    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S SUPPORT
                         FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER ECOLOGY
                        LABORATORY (SREL), PARTS I & II
    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

                                    AND THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 JULY 19, 2007
                                      and
                                 AUGUST 1, 2007

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 110-45
                                      and
                               Serial No. 110-50

                                   ----------

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    36-143 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001
                                    ______

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California              Wisconsin
    MARK UDALL, Colorado                 LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
    DAVID WU, Oregon                     DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    JERRY MCNERNEY, California           JO BONNER, Alabama
    PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania         TOM FEENEY, Florida
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    MICHAEL M. HONDA, California         DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana          ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               VACANCY
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
    CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

                   HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas             Wisconsin
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        TOM FEENEY, Florida
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                    DAN PEARSON Subcommittee Staff Director
                      EDITH HOLLEMAN Subcommittee Counsel
                JAMES PAUL Democratic Professional Staff Member
           DOUGLAS S. PASTERNAK Democratic Professional Staff Member
               KEN JACOBSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
                TOM HAMMOND Republican Professional Staff Member
                        STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

                       HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    JERRY MCNERNEY, California           RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    MARK UDALL, Colorado                 MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                      JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
                CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
            MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
             SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
          ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
              ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
              ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member
                        STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
       The Department of Energy's Support for the Savannah River Ecology
                           Laboratory (SREL), Part I

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 July 17, 2007

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     7
        Written Statement............................................     9

    Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................    10
        Written Statement............................................    11

    Statement by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Ranking
      Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
      Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    12

    Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
      and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................    14
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
      and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................    18

    Prepared Statement by the Honorable J. Gresham Barrett, Third
      Congressional District of South Carolina, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    19

                                    Panel I:

    Hon. John Barrow, a Representative of the State of Georgia, 12th
      District
        Oral Statement...............................................    20
        Written Statement............................................    23

                                   Panel II:

    Dr. Paul M. Bertsch, Former Director, Savannah River Ecology
      Laboratory, University of Georgia; Georgia Power Professor of
      Environmental and Soil Chemistry [NOT HEARD]

                                   Panel III:

    Dr. Jerald L. Schnoor, Professor, Civil and Environmental
      Engineering; Co-Director, Center for Global and Regional
      Environmental Research, University of Iowa
        Oral Statement...............................................    25
        Written Statement............................................    27
        Biography....................................................    83

    Dr. F. Ward Whicker, Professor, Radiological Health Sciences,
      Colorado State University
        Oral Statement...............................................    84
        Written Statement............................................    86
        Biography....................................................    93

    Discussion
      Private Contractors Vs. SREL...................................    93
      National Environmental Research Parks..........................    94
      The Value of Long-term Ecological Research.....................    94
      National Laboratories' Overhead Costs..........................    95
      Radiation Hormesis.............................................    97
      Competitive Grants and Peer Review.............................    99
      Environmental Remediation Research Done By SREL................   100
      Fate and Transport Studies.....................................   101

       The Department of Energy's Support for the Savannah River Ecology
                           Laboratory (SREL), Part II

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 August 1, 2007

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................   104

    Hearing Charter..................................................   105

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................   111
        Written Statement............................................   113

    Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................   114
        Written Statement............................................   115

    Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Minority
      Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   120
        Written Statement............................................   122

    Statement by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Ranking
      Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
      Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   116
        Written Statement............................................   118

    Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
      and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................   118
        Written Statement............................................   120

    Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
      and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................   126

                                    Panel I:

    Mr. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of
      Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................   127
        Written Statement............................................   129
        Biography....................................................   130

    Discussion
      SREL Funding Sources for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007............   131
      Details of the Cooperative Agreement...........................   133
      Does the Department of Energy Award Noncompetitive Funding?....   135
      Mr. Sell's Role in the Cooperative Agreement...................   135
      New Funding Criteria for SREL..................................   136
      DOE Support for SREL...........................................   137
      Who Knew About SREL Funding Changes?...........................   140
      Who Will Fill SREL's Role?.....................................   141
      Documents Provided By SREL.....................................   142
      SREL Budget....................................................   144
      Guaranteed Funding Sources.....................................   145
      Article From the University of Georgia.........................   146
      Competition for Tasks Performed By SREL........................   147
      Environmental Characterization Without SREL....................   147
      More on SREL Competition.......................................   148
      Environmental Responsibility to Local Communities..............   149
      Budget Allocations.............................................   150
      More on SREL Funding...........................................   151
      May 20th Memo..................................................   152
      Government Versus the Private Sector...........................   152

