mr. PORTER. Who is the Tiger Team?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe it had to do with the quality assurance review.

Mr. PORTER. They are a team of folks that do the Q&A review?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe so and I believe it was added on as part

of the evolving PVAR procedures, what were referred to as PVAR

procedures, but I don’t have a very good recollection of that.

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘In the end it’s going to be the reports that move

everything else. Tiger Team efforts will just be vaporized.’’

Doesn’t that seem kind of odd that you have no recollection of

who they are?

Mr. HEVESI. Well, what I am referring to, to that part of being

vaporized, is that it is important for us to do work that becomes

a report, that is referenceable and that is out into the public domain.

Oftentimes the reviews, the Tiger Team reviews, would not result in a report that would go out in the public domain necessarily.

Mr. PORTER. Would you please answer one more time? You do

not know who the Tiger Team is? You can’t remember?

Mr. HEVESI. Specifically, I cannot. I have a vague memory that

it had to do with the QA effort. That is as far as I can go with that.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. One additional question, Mr. Hevesi. Has this experience generated any particular feelings that you have about your

work and its relationship to decisions that have to be made?

Mr. HEVESI. By feelings, what do you mean by that?

Mr. DAVIS. I mean the process, the fact that you have been compelled to come and function as a witness, the allegations of misconduct, the whole environment surrounding the issue.

Mr. HEVESI. Well, we felt the work was important, certainly. I

am not sure I can answer what you mean by feelings.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, if you have no additional, then you have no additional. It hasn’t generated any additional thoughts or feelings.

You still feel the same way about it that you did beforehand and

you still feel the same way about doing what you do.

27

Mr. HEVESI. I feel that the work is sound. I know it doesn’t seem

that way with these e-mails. If I can use a quote, the e-mails I

characterize myself as being water cooler talk. I would not do that

again in hindsight.

Mr. DAVIS. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hevesi, thank you very much for your testimony. You know,

as I looked over these e-mails and I listened to your testimony,

there is one that really interested me and that is No. 25. As you

turn to that, let me say this: As one who has been on this committee for 9 years, more than 9 years, I have seen many people come

before this committee, some of them by choice; some of them by

force.

In many instances, this committee has, through the mere bringing people here and questioning them in certain ways in the past,

and I am not talking about subcommittees, I am talking about the

overall committee, it has brought quite a bit of harm to a number

of people. This is the same committee that did the Clinton hearings. So, we went through a lot.

As I listen to you and as one who has practiced law for now over

30 years now, I want us to be very fair to you. E-mail No. 25

caught my interest after listening to the excellent questions by my

colleagues. This e-mail seems to kind of verify a number of things

that you have already said. It sounds like you were just terribly

frustrated.

I would like to read parts of it very quickly. ‘‘Some nights I have

had a hard time going to sleep because I realize the importance of

trying to get the right answer and I know how many serious unknowns are still out there and how many quick fixes are still holding things together.

‘‘I’m just trying the best I can with three equations and fifteen

unknowns. It seems odd that we have had to push so hard just to

get even a little support for this work and, at the same time we

end up being the ones most responsible for whether the PA predictions are right or wrong.’’

Could you explain that to me, please?

Mr. HEVESI. Well, I did feel the work was important, but I can’t

say, because I am not at that level of knowledge in the project to

tell anyone here exactly how important it was relative to all the

things that PA has to look at when it runs the entire model that

looks at site suitability.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You sounded like a very frustrated person.

Mr. HEVESI. I had my heart in my work and I was intent on

doing the best I could to find the correct answer for net infiltration.

That is a spatially and temporarily varying number. It is not even

a single number. It is a moving target. It is very difficult to measure and it is difficult to model.

My heart was in my work to do the best I could to provide the

project with, in essence, a series of maps that characterize net infiltration.

Mr. CUMMINGS. It is interesting that, I would imagine, even

Members of Congress, if someone had to look at all our e-mails

they might have a field day. I take it that a number of these eVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Jan 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24819.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
28

mails, as you said before in hindsight, you might not have done it

the way you did it. But I am sure you didn’t expect people to be

looking over your shoulder.

I just want to thank you for your testimony and I want to thank

you for your service. Sometimes we find ourselves in difficult circumstances. It seems as if it is the worse situation that we have

ever been in, but sometimes it opens the light of day so that things

can get better. So, I just want to thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

29

30

31

Mr. HEVESI. Thank you.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

E-mail No. 26 I would like to talk about for a moment. Do you

know what the writer means by the statement, ‘‘Science by peer

pressure is dangerous, but sometimes it is necessary.’’

Mr. HEVESI. I do not. I know that peer reviews of scientific work

is always important. It is required.

Mr. PORTER. It had to do with precipitation estimates, correct?

According to this memo it was actually to you from Mr. Flint, correct?

Mr. HEVESI. I do not recall the specific memo.

Mr. PORTER. E-mail No. 3, ‘‘Our infiltration model has virtually

no infiltration in washes; what infiltration there is in washes is basically put there as a fudge factor. I don’t want to be too critical

here—I could probably tear apart any of our models. Did somebody

say seepage? And Joe Hevesi did us a great favor in helping us out

for the VA.’’

Can you explain what they are talking about? They are talking

about you. Do you know what they are talking about?

Mr. HEVESI. The original models had a simplified accounting for

stream flow in the washes and we knew this. We made it clear

with the people that were using results from this model that the

stream flow part was simplified.

The term ‘‘fudge’’ refers to that simplification. It does not mean

falsification. Scientists use fudge factors in models all the time as

a simplified approach to account for something that we would like

to have a more sophisticated approach, but for that level of modeling a simplified approach is sufficient.

Mr. PORTER. Again, this has to do with the very genesis of the

project and of course that is whether there is any water seepage.

Based on the scope of your professional knowledge, do you think

that the site is safe for storage of nuclear waste?

Mr. HEVESI. I am not at a level to comment onsite suitability at

this point. I can tell you that what I pushed for and what put me

in a position to be frustrated with what you see in these e-mails

is my desire to improve on that stream flow component.

That became my job and that is what I was pushing forward, a

model that accounted for the stream flow component in a much

more representative fashion that was representing the physical

processes that are out there, not as a simplified fudge factor.

I believe that was important. I continue to believe that is important. As a citizen, I would recommend taking a look at the stream

flow component of the hydrology that is out there.

Mr. PORTER. You had commented earlier about the choice of sites

had been narrowed prior to your being employed at the site. Certainly, that was a decision made by a lot of other people. I would

assume that as you did your research you recognized that filtration

or infiltration was a key element in the choice of Yucca Mountain.

I am trying to summarize for those in the audience. Initially the

site was picked because there was a limit of any leakage or seepage.

It would seem to me that is your expertise in this area. Aside

from the e-mails for a moment, and I appreciate that you are sayVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Jan 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24819.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
32

ing that more study needs to happen and whether that means from

a funding or a managerial position.

But with your expertise, and if I can maybe narrow the question,

is there enough seepage to cause a problem for the storage of nuclear waste?

