    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                 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

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    24-819                      WASHINGTON : 2006
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DIANE E. WATSON, California
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida           C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia            Columbia
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina               ------
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            (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                DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    TOM DAVIS, Virginia                  MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                    Columbia
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina   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

                                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

                 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 catastrophic 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 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 e-mails 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.
        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:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.006

        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:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.003

        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.
        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.
        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?
        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?
        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.
        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 e-
    mails 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.
        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 e-
    mails 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.
        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 because 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?
        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.
        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 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?
        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.
        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.''
        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.
        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
    e-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:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.008

        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 saying 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?
        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 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 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 in-place 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.
        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.''
        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.
        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 2\1/2\ 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.
        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.
        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:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.014

        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 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.
        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 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 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 e-mails. 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 Repository 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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        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 performance-
    based 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?
        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.
        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:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.105

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.090

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4819.102