                                   Panel II:

    Dr. Paul M. Bertsch, Former Director, Savannah River Ecology
      Laboratory, University of Georgia; Georgia Power Professor of
      Environmental and Soil Chemistry
        Oral Statement...............................................   154
        Written Statement............................................   156
        Biography....................................................   161

    Ms. Karen K. Patterson, Chair, Savannah River Citizens Advisory
      Board
        Oral Statement...............................................   162
        Written Statement............................................   163
        Biography....................................................   167

    Discussion
      Conversation About Reduced DOE Funding.........................   168
      Playing Mr. Allison for a Chump................................   169
      July 2005 Newsletter Quote.....................................   169
      Competing in the Work Done for SREL............................   170
      Understanding SREL Funding From the DOE in 2007................   170
      University of Georgia SREL Funding.............................   171
      Broadening SREL's Funding Base.................................   172
      SRS Funding for SREL and Jill Sigal............................   172
      Savannah River Ecology Laboratory Long-term Funding............   174
      More on Broadening SREL's Funding Base.........................   176
      Office of Science Grants.......................................   176
      Ms. Sigal and Mr. Anderson.....................................   177
      More on University of Georgia Funding..........................   178
      SRS Environmental Research.....................................   178
      SREL Peer Review...............................................   179
      Community Relationship With SRS Without SREL...................   179
      More on Ms. Sigal and Mr. Anderson.............................   180
      Credibility of For-profit Contractors Versus SREL..............   180

                                   Panel III:

    Mr. Charles E. Anderson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
      Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................   182
        Written Statement............................................   189
        Biography....................................................   190

    Mr. Jeffrey M. Allison, Manager, U.S. Department of Energy--
      Savannah River Operations Office
        Oral Statement...............................................   191
        Written Statement............................................   192
        Biography....................................................   193

    Mr. Mark A. Gilbertson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
      Engineering and Technology, Office of Environmental Management,
      U.S. Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................   194
        Written Statement............................................   195
        Biography....................................................   195

    Ms. Yvette T. Collazo, Assistant Manager for Closure Project,
      Savannah River Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................   196
        Written Statement............................................   198
        Biography....................................................   199

    Discussion
      2005 SREL Cooperative Agreement................................   199
      Rejection of Tasks Submitted to the DOE........................   201
      Mr. Allison's Background With SREL and the DOE Agreements......   202
      Mr. Anderson's Involvement With the SREL Funding Issue.........   204
      Dr. Bertsch and the Agreement..................................   204
      Mission Critical Work..........................................   206
      Amphibian Mutations............................................   207
      More on Mr. Anderson's Background..............................   208
      Nature of the Agreement........................................   209
      More on Ms. Sigal..............................................   209
      SREL Becoming Self-funded......................................   210
      General Background From Mr. Gilbertson.........................   210
      More on Mr. Anderson...........................................   212
      Future Projects in the Community...............................   213
      Decision to Eliminate SREL's Budget............................   214
      Raising Money for SREL.........................................   216

    Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, U.S.
      Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................   217
        Written Statement............................................   218

    Discussion
      Background on the Involvement of the Office of Science.........   219
      Confidence in SREL.............................................   221
      More on SREL Funding...........................................   221
      Peer Review of SREL Tasks......................................   221
      SREL Competition...............................................   222
      Office of Science Funding Process..............................   223
      Why Was SREL Funding Zeroed Out?...............................   223
      Cutting Environmental Remediation Sciences Program Budget......   224
      How the Office of Science Provides Funding.....................   225
      SREL Funding Decision..........................................   226
      Prioritizing Surface and Subsurface Contamination..............   226
      SRS Complying With Environmental Laws Without SREL.............   227
      Congressional Funding for SREL.................................   228
      More on Subsurface Versus Surface Contamination................   229
      Discussion.....................................................   230

                  Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

    Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC09-07SR22506 for Operation of the
      Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) Program, December 1,
      2006...........................................................   234

    Material produced by Dr. Paul M. Bertsch, Former Director,
      Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia at the
      request of Jill Sigal, then-Assistant Secretary for
      Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, May 2005..........   364

       THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S SUPPORT FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER ECOLOGY
                           LABORATORY (SREL), PART I

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007

                      House of Representatives,
          Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
                Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
                           Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad
    Miller and Honorable Nick Lampson [Chairman of the Subcommittee
    on Investigations and Oversight] presiding.