Mr. HEVESI. I cannot answer that. I know that increased stream

flow increases the potential for seepage and with some of the future climate predictions these are just potential future climates because you are asking us to make predictions of from 10,000 to a

million years.

There is a lot of uncertainty associated with that. But we do

know that with more precipitation there is more stream flow and

that has to be considered, especially in terms of focused flow.

Mr. PORTER. In other words, there is seepage and there is a flow

and you would like to have more research done on the flow that

is there, correct?

Mr. HEVESI. One of the difficulties in working in a desert is that

there is no flowing water. The stream flow that we are discussing

now are episodic events that may occur, one every 10 years or

whatever, once every 5 years.

You need an adequate window of time when working in desert

environments to fully characterize that component of the hydrology

because of the episodic nature of it.

Mr. PORTER. But you have found certain isotopes in the site from

different parts?

Mr. HEVESI. I have not, but I am aware of those studies, yes.

Mr. PORTER. E-mail No. 43, in this e-mail you wrote, ‘‘Please do

not tell anyone how this was done because then we’ll need to get

this whole thing through software quality assurance.’’

Could you explain to us what you are referring to there?

Mr. HEVESI. I am referring to a check I am doing, not on the

model itself, not on the pre-processing or post-processing of the results. I am using software to check something else. I was attempting to be humorous in this e-mail.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. HEVESI. I did not believe at all that it would need to go

through quality assurance. I am making what I believed at the

time to be a humorous comment.

Mr. PORTER. You say, ‘‘Please do not tell anyone how this was

done.’’ Of course it sends a message that you were hiding something.

Mr. HEVESI. Yes. I am making a joke out of it to the person I

am sending the e-mail to.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Congresswoman, do you have any questions today?

Ms. NORTON. No, thank you.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Mr. PORTER. E-mail No. 44, at the end of this e-mail you wrote,

‘‘I can fudge the attachment for BLOCKR7 for now but eventually

someone may want to run BLOCKR7 to see what numbers come

out and at that point there will be problems.’’

What were you attempting under the fudge definition regarding

this project and what is the significance of the BLOCKR7?

33

Mr. HEVESI. The BLOCKR7 processes the digital elevation model

to generate inputs that are required by the solar radiation sub-routine. By fudge I am referring to putting in the document itself

wording and filling holes in the document so that we know as we

are developing the document where the placeholders are.

I am not in any way referring to making something up or falsifying it. This is just the development of the document and by ‘‘fudge’’

I mean I am submitting a real rough draft that likely will need to

be revised in that part of the document.

Mr. PORTER. So, you are saying, using the definition of ‘‘fudge’’

that this may not be accurate information because we haven’t done

all the quality tests of whatever?

Mr. HEVESI. It was ongoing work, yes.

Mr. PORTER. And in E-mail No. 47 you are referring to programs

installed at the AMR indicating your lack of knowledge of when

these programs were actually installed.

You wrote, ‘‘So, I’ve made up the dates and names. This is as

good as it’s going to get. If they need more proof, I’ll be happy to

make up more stuff, as long as it’s not a video recording of the software being installed.’’

Why were you feeling compelled to make up names and dates?

Mr. HEVESI. The programs in question here are again non-essential programs that were being used for checking and visualization.

They are not at the heart of the model itself.

It was never apparent to me that the QA requirements would

specifically affect these programs. This was the case for the project

where it wasn’t always apparent exactly what software would need

to be qualified if it was just being used for visualization, for example, or if it is a standard software that is off the shelf and widely

available.

Mr. PORTER. Again, you wrote, ‘‘So I made up dates and names.

That’s as good as it’s going to get. If they need more proof I will

be happy to make up more stuff.’’ So, did you in fact falsify information here?

Mr. HEVESI. This is just a quick, off-the-cuff response on my part

to a sudden request coming at me that I did not believe was going

to be requested from me at any time.

So, I was actually surprised to get this request. I am making an

off-the-cuff remark to identify that I may not know the exact date.

My wording here is poor and I should have used an educated guess.

Mr. PORTER. Explain to us what your role was then at the site.

What was your position? Were you just doing research or did you

have any authority in your capacity?

Mr. HEVESI. My authority was limited. I was primarily doing the

research, developing the code and running the model.

Mr. PORTER. So in your emotional responses and maybe flippant

responses at times, based on frustration, whatever, are we then to

assume that all of your colleagues understood what you were saying, that you were either joking or you were flippant or you were

having a bad day? Did they understand that when you would send

these type memos?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe so. I believe I had a reputation for being

flippant in my e-mails. I am trying to bring attention to the fact

34

that I am not sure how to respond here and this is my way of doing

it.

Mr. PORTER. Why not just report that you didn’t know the names

and dates of installation rather than make up information?

Mr. HEVESI. That is exactly what I should have done. Can you

repeat? Why didn’t I report that I didn’t know the names? Yes, that

is what I am doing here in my own way.

Mr. PORTER. I would like to talk now a little bit about the quality

assurance questions. You may not be aware, but there has been

substantial questions with the project through the years as to the

quality assurance program.

But throughout the e-mails in question you exhibit a great deal

of cynicism toward the QA program, policy and procedures. To

what or whom did you attribute your frustrations with the quality

assurance program?

Mr. HEVESI. To what or whom did I attribute the frustration?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. HEVESI. Do you mean to whom did I direct the frustrations

or why did I have the frustrations?

Mr. PORTER. Well, actually, both.

Mr. HEVESI. Everyone was well aware of my frustrations. I openly discussed that with colleagues and supervisors and managers.

Mr. PORTER. So you openly discussed it with managers and colleagues? So, you have expressed formally then to management that

there are some problems with the quality assurance program?

Mr. HEVESI. I discussed it in terms of characterizing it as now

that the procedures are being developed, when we are seeing exactly what the procedures are, there seems to be more work here

than what we initially thought. So, our workloads were increasing

as the procedures were being developed for quality assurance.

Mr. PORTER. This may have been asked earlier, but I want to ask

it again: Do you feel that you received adequate training and guidance on the quality assurance programs?

Mr. HEVESI. I would always read the required quality assurance

documentation and yes, I had the training.

Mr. PORTER. Did you consistently follow the quality assurance

guidelines and procedures or did you ever deviate from these procedures?

Mr. HEVESI. I consistently followed the procedures.

Mr. PORTER. Did you ever receive a deficiency report based upon

the audits of the quality assurance programs?

Mr. HEVESI. I cannot answer that specifically on recollection. I

have a vague memory of deficiency reports, but I have no specific

recollection.

Mr. PORTER. Did you feel that the quality assurance requirements and procedures unnecessarily delayed other important work

on the project?

Mr. HEVESI. Could you repeat that again, please?

Mr. PORTER. Did you feel that the QA requirements and procedures unnecessarily delayed other important work on the project?