                             joint hearing charter

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

                                    and the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       The Department of Energy's Support

                         for the Savannah River Ecology

                           Laboratory (SREL), Part I

                             tuesday, july 17, 2007
                             10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
                       2318 rayburn house office building

    Purpose:

        The purpose of the hearing is to examine the past and current work
    of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), its relationship to
    the Savannah River Site and the Communities bordering the Site, and the
    events leading to the Department of Energy's decision to withdraw
    funding for the laboratory in fiscal year 2007.

    Background:

        SREL was established in 1951 to track the ecological changes and
    environmental consequences of establishing nuclear weapons production
    facilities on the Savannah River Site (SR or SRS). It is unique within
    the DOE complex because it is the only lab that is not ``owned'' by
    DOE. Rather, the University of Georgia founded the lab and has always
    had a relationship with DOE that has allowed them to be present on the
    site and funded by the Department (and the Atomic Energy Commission
    before DOE was established).
        SREL has been a very productive scientific lab with a distinguished
    record of publication and an amazing amount of unbroken data sets on
    the ecology of the site. While the site itself was a center for weapons
    production and contains enormous amounts of waste, with ongoing waste
    processing that will stretch out for a generation or longer, it is also
    an enormous physical site--much of which includes pristine
    environmental conditions. Largely untouched by development, the
    Savannah River site hosts the most diverse and complex ecology in North
    America and contains all representative ecosystems of the southeastern
    U.S.
        Recognizing these unique features of the site, in 1972 the Atomic
    Energy Commission created the first National Environmental Research
    Park (NERP) located within the DOE complex at Savannah River. There are
    seven NERPs located at DOE sites around the country. SRS has 30 set-
    aside areas where no development of any kind is allowed to go forward.
    SREL has monitored the ecology in these set-asides ever since they were
    established. Another facet of the SREL work in the NERP is that they
    are a major way that the Savannah River Site carries out its
    ``stewardship'' responsibilities--to show to the Nation that they are
    caring for the site in a way that justifies their occupation of the
    land at these sites. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    established environmental protection as a mission of all federal
    agencies. SREL has carried out this function through very successful
    public education programs to bring the public and students to the site
    and show them the unique qualities of the ecology there.
        SREL also collects data that is used by the site to demonstrate its
    compliance with a number of environmental laws. IF SREL does not
    provide these data as part of their base work, the site will have to
    hire a contractor to collect that information. The communities that
    border the site in Georgia and South Carolina and that are located
    downstream from the site also rely on the lab to be a trusted,
    independent voice that will tell them the truth about the nuclear
    wastes on the site, the remediation activities on the site, and the
    safety of being near or downstream from it.

    DOE Funding and Cooperative Agreement with SREL and University of
                        Georgia:

        The Bush Administration's budget requests for SREL have varied
    considerably, but with a general downward trend since FY 2002. The
    first budget they composed, for FY 2002, included a 30 percent cut in
    the request for the lab by Environmental Management (EM). Then in FY
    2003 and FY 2004, the lab's funding line was moved to the Office of
    Science accounts and did well (requests of around $8 million). In FY
    2005 the budget request eliminated all funding for the lab. The Georgia
    and South Carolina delegations secured funds in the FY 2005
    appropriation to reverse this decision. These delegations met with DOE
    and an agreement was made that the Administration would fund the lab at
    $4 million in FY 2006 with $1 million coming from Science and $3
    million coming from DOE. It is with that deal that the path to closing
    the lab begins. What follows is largely based on the documentary record
    provided to the Subcommittees by the Department of Energy, SREL and the
    University of Georgia (UGA).