Mr. HEVESI. By defining important, my characterization of important is addressing technical issues, for example, how stream

flow is being handled in the washes. Yes, that was part of my frustration, was that at times I had the perspective that I wasn’t able

35

to solve the stream flow problem, for example, because I was busy

quality assuring another component of the model.

Mr. PORTER. Earlier in the questioning you had stated in an answer to one of the questions, and I don’t want to take it out of context, so I will need your help. I believe it had to do with the scientific study and engineering and whether there was enough funds

going into the study as opposed to finding an engineering answer

to the infiltration problem.

You said there has always been an engineering problem. Do you

know what you were talking about a little bit earlier about there

always has been an engineering problem?

Mr. HEVESI. For an underground repository you are always going

to have to engineer to dig the tunnels and the caverns and to inplace the canisters. I assumed that would be the case.

Mr. PORTER. For laymen, which we are, the bulk of those in this

room, including this panel, can you explain the high flux, low flux

debate in the scientific community as it relates to water infiltration

at Yucca Mountain?

Mr. HEVESI. How do you mean discuss?

Mr. PORTER. Can you explain the debate? Tell us what is happening with the high flux and low flux debate in the scientific community.

Mr. HEVESI. The flux issue is complicated because it depends on

where you are in time and space on the mountain. It can have high

variability. So, depending on how you are measuring it and in what

location you are measuring it and what point in time you are measuring it or modeling, you can have very different answers.

So, it is a complicated issue that received a lot of discussion in

the scientific community.

Mr. PORTER. Based on your infiltration and climate studies, what

are your conclusions with regard to water and movement inside the

mountain? What is your conclusion?

Mr. HEVESI. The studies I was performing were limited to the

ground surface and the shallow subsurface. I was providing results

to downstream modelers that were modeling the deeper, unsaturated zone. I cannot speak to that specifically.

Mr. PORTER. But your studies, were they accepted by DOE?

Mr. HEVESI. Were they accepted?

Mr. PORTER. Yes, the studies that you performed were accepted.

Mr. HEVESI. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. Did the findings of your studies or the conclusions

of any other workers on the project, infiltration and climate studies, in any way contribute to DOE’s effort in altering their original

plan and vision of Yucca Mountain as a natural barrier toward

more engineering modification and measures?

Mr. HEVESI. I believe so, yes. I was working under Dr. Flint. I

came on the program and part of my task in 1988 was to help out

with the field monitoring of natural infiltration through a network

of approximately 100 neutron access bore holes that were logged

once a month.

Initially, these appeared to be dry because we were in a drought

phase in the studies. In the early 1990’s we had a series of wet

winters that did completely change our thinking on the hydrology

of Yucca Mountain.

36

The data collected from the neutron bore holes was one of the

reasons why the thinking was being changed. But there was a wide

variety of studies that were starting to come in at about that time

and they were supporting each other in terms of higher net infiltration than originally thought was the case.

Mr. PORTER. I am going to ask this question a different way than

I asked it earlier. But based upon your knowledge and findings

pursuant to the water infiltration studies and future climate scenarios you conducted at Yucca Mountain, what is your assessment

of Yucca Mountain as a repository for safe storage of nuclear

waste?

Mr. HEVESI. I am not in a position to answer that. The USGS

was never in a position and our job was never such to make a recommendation onsite suitability. We were specific in collecting field

data, performing the studies, developing the models to develop results, but not to make decisions onsite suitability.

Mr. PORTER. Didn’t you also do work on future climate scenarios?

Mr. HEVESI. I did not specifically work on those scenarios in

terms of studying the likelihood or doing the actual studies of what

a future climate might be. I was involved with the researchers

doing that type of work because they were supplying me their results as input to the model that I was running.

Mr. PORTER. You had mentioned earlier, for those that haven’t

visited the deserts of Nevada, that there is not necessarily flows,

but there can be, every 5 years or 10 years or however you want

to categorize it, water that is unusual to the area.

Mr. HEVESI. They are dry washes, but you can actually have a

flash flood occur.

Mr. PORTER. So, you mention these future possible flash floods,

the 5-year or 10-year. Did you take into consideration the effects

of global warming in your studies?

Mr. HEVESI. At one point we were and then we were redirected

not to account for that and I can’t answer specifically why that occurred. But at some point in the study the global warming issue

was being taken into consideration.

Mr. PORTER. And then you were advised not to use that for some

reason?

Mr. HEVESI. I don’t know how to characterize it. I wouldn’t say

advise, but I believe that other scientists working on that issue

concluded that it may not be significant relative to longer terms

changes in climate, glaciations, etc.

Mr. PORTER. Do you feel that the USGS is an advocate for the

project?

Mr. HEVESI. The USGS does not take a position pro or con.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Hevesi, you know we are almost concluded, so

I appreciate your being here this morning.

In E-mail No. 18 please explain when you say, ‘‘The Yucca Mountain Project is looking for the fall guys and we are high on the list.

I got a strong feeling at the PA meeting that the high level folks

are starting to pay very close attention to who they will come after

when things hit the fan. Who got how much funding and at what

time will all be long made clear that this will be like the O.J. trial

where results are completely thrown out because of minor procedural flaws or personal attacks on credibility.’’

37

Who are these high level folks?

Mr. HEVESI. I am not sure I recall what I mean specifically by

high level folks. What I am conveying in this e-mail is that I had

the feeling that—I am trying to recall what my thoughts were in

this e-mail and it is a little bit difficult because——

Mr. PORTER. ‘‘The Yucca Mountain Project is looking for the fall

guy.’’ As a layman it seems to me that is saying that——

Mr. HEVESI. Well, I was concerned that decisions were being

made at a high level where as scientists we had done the work we

could within the funding limitations or time limitations, so we just

did the best job we could.

In terms of the quality assurance, we were documenting specifically what was done at certain points in time.

Whether that was the best product possible given unlimited

funding, we could not say. If it turned out that was not the best

product, then it would still be our responsibility. So, I had a concern about that.

Mr. PORTER. So, your concern is that you would be held responsible. If you didn’t have enough time or even enough funding, that

you may well be responsible if they didn’t get the results that they

were looking for.

Mr. HEVESI. Well, specifically in terms of the model that I was

developing and running, this net infiltration model, I felt that it

was fully adequate in 1999 to support the whole PA process and

to feed into the downstream modelers.

I was hoping for the opportunity to improve on that model because as a scientist I wanted to bring in more detail and make

model improvements. I was concerned that if at some future point,

as more information comes in, because 6 years have gone by now,

so more information is known and the adequacy of the model may

turn out to be not as high as we thought at that point in time and

it would be my responsibility for having made the decision that the

model was adequate.

But I did not feel that I ever made that decision alone because

there were reviews of the scientific work and a decision on whether

the results were adequate or not were being made at a higher level.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Hevesi, we appreciate your being here today.

Thank you for your testimony. I would like to ask, No. 1, we will

be sending you some additional questions. We would appreciate if

you would answer those questions.

Also, would you be willing to meet with our staff in the future

to cover any additional questions that they might have?

Mr. HEVESI. Yes.

Mr. PORTER. Again, we appreciate your being here. Thank you.

I’m sorry, before you leave, is there anything you would like to add

before you conclude?

Mr. HEVESI. I would just like to say that I, too, am somewhat

horrified when I look at my own e-mails. This whole process has

been a learning process for me where I realize that an e-mail is actually an official documentation.

I was not perceiving e-mail that way. I perceived it as an outlet

medium, in essence water cooler talk. I have completely rethought

how I used the whole e-mail system and how I communicate with

others.

38

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much.

Now, I would like to invite our second panel witness to please

come forward to the witness table. Our second panel will be Mr.

W. John Arthur III, Deputy Director, Office of Repository Development, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy.

Mr. Arthur, we are pleased to have you here today. You will have

5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF W. JOHN ARTHUR III, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. ARTHUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am John Arthur, Deputy Director of the Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management for Repository Development.

My office is located in Las Vegas, NV and I have been with this

program for the last 21⁄2 years.

We are here today because of a series of e-mails by a few people

that suggests an intentional failure to comply with quality assurance requirements.

Let me first say how disappointed I am with the circumstances

that have brought us here today. I take this matter very seriously

and, as you are aware, the Department of Energy has disclosed it

forthrightly and freely. Any falsification of records or data or other

misconduct is completely unacceptable and inexcusable. We conduct our work at the Yucca Mountain repository project with our

first priority on ensuring the health and safety of the public and

workers, while protecting and safeguarding the environment.

These objectives have been guided by more than 20 years of scientific study by some of the best scientists and engineers in the

world. These scientists and engineers have come from our own national laboratories, the international scientific community, universities including the university and community college system of Nevada, Federal agencies, as well as numerous government contractors.

The expertise assembled to work on this project is truly world

class and their work is the basis for the Yucca Mountain repository

safety analysis.

During our internal cataloging of materials for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application process, specifically the license support network, Yucca Mountain Project employees discovered a series of e-mails written between 1998 and 2000 by a few

U.S. Geological Survey employees. These e-mails appear to indicate

an intention to falsify quality assurance information and willful

misconduct or non-compliance with quality assurance requirements

associated with water or moisture infiltration modeling at Yucca

Mountain.

Shortly after I was briefed on this matter on March 11, 2005, the

Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General and the Secretary’s office were notified. Additionally, we notified the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Congress and

also the State of Nevada.

39

On March 16, 2005, the Secretary of Energy ordered an immediate scientific investigation of the data and documentation that

was part of this modeling activity as well as a thorough review of

all the work completed by individuals to determine whether any

other work was effected.

I would like to put this matter into perspective. Out of more than

10 million e-mails, the object of this hearing is a handful of e-mails

that indicate a possible intentional circumvention or misrepresentation of compliance with the Yucca Mountain Project quality assurance requirements by these same USGS employees.

The Department of Energy has used USGS since 1983 and has

invested approximately $380 million in USGS research to support

the repository program, pursuant to an interagency agreement.

Under this agreement, the USGS was required to comply with

applicable quality assurance requirements. The safety analysis established by the work products are prepared and peer reviewed by

qualified scientists and engineers from our country’s national labs

and top technical institutions to ensure a sound and quality technical safety basis.

Through the licensing process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will ultimately decide whether the repository receives a license.

Our quality assurance expectations are spelled out in a work

agreement between the Department of Energy and USGS, clearly

and unambiguously. Problems with Mr. Hevesi’s adherence to QA

requirements were first identified in a DOE quality assurance

audit in January 2000.

Corrective actions were implemented and verified in mid-2000.

DOE conducted a followup quality assurance audit in February

2001 and concluded that the USGS had made improvements and

was effectively implementing the quality assurance program.

The e-mails themselves did not suggest that any scientific measurements were falsified. However, because our quality assurance

requirements were not met, no matter how good Mr. Hevesi’s work

products and modeling may be, these products cannot be used in

the licensing proceeding without re-verification or replication of the

specific work.

Fortunately, our regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

has a procedure on how to deal with information that has been

qualified through other procedures. That is NRC NUREG Document 1298, Qualification of Existing Data for High-Level Nuclear

Waste Repositories.

We are currently evaluating the data in question using this protocol. Preliminarily, we believe there is ample corroborating data

from non-USGS sources, including the State of Nevada itself and

extensive peer review of the infiltration model that validates the

technical basis for the project.

In addition to the processes I have described above, the Department of Energy is taking other actions. First, an investigation is

being conducted by the DOE Office of Inspector General.

Second, the Secretary of Energy ordered a technical review of

water infiltration modeling and analysis.

40

Third, the Department is conducting a number of reviews into

our records system to determine whether similar behavior has been

exhibited by others.

Over the next several months, summary reports of these evaluations will be issued.

In summary, the Yucca Mountain Project is very important to

the energy security of the United States. This project has been and

will always be based on sound science and engineering.

We are currently in a process to reevaluate data that has come

under question on the infiltration model because our quality assurance requirements may not have been met. We will take whatever

action is required to ensure that we have a sound technical basis

going forward.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arthur follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Arthur, thank you again. Thank you for being

here.

I would like to open by just asking you some basic questions as

to why the Department of Energy has refused to provide for Congress documents other than those that we had asked for initially

and why did you refuse to meet with us privately and why have

other DOE officials chosen not to meet with our committee?

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we did provide information from the committee’s request. I believe it was in late March.

We did not want to interfere at the time or now with any ongoing

IG investigations.

We do have, as I believe was mentioned previously, our DOE

reading room which was made available to your committee staff to

review documents and additional information will be provided as

we complete our reviews that are underway.

Mr. PORTER. The IG investigation, maybe you are not aware of

this, but the IG has been very clear that your involvement and testifying and/or meeting with this committee would not interfere with

their investigation whatsoever.

But you chose not to meet with the committee and obviously advising other employees not to meet with the subcommittee.

Mr. ARTHUR. I don’t believe I personally advised any.

Mr. PORTER. Do you think anyone has?

Mr. ARTHUR. I am not aware of that, sir.

Mr. PORTER. You are not aware that your employees——

Mr. ARTHUR. I have talked once to, I believe, one of your staff

and I believe we did offer a tour, a meeting and a visit. I am here

today to answer questions you have.

Mr. PORTER. Why did you initially refuse to meet with us regarding the Yucca Mountain Project?

Mr. ARTHUR. I believe I was on travel back there, but I mean I

am here today to answer any questions you have.

Mr. PORTER. Regarding the documents that we have requested,

this past Friday a memo appeared from DOE stating that if we

want to see the documents we can come to DOE.

It has been days, weeks and months since we requested this information. It is obvious to me that you have been very uncooperative. Why are you being uncooperative?

Mr. ARTHUR. I believe the letter you are responding to, Mr.

Chairman, is from our chief counsel at DOE and I would have to

have him answer the question on that.

Mr. PORTER. Is he here today?

Mr. ARTHUR. No, sir, he is not.