    Negotiations Begin on a New Cooperative Agreement--May 2005:
        SREL and UGA's existing cooperative agreement was to expire in
    July, 2006. In May 2005, the Department hosted a meeting involving
    then-Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental
    Affairs, Jill Sigal, other DOE staff, representatives from the
    University of Georgia and SREL, and representatives from the Georgia
    and South Carolina delegations. The Department did not want to face an
    ongoing string of appropriations earmarks and the delegations wanted
    some agreement that the lab would be supported. That meeting led to an
    agreement that in FY 2006 the Department would provide $4 million (plus
    some money from the National Nuclear Security Administration--NNSA) and
    in FY 2007 it would provide at least $1 million from EM accounts.
        There is disagreement about whether $1 million was a cap or a
    floor, but there was ample discussion at that meeting about the
    perceived need for the SRS to use SREL to further their mission.
    Director Bertsch said that as long as he could pursue money from the
    programs on the site in addition to EM funding he would be able to keep
    the lab going. Jill Sigal requested that Dr. Bertsch put together a
    plan to show how he would do that, and so the day after the meeting,
    Dr. Bertsch forwarded a business plan that included the work SREL would
    undertake that was needed by the site. He was never told the plan was
    unacceptable. In fact, a subsequent memorandum from the Principal
    Deputy for Environmental Management, Charlie Anderson, directed the SR
    site manager for DOE to negotiate a new five-year cooperative
    agreement. The memo drew extensively from Dr. Bertsch's business plan.
    The Director of the SRS, Jeff Allison, then informs Bertsch that he has
    been directed to negotiate a new cooperative agreement. Bertsch and
    Allison work on this for over a year.
        In March of 2006, even as negotiations continue, Mr. Allison tells
    Dr. Bertsch to budget for $4 million at SREL from SRS/EM in the FY 2007
    budget. When they reach agreement on a new cooperative agreement, it
    provides for $4 million a year from 2007 through 2011 with a 2.5
    percent escalator to allow for inflation. The agreement is sent up to
    DOE Headquarters for notification in August of 2006 and then again (due
    to an imperfection in the process) in September 2006. If Headquarters
    had approved it, Allison would have been authorized to sign the
    agreement. However, the agreement was never approved at Headquarters.

    The Cooperative Agreement is Not Approved and Negotiations Begin
            Again--September 2006
        Instead negotiations are re-opened with new criteria for the
    cooperative agreement. Deputy Secretary, Clay Sell, was briefed and he
    determined--supposedly with the approval of the Secretary--that the new
    agreement would provide $1 million of guaranteed funding in FY 2007
    plus additional funding on a task-by-task basis.
        The initial reaction from SREL was that this offer would lead to
    the closure of the lab, but the SR Site Director, Jeff Allison, assured
    SREL their work was needed by the site and he would fund their tasks
    using funds the site Director has discretion over to award for site-
    based projects. DOE Headquarters was aware of the assurance provided by
    Mr. Allison to SREL.
        SREL then enters into negotiations once again to secure a new
    cooperative agreement. From September 2006 through November 2006, Dr.
    Bertsch was working with SRS assistant managers to identify the
    projects the site would fund to meet $3 million in identified needs. At
    the same time, DOE Headquarters officials were scrutinizing the
    language of the cooperative agreement. Headquarters was insisting on
    highlighting language that emphasized funds were subject to ``need,
    merit and availability of funds.'' They also included a provision that
    any funds could be subject to a ``technical peer review.'' Bertsch
    believed this would be the kind of review his programs had been through
    many times in the past--where evaluators look at the sweep, mix and
    quality of science being done by the lab. However, DOE had something
    else in mind that was not made clear to the lab until months after the
    agreement was signed on December 1, 2006.