Mr. PORTER. OK. The IG investigation, why are you advising employees not to be interviewed if in fact the IG has agreed that it

is not interfering with their investigation.

Mr. ARTHUR. If my employees in similar and other investigations

wish to be interviewed, I don’t believe I have set any requirements

that they cannot meet with you or members of your staff.

Mr. PORTER. To your knowledge, has anyone told the employees

of DOE not to talk?

Mr. ARTHUR. I am not aware of that, sir.

Mr. PORTER. You are not aware of that. OK. Let us go back to

December 2004. Pursuant to documentation provided by DOE, the

48

first knowledge of serious issues contained in e-mails occurred during the first week of December 2004. The investigation staff has

learned that it was not until March 11th that any specific action

plan was taken by the Department to address these issues.

How do you account for this gap in this timeline?

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, my records show it was early November. I had an independent review for a member of my office at DOE

to take a look at the contractor information.

It was in early November, I understand, that the information

was first found. That information was first relayed to my office on

March 11 and I took immediate action, as I said in my testimony.

In the review that I had our office do, I could not find any purposeful holding of the information by the contractors. It was clearly

wrong and it should have come to me soon.

We are taking all the necessary action, since it was brought to

me on March 11th.

Mr. PORTER. So, you discovered it in early November?

Mr. ARTHUR. I did not. Members of the contractor’s staff, Bechtel

SAIC, did.

Mr. PORTER. And then they notified DOE in early November?

Mr. ARTHUR. No. I had no notification until March 11th.

Mr. PORTER. So you did not receive notification. Did anyone at

DOE receive notification prior to March 11th?

Mr. ARTHUR. As I understand there was a telephone call. I do

not—I apologize—have the exact date. I believe it was in December

where an issue was discussed with representatives of our DOE

staff. However, there was nothing talked about falsification or actually records, similar records of the e-mails provided.

Mr. PORTER. What steps were taken then upon that initial phone

call?

Mr. ARTHUR. Nothing, nothing. Nothing was brought up about,

you know, falsification or these kind of issues that would trigger

the review that I did when it was brought to my attention on

March 11th.

Mr. PORTER. The review and the information that you provided

this committee, as you stated, was voluntarily provided although it

was initiated by the State of Nevada by a lawsuit, correct, for this

information to become public?

Mr. ARTHUR. Well, first of all, our certification for the license

support network, Mr. Chairman, it was denied last summer. It did

require that inactive e-mails additionally be reviewed. It was during a review of those e-mails that our people had found it and it

was on March 11th when I brought this information to the Inspector General and kicked off a number of our internal technical reviews.

Mr. PORTER. You say that a staff member was contacted. Who

was that individual?

Mr. ARTHUR. A staff member from DOE. I believe one of our attorneys, I don’t remember which one; I will get that and provide

that for the record, and possibly one contractor attorney were involved in that. I will have to provide the names, if I can, to supplement the record.

Mr. PORTER. That would be fine, thank you.

Mr. ARTHUR. We will get that.

49

Mr. PORTER. This will be one of the largest public works projects

in the history of the country. With that huge responsibility for the

health and safety of millions of Americans, why did it take 7 years

for DOE to figure out that there were some problems internally

with these memos and some question regarding the possible falsification or even the science? Why did it take 7 years?

Mr. ARTHUR. Well, first of all, we did not do random searches of

e-mails back in that timeframe. However, as I did mention, our

quality assurance program did do an audit in January 2000. It

picked up many of the issues that were brought up in the e-mails,

including non-availability of a field notebook, some issues associated with transparency and traceability and some issues with software.

As I mentioned in my testimony, corrective actions were taken

and our team, the Department of Energy came back and verified

that those actions were closed out.

Mr. PORTER. It seems to me that throughout this process of trying to gather information there is always that statement, and you

mentioned it this morning, that the NRC will decide whether the

science is accurate.

Isn’t it DOE’s responsibility to determine that?

Mr. ARTHUR. Well, it is clearly ours. My point in making that,

Mr. Chairman, is the fact that there are many levels of independent review outside the Department of Energy. I meant that the Department of Energy will ultimately have the hearings and rule on

the license application.

But yes, the Department of Energy will not submit a license application until this issue is resolved and we are sure that it meets

the necessary requirements.

Mr. PORTER. You also mentioned that by putting it in perspective

you are assuming that the e-mails amount to only a handful more

than 10 million e-mails and they were exchanged over the course

of this project.

I must say that I disagree that your assertion that these e-mails

deal with water infiltration in which it is again part of the very

core argument that the DOE has approached the President and

Congress about the suitability.

As we talk about feasibility, you stated that you were aware of

them in early 2000 and obviously didn’t take any steps to correct

them. Is that accurate?

Mr. ARTHUR. What I meant, Mr. Chairman, you say early 2000,

that is the quality assurance reviews.

Mr. PORTER. Well, I am just repeating what you just said.

Mr. ARTHUR. In 2000 we were doing quality assurance reviews

on a limited amount of U.S. Geological Survey products. Based on

that we took the necessary corrective actions based on that audit.

However, as I mentioned in my remarks, based on the preliminary review, and that will not be finalized until ongoing reviews

are completed, we believe there is a sound technical basis for the

site recommendation and draft license application.

Mr. PORTER. I have one more question, then I will turn it over

to my colleague. I am a little confused. You said that Mr. Hevesi’s

work is technically feasible in one sentence and then claim that his

50

products cannot be trusted today without re-verification or replication.

Even though Mr. Hevesi’s work based on collaboration with other

scientists, everyone knows that a chain is only as strong as its

weakest link. How can you on one hand say it is OK and on the

other hand say it is not?

Mr. ARTHUR. I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that we are using a

Nuclear Regulatory guide to look at the technical validity of the information that Mr. Hevesi created, and that was the moisture infiltration.

Based on a combination of corroborative studies, as well as other

external peer reviews, we conclude the technical basis is there.

However, in an NRC license process or for any license application

that the Department of Energy of submits, we have to rely on the

individuals and the following of quality assurance procedures.

It is not just the technical products; it is following the proper

procedures and quality to get there.

Mr. PORTER. Let me interrupt for a moment. Mr. Treadwell, are

you still with us? Please know that it is OK. I know you have a

plane to catch. I am not sure if he is listening in the other room.

Please know it is OK.

Mr. Arthur, let us go back to the timeline. From the time that

you found out on March 11th?

Mr. ARTHUR. That is correct, yes.

Mr. PORTER. And I expect you are answering only for your

knowledge; not for anyone else in the organization. What is the

timeline? What happened from that point forward? What did you

do?

Mr. ARTHUR. On the 11th, and I want to verify that was a Friday, I know it well, March 11th. I immediately got the information.

I was briefed. I was actually first called the night before by my employees concerned, the manager. We met in my office the first thing

the next morning.

It took me about a very small amount of time to look at that, the

significance of these e-mails. I immediately notified the Inspector

General’s regional office in Albuquerque, NM. At the same time I

notified our Washington Department of Energy offices and the

other contacts that I mentioned in my testimony.