    New Funding Criteria are Established by Headquarters and Funding is
            Denied--February 2007
        In January of this year, Dr. Bertsch and SREL believed they had a
    new cooperative agreement that made them financially stable. The site
    Director repeatedly assured SRS that they needed the SREL's work and he
    had the money to fund it (his budget for FY 2007 had $4.1 million
    identified for SREL). However, in February, DOE Headquarters announced
    there would be a task-by-task peer review process for all of the items
    that SREL has proposed. The standard for this ``peer review'' was
    established by Headquarters--tasks must be deemed ``mission critical in
    FY 2007.''
        As it turns out, almost nothing meets this standard at
    Environmental Management. EM's primary mission is clean-up.
    Establishing a metric for a project that requires progress on clean up
    within six months--because by April or May of 2007, the fiscal year is
    half-over--ensures that no projects done by a research lab will meet
    the criteria. On May 7, SREL is informed that only $800,000 of its
    proposed $3 million in work would be funded. This process was led by
    Headquarters in the sense that HQ invented the review process and
    established the standard. The site was left to carry out the directions
    of Headquarters.
        The Department asserts they were living up to the terms of the
    cooperative agreement of providing $1 million plus projects deemed to
    be ``needed.'' The Department also embarks on a campaign of lies and
    distortions that can be tracked in the letters sent to Mr. Barrow and
    to the Subcommittee Chairmen. DOE portrays the lab management as having
    been lazy for not seeking out more non-DOE funding and the University
    as neglectful of management at the lab. There are rumblings that EM may
    ask for an IG audit of the books at SREL. As to whether the lab closes
    or not, the Department says that is entirely up to the University and
    the Department has nothing to do with that--as if their funding
    decision and prior promises were irrelevant to the situation at the
    lab.

    Subcommittees of the Committee on Science Begin Their Investigation--
            May 2007
        The Subcommittees sent a letter to DOE within 10 days of Dr.
    Bertsch receiving notice that funding was not to be continued. The
    University of Georgia announced it was extending lab personnel's
    salaries through the end of June--even though DOE money would run out
    at the end of May. The University decided not to formally close the
    lab, but 40 people had their last day at the lab on June 29--some who
    had been there over 20 years. Approximately 30-40 more are being moved
    back to the University campus in Athens, GA in one capacity or another.
    The remaining 30-40 will stay on site to carry out work funded through
    grants already in place from other agencies. The future of the lab and
    the long-term data sets it maintains is unclear unless DOE restores
    funding for its work. Without that core funding, the lab cannot
    continue to operate. Dr. Bertsch was asked to resign by the University
    at the request of the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Bodman. Bertsch's ten-
    year run as Director ended because it appears the Department resented
    efforts by SREL to explain to the Congress and the public that they
    were on the edge of being closed.

    Witnesses:

    Panel I

    Representative John Barrow (GA) represents the Georgia communities that
    border the Savannah River Site.

    Panel II

    Dr. Paul Bertsch is the former Director of the Savannah River Ecology
    Laboratory. Dr. Bertsch is a fact witness to every major action
    regarding this lab from May 2005 until his forced departure in June
    2007.

    Panel III

    Dr. Jerry Schnoor, University of Iowa, is an expert in sub-surface
    science and engineering. He is Editor of the Journal of Environmental
    Science and Technology and a member of the National Academy of
    Engineering. Dr. Schnoor will testify to the quality of the work done
    at SREL on remediation and sub-surface fate and transport of
    pollutants.