Mr. PORTER. At what point then were employees interviewed regarding the situation?

Mr. ARTHUR. As far as my own personnel, first of all, I have not

conducted the interviews. Investigations are being done by the Inspector General’s office. I am not involved in that.

Mr. PORTER. So that DOE is not doing it. It is the Inspector General?

Mr. ARTHUR. It is the Department of Energy’s Inspector General’s office, an independent arm that actually does these reviews.

Mr. PORTER. DOE is not doing its own review? It is using the IG?

Mr. ARTHUR. Let me just clarify. When you said investigations,

I have not done any investigations. That is done by our Inspector

General’s office.

What I did then, I think it was that Saturday or Sunday, met

with our staff to say what does this mean and how do we start

51

moving forward. So, we were working between our office and Las

Vegas and Washington to determine a path forward.

We started to scope out a series of technical reviews, first of all

to look at the extent of information that was touched by these emails. So, we tried to determine how much data, how much models

and other information.

Second then, we wanted to start an approach to evaluate it and

see does it have any impact on the technical basis of the site recommendation and license application.

The third part of that review was to say, now with that, what

corrective actions do we have to take. We are still in the process

of outlining that path forward.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Davis, do you have a question?

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think that

was actually where I was going to start was whether or not there

has been any changes in the review of the quality assurance guidelines since these allegations have surfaced.

Mr. ARTHUR. If I can just clarify, Mr. Davis, you are referring to

the March date when e-mails came forward or do you want me to

go back into the 1990’s?

Mr. DAVIS. After the e-mails came forward.

Mr. ARTHUR. I will have to check and answer that, supplement

the record. I am not aware. I mean we have had a revision to our

quality assurance program, to our quality assurance requirements

document, but I believe that was underway about or around the

time this came up, but it was not caused by this issue.

I will have to check and see if there was any other provisions we

have made.

Mr. DAVIS. Under the investigation that is underway has there

been any report of findings that would give you cause to believe or

to think that there might have been some falsification of some official documents and records by employees?

Mr. ARTHUR. Again, I am not able to speak about what our Inspector General has found. On our side some of these issues such

as earlier quality assurance reviews that I brought up, we found

some of those kind of areas. But as far as any falsification, I have

not found anything on our reviews to support that. Our IG will

have to answer that question specifically.

Mr. DAVIS. Would it be fair and accurate to suggest that you

have an ongoing review and that perhaps there hasn’t been enough

time to determine what kind of changes might be necessary?

Mr. ARTHUR. That is correct. The reviews are still underway.

That is why I said the conclusions are very preliminary that I presented here today. Those reviews, we believe, will all be completed

over the next several months.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further question of the witness.

Mr. PORTER. Would you explain your involvement in the work

plan that was posted on the office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management Web site following this committee’s hearing on April

5 and that was later removed by DOE that same week?

Mr. ARTHUR. I and my staff created that plan. When I say staff,

it was some members from my Department of Energy Office of ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Jan 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24819.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
52

pository Development. Some of our contractors were going to help

and review it.

At the time, Mr. Chairman, we were trying to scope out an approach that would be reasonable and various lines of inquiry we

followed to evaluate what impacts, if any, this causes to the project.

Mr. PORTER. In Pahrump, NV, in reference to a Las Vegas Sun

article, June 7, NRC staff told data site in Yucca Mountain e-mails

is sound.

So you testified, or someone testified, I guess it was you, that the

net infiltration estimates are technically defensible in early June.

Today you are telling that you still have ongoing studies.

Which is it?

Mr. ARTHUR. What I mentioned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in that meeting, Mr. Chairman, is the same thing I am

bringing up today. These are preliminary conclusions. Preliminary

conclusions indicate there is ample corroborating data and extensive peer review of infiltration models that provides the technical

basis for the project.

I will provide for the record a summary of those studies and documents that support that. This is not our final report, but I will

provide to you the references by which we draw the conclusion,

which include the State of Nevada, it includes the University of

Connecticut, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab and a number of top institutions around the United States as well as the world.

Mr. PORTER. So, you are telling me that in this document is the

answer to the questions that the subcommittee has asked since

April?

Mr. ARTHUR. What this will provide, Mr. Chairman, is that again

preliminary information supports our preliminary conclusions that

the technical basis is sound. Again, it comes down to the actual

moisture infiltration rates that were generated by the U.S. Geological Survey and independent corroborating studies, not just in the

State, but in the region and around the United States in dry climates that draw similar conclusions that those numbers are in the

range.

Again, it is about a 2 to 3 percent moisture infiltration rate that

occurs based upon the total amount of precipitation that comes to

the top of the mountain.

Mr. PORTER. Again, this is a study, but does it include the answers to our questions as a subcommittee that were presented on

April 5th, I believe?

Mr. ARTHUR. I don’t believe this includes all answers. It is one

piece of critical information and references supporting some of the

answers.

Mr. PORTER. When will you be providing the answers to the

questions the subcommittee requested as of April 5th?

Mr. ARTHUR. I will have to get back to you, check with our people. As I mentioned, our reports will be done. I am doing our best

to manage completion of all this. Those reports, as I said earlier,

should be done within 2 months.

We want to make sure of the technical accuracy and validity of

everything. I stand by this that we are providing today and more

information will be provided as it is available.

53

Mr. PORTER. Let me ask you this more specifically. Will we be

seeing those documents within the next week, 6 months, 10 years,

100,000 years? When will we be seeing an answer to our questions

as a subcommittee?

Mr. ARTHUR. I will have to go back and check the specific questions and get back to you specifically when the information is

there.

Mr. PORTER. Who will you need to ask that question of?

Mr. ARTHUR. I will check with the other members of my management in the Department of Energy.

Mr. PORTER. Who will make that decision?

Mr. ARTHUR. I believe a lot of the answers, sir, were provided in

our letter.

Mr. PORTER. Please answer my question. Who will make the decision regarding the release of information that the subcommittee

requested. What individual will make that decision?

Mr. ARTHUR. I will have to get back to you on that.

Mr. PORTER. Is it the Secretary?

Mr. ARTHUR. It will probably be the Secretary or a senior manager from his staff.

Mr. PORTER. And who would those be, the senior managers of his

staff?

Mr. ARTHUR. I would say the Secretary of Energy will have to

make a determination on when it will be provided.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. I guess so the record reflects some of

the things that we have asked is an organizational chart of employees and management structure, some very, very simple questions

with names.

We have asked some very technical questions. We have also

asked some very basic ones. Is it a problem that you can’t provide

information because you don’t have it available?

Mr. ARTHUR. I will have to check and see what is available or

not. I did not review the specific letter in the request. I apologize.

I will get back to you on what we have, organization charts that

we have.

Mr. PORTER. When will you get back to us?

Mr. ARTHUR. I assume we will supplement the record to any

questions in the immediate future.

Mr. PORTER. Regarding the specific questions that this subcommittee asked, when will you get back to us with an answer

whether or not you will be providing these documents?

Mr. ARTHUR. That will be answered by the Washington office. I

will get back to you at that date, sir. I can’t say any more right

now.

Mr. PORTER. So, what you are telling me is that you have to talk

to the Secretary’s office to get this question resolved. Is that correct?

Mr. ARTHUR. What I am doing and what I came prepared for

today is to talk to you about the technical aspects of what we are

doing. We are managing reviews out of our office in Las Vegas.

The request for information, we will send that to Washington

and Washington will make a decision when it is provided.

54

As we mentioned earlier, we do have our reading room open.

Documents are available there. I will check to get back to you on

the other specific requests.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Davis, do you have any additional questions?

Mr. DAVIS. No, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I am going to have

to leave.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. PORTER. Since the 1990’s, the DOE implemented additional

engineering safeguards at Yucca Mountain, not previously planned

or budgeted. I think this is probably in your area of professionalism.

Yucca Mountain not previously planned or budgeted for due to

scientific findings by USGS and other contractors working on the

project.

If so, did this determination relate to the high flux or low flux

debate?

Mr. ARTHUR. I have to ask you to repeat that.

Mr. PORTER. OK. Since the 1990’s, has DOE implemented additional engineering safeguards at Yucca Mountain not previously

planned or budgeted for due to scientific findings by the USGS and

other contractors working on the project?

Mr. ARTHUR. Our approach, Mr. Chairman, on this project is a

combination of both natural barriers and engineering barriers including the actual waste package and others to demonstrate the

necessary compliance with the EPA standards.

The design has evolved over time through the years on this

project.

Mr. PORTER. If so, then, did this determination relate to the high

flux or low flux debate?

Mr. ARTHUR. I will have to get back specifically on Mr. Hevesi’s

comments earlier about what happened on high flux and low flux.

Mr. PORTER. You mentioned that you have a specific purview.

This is in your purview. So, let me ask it again, did this determination relate to the high flux or low flux debate?

Mr. ARTHUR. The current engineering and design and safety

analysis we are providing and preparing in the license application

meets the best scientific technical data and it is a combination of

science and engineering design, again, as required under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 10 C.F.R. 63 for implementing this

project.

Mr. PORTER. Our staff has learned that parallel studies were performed on various tests, some yielding conflicting results. How does

DOE resolve scientific disputes within the project? What do you do

when there is a dispute within the project?

Specifically, please address the debate regarding the discovery of

isotopes in Chlorine 36 molecules.

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, the Chlorine 36, in that particular area

we had differing results between two credible institutions, the U.S.

Geological Survey and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Currently at the site we are doing a third study. I believe that

is being done by one of our institutions in the State of Nevada to

determine what the numbers actually are.

55

So in this you are always going to have, in a project of this kind

of scientific challenge, you are going to have scientific debate. We

do have a number of avenues for scientists to raise concerns, issues

and we will resolve those issues when they are raised.

Mr. PORTER. As you know, this flux, low flux is a key part of the

debate, the infiltration, the seepage. Since you have differences of

opinion on this particular subject, explain to me again how you

then come up with a third answer when you have two competing

experts telling you two different findings.

Mr. ARTHUR. Based on a number of reviews, and again in particular the Chlorine 36 is not my specific area of expertise, but we

wanted to have a third party, our individuals from the Department

of Energy and Bechtel SAIC and the labs looking at this decided

to have an independent third party look at it and do a separate set

of studies. So, those are underway and I believe we will have the

results sometime later this year.

Again, it shows our commitment to try to get to what the answer

is.

Mr. PORTER. Unfortunately, your lack of cooperation does not

state the same, providing information to the subcommittee. So, I

would not agree that you are showing a commitment to the public.

Regarding the quality assurance, is DOE primarily responsible

for quality assurance guidelines?

Mr. ARTHUR. Correct. We set the policy and requirements.

Mr. PORTER. What was USGS’s role in that program?

Mr. ARTHUR. Implementing those requirements per the interagency agreement of 1997 that I referenced earlier.

Mr. PORTER. How many delays in licensing have been attributed

to quality assurance?

Mr. ARTHUR. Delays in licensing? I need to better understand the

question.

Mr. PORTER. Have there been any delays because of quality assurance?

Mr. ARTHUR. We originally had a plan to submit a license application last year. That was delayed for a number of reasons, one the

remand of the ETA standard to not getting the LSN license support

network certified. At the time we did not have the license application ready to go and I believe we did delay it for the right reason.

As I said earlier, we will make sure every quality assurance requirement and regulatory requirement including the necessary actions for this moisture infiltration are resolved before we submit

that application.

Mr. PORTER. So, when we say quality assurance, we are talking

about safety, correct, health and safety.

Mr. ARTHUR. Quality assurance and safety are the same, yes.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. A GAO study was published in April

2004 regarding the Yucca Mountain quality assurance program and

recommended several changes. Has DOE implemented any of these

changes? If so, could you be specific?

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, in some of the findings that were made

we disagreed. But we have been making significant improvements.

I would like to address that. Some of the areas were that our corrective action program was not effective.

56

A number of key issues were not in performance measures. I can

tell you, Mr. Chairman, I personally meet on a regular basis with

executives from the nuclear industry to benchmark this program

against theirs.

I believe right now we are having better effectiveness in the program of self-identification of issues, of implementing that through

a corrective action and managing the similar processes you would

see throughout the nuclear industry throughout the United States.

Mr. PORTER. I appreciate you expressing your confidence in the

program and what you have improved upon, especially in the last

5 years. How does something like this happen that we are talking

about today if you have this improved quality assurance program?

Mr. ARTHUR. You are referring when something like this, the

issue of moisture infiltration that we were talking about?

Mr. PORTER. Specifically, yes, infiltration, but also regarding the

documents and the questions as to the science of Yucca Mountain

and to the paramount issue regarding the safety of the site, and

that is infiltration.

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, moisture infiltration is on the beginning of the old total system performance assessment and we believe, as I mentioned earlier, based on preliminary information, that the technical basis is sound, subject to concluding our studies.

But as far as the quality assurance program, from when this

project first started in the 1980’s to today, we kept elevating the

bar as the program matured. That is no different than what would

occur in the nuclear industry for commercial operating reactors

back in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

With that, I can tell you, is some of the frustrations that scientists had in the late 1990’s. We were consolidating our basic programs, standardized requirements and procedures.

While most scientists, while there were some issues raised, did

follow it, you know, this is the first case we have found of potential

willful violation of the quality assurance principles.

Mr. PORTER. What appears on the face of the testimony today

and the documents, it appears to be outright defiance for not only

the quality assurance protocol, but the project management process

as well. Is this a culture that was displayed in the past that is no

longer there? Can you fill me in on that a little bit?

Mr. ARTHUR. I sure can’t speak to the culture of the past. But

I did ask our people to search and say what kind of concerns were

raised by Mr. Hevesi and others through our employee concerns,

corrective actions, to others. I could not find in that any direct concerns that were raised.

Mr. PORTER. Has management historically condoned this type of

activity?

Mr. ARTHUR. I would never support this kind of activity. Do you

mean violating quality assurance standards?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. ARTHUR. I would never support that.

Mr. PORTER. What steps do you take then once there has been

the violation of quality assurance?

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, violation means non-compliance. If that

issue comes up you do a review to see if that happened or not.

57

In this particular case, as I mentioned, while the technical basis

appears sound, it is the credibility of following—good science means

not just following the scientific methodology, having the right technical credentials, but following established quality assurance procedures.

Without all three we have to go back and independently, in our

office, have our scientists review this information and remediate or

in some cases replace it before it can be used in the license application.

Mr. PORTER. With the new and improved quality assurance program that you are referring to, what steps have you taken to make

sure in the future that this doesn’t happen again, that this doesn’t

occur, as far as the appearance that you have had employees who

have snubbed their nose at quality assurance?

So, what programs do you have in place now to prevent it from

happening again?

Mr. ARTHUR. Well, I can tell you, we advocate, we are trying to

move in and be at the same culture that you would have in a nuclear operating reactor today, a safety-conscious work environment.

We openly advocate, not just myself, but all managers in the program, an environment as an employee if you have any concerns

raise it to your supervisor without any fear of retaliation. We like

to get that issue raised.

We also have an active employee concerns program for concerns

raised. Also, we have hundreds of corrective actions that are raised

in the system.

We want those individuals, if there is an issue, to raise it so we

can deal with it. So, we advocate that and we manage based on

that principle.

Mr. PORTER. The subcommittee investigation staff has been advised that during this time period in question DOE placed intense

pressure on contractors. They have heard that throughout their

interviews working on the project to produce results and that DOE

had a system in place whereby bonuses were awarded to contractors based on timelines of their submissions.

Obviously, this is a make-it-work or make-it-fit schedule mentality that could potentially compromise the quality and integrity of

the work.

Please comment on this bonus system.

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, I will have to get specifics of what timeframe you are talking about. I can talk to the bonus system. I assume you are meaning the contract.

Mr. PORTER. Well, do you have a bonus system in place?

Mr. ARTHUR. What we have right now with the Bechtel SAIC,

which is our management operating contractor, is a performancebased incentive contract. With that it sets various quality requirements that have to be achieved before payments occur.

Mr. PORTER. Were any bonus incentives, to your knowledge, offered to USGS to do scientific studies in the QA procedures?

Mr. ARTHUR. I will have to check. I am not aware of that. Bonus

incentives? I mentioned that we paid over $300 million to date. You

were saying some kind of incentive financially to do something?

Mr. PORTER. Specifically, were there any bonus incentives offered

to USGS to do scientific studies?

58

Mr. ARTHUR. Other than the budgets that I said we paid yearly,

I am not aware of anything and I will have to check.

Mr. PORTER. Then I guess this is within your purview, were any

bonuses actually awarded to contractors? Was that the $3 million

you were talking about for timely completion?

Mr. ARTHUR. Let me go back if I can. I said we paid over $300

million to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Mr. PORTER. I am sorry. I misspoke. And independent contractors?

Mr. ARTHUR. The contractor, Bechtel SAIC, and prior to them it

was——

Mr. PORTER. TRW?

Mr. ARTHUR. TRW, yes, sir. I am not aware. I mean there were

payments, but I would have to supplement the record with the

exact amount. But I can tell you in today’s environment the payments won’t be incurred unless the quality requirements and

schedule are achieved.

Mr. PORTER. In this article I referred you to earlier where you

testified in Pahrump in June 7 you were quoted as saying the data

in question will not be used in DOE’s upcoming request for a NRC

license to open and operate a nuclear waste repository at Yucca

Mountain. When was that determination made?

Mr. ARTHUR. That is based on a newspaper quote?

Mr. PORTER. Las Vegas Sun. Actually, it was the Associated

Press that quoted you.

Mr. ARTHUR. I just have to look at statements versus what I

said. The intent is that we are going, as I mentioned earlier, even

though preliminary results show the technical basis was sound, we

are going to have to have a group separate from Mr. Hevesi look

at all that information and review it, re-validate it to make sure

the necessary level of quality is there. And that corrective action

is underway now.

Some of it will be remediated. Some of it will be replaced or removed.

Mr. PORTER. June 7 you were quoted as saying the data in question will not be used in DOE’s upcoming request for an NRC license to open and operate a nuclear waste repository at Yucca

Mountain.

In going with the substance of the hearing, you say the data in

question will not be used in your application. Then why is it so critical to have Mr. Hevesi come back and do additional work to find

the missing computer file?

Mr. ARTHUR. First of all, the missing computer file was first

brought up in a condition report. As I mentioned, when people see

issues we want them to raise them.

The system worked perfectly back in February of this year. A

contractor under Sandia National Laboratories was trying to replicate the work. As I understand, they could not find the list of

input files. Based on that, Bechtel SAIC was working with the

USGS to try to get that information.

We allowed, and I concurred in only 40 hours of work to recover

those files and those files only. That is the only work that was authorized.

59

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Arthur, we have numerous questions yet to be

answered, of course, those we requested in early April. We have additional questions that I would like to ask that you respond to.

I also would like to ask that you meet with my staff in the next

week to 2 weeks, barring any unusual circumstances. We would appreciate if you would agree to do that.

Mr. ARTHUR. I will do that.

Mr. PORTER. Again, we want to say thank you for your being

here today. We appreciate your testimony, but I will tell you that

it is unfortunate for the public that the Department of Energy,

whether it be based on not having the information or unwillingness

to provide the information or a simple arrogance to the process, has

chosen not to meet with our staff.

Had those meetings taken place we may not have to be here

today. I am extremely disappointed. In fairness to all those strong,

hardworking, quality folks at DOE, I think you have done a disservice to all those employees that represent you across the country

because there is the appearance that you are hiding information

from this committee; there is an appearance that you are hiding information from the American people.

I am extremely disappointed that someone in your organization

has advised your employees not to meet with the U.S. Congress to

answer questions.

As I stated earlier, we communicate frequently with the Inspector General’s office. It is a part of our process.

Again, I cannot state it strongly enough. I am extremely disappointed. You have a responsibility to the American people and I

believe that, again, either you are hiding something or because of

a culture in the organization you don’t have the information that

we need or you have just chosen not to cooperate under simple arrogance.

I appreciate your being here today. I am sorry that you didn’t

meet with us privately as I had requested.

We will continue our investigation. We still have numerous individuals that we will be interviewing. Our investigation, as has both

the Department of Interior and Department of Energy’s Inspector

General has just begun.

In many respects we are going to continue this. I will be honest

with you, enough is enough. It is time for the American people, as

even Mr. Hevesi says, we need more public involvement in this

process and that is what we are going to have happen.

I thank you for being here. We will adjourn the meeting.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Harry Reid and Hon. John Ensign, and Hon. Jim Gibbons, and additional information submitted

for the hearing record follow:]

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

Æ