    Dr. Ward Whicker, Colorado State University, is a radio-biologist and
    the winner of the Department of Energy's prestigious Lawrence Prize. He
    has done research on the Savannah River site and is very familiar with
    the importance of SREL's research to the wider scientific community and
    to State regulators. Dr. Whicker will also discuss the importance of
    the surface science work involving animal populations on the site done
    by the lab.
        Chairman Miller. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order. This is a hearing of both the Subcommittee on
    Investigations and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Environment of the Science and Technology Committee. We will
    have another hearing that is a joint hearing of the two
    Subcommittees on Thursday of this week.
        Today's hearing is entitled The Department of Energy's
    Support for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Part I. An
    enormous amount of effort has gone into undermining support for
    a very small but very important independent laboratory. The
    Savannah River Ecology Lab, housed at the Savannah River
    Nuclear Site since 1931, and run by the University of Georgia,
    has an impressive record of scientific contributions to
    environmental sciences.
        Headquarters staff the Department of Energy, right up to
    the former head of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs,
    the current Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary himself, have
    all played a role in trying to eliminate funding from the
    Department of Energy for the lab.
        The overall budget of the Department of Energy is $26
    billion. The total funding for the laboratory has been about $4
    million. I certainly don't want to say that $4 million is too
    little an amount for the Executive Branch to sweat. We
    certainly want them to be concerned about amounts of that size,
    but to give you a benchmark or a point of comparison, a few
    weeks ago we heard that the Administrator of NASA spoke to the
    Inspector General's staff and told them not to bother with
    investigations except investigations into fraud and only
    investigations in fraud that would result in savings of at
    least a billion dollars. Less of that just wasn't worth the
    trouble.
        So it is curious that the Department of Energy, with a $26
    billion a year budget, has spent so much attention on an
    independent lab that receives about $4 million a year in
    funding. And why, the question becomes, why?
        The question could also be asked by this committee. Why are
    we holding this hearing, and it is Part I. There will be
    further hearings on this laboratory, and the reason for our
    interest is that we care that, although the lab is small, the
    amount being expended is small relative to the federal budget,
    the scientific importance of the lab has been enormous. It has
    certainly been enormous in the work that they do in radiation
    measurements and detecting the effect of radiation at a time
    when we are worried about a dirty bomb as the most likely form
    of a terrorist attack. It is certainly important when we are
    looking at almost certainly relying more on nuclear energy in
    the near future than we have. The importance of a lab that does
    ecological research into the effect of radiation is very
    important.
        Scientific research has been the core mission of the lab
    for most of its 51 years. It is hard to put a price tag on the
    value of the lab's research. The lab has contributed to the
    mission of the Department of Energy on the site in very direct
    ways. The documents that we will enter into the record today
    and the story of the former Director, Dr. Paul Bertsch, will
    tell, the story they will tell will make it abundantly clear
    that the Department managers at the site value the lab for all
    of its contributions. And the lab does play an essential role
    in the Savannah River Site's need to meet environmental
    regulatory compliance requirements. Compliance requirements of
    the actual Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species
    Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
    Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and
    the lab has also helped the Savannah River Site, a national
    environmental research park, through public education and tour
    efforts.
        The lab conducts environmental outreach programs that, for
    the Department of Energy, give the site more credibility in the
    eyes of folks in the community around the site because it is
    independent, and they think they can trust what the lab has to
    say. In all those ways and more, the lab is essential to the
    functioning of the Savannah River Site, and certainly appears
    to be worth every bit of the $4 million dollars the Department
    of Energy has spent on it in the recent past.
        But the folks at the Department of Energy's headquarters
    believe differently. They thought that the best face to put on
    the conduct for the Department of Energy over the last several
    months has been that they directed the local site manager, Jeff
    Allison, and his staff to negotiate with the lab in bad faith
    to change the rules, to change the purposes, to change the
    objectives frequently and to leave the lab dangling without
    funding to continue.
        They never told the lab exactly what was happening, but
    they stepped in. The headquarters, DOE headquarters, stepped in
    to guarantee the lab would not receive the resources necessary
    to keep it operating. Headquarters' actions left the University
    of Georgia halfway through a fiscal year to figure out whether
    to close the lab or let it limp along to fill out remaining
    federal grants from other agencies. And the Department washed
    its hands of the outcome and misrepresented everything they
    have done to anyone who has asked--the public, the press, and
    Congress.
        These conclusions are not based on hearsay. They are not
    based on speculation. They are based upon a review of the
    documents of the Department's own materials, and many of those
    materials are being made public today, and public scrutiny for
    the Department of Energy's conduct with respect to the Savannah
    River Lab is long overdue.
        Just as an example, the tasks that the Department of Energy
    asked the lab to submit in February went through what was
    called a technical peer review. Among other places in a letter
    to Representative Barrow and a statement from a Department of
    Energy spokesman that was prominently placed in local news,
    supposedly went through scientific peer reviews. But no peer
    review of any kind ever occurred. The Department of Energy
    staff now concedes that. A different kind of review was done at
    the behest of the headquarters, one that seems unprecedented
    and invented solely for the occasion and solely to produce the
    outcome of closing the lab. The headquarters instructed the
    site to evaluate each task on whether it met a mission-critical
    need in 2007, this year. No one at the lab knew what that
    meant, and most of the research that they have done over their
    51 years has been long-term research, not research designed to
    bring an immediate result.
        And it appears the Department of Energy meant by that only
    research done to do immediate cleanup, and no other research
    performed at the lab was worth funding. The process appears to
    be designed to reach a result and, the result was to close the
    lab. No science lab in the country does research that pays
    dividends in the next six months. That is just not what science
    is about. A handful of people at headquarters really
    eviscerated the lab, a lab that is internationally renowned for
    work that has saved the taxpayers millions, maybe billions of
    dollars, and the question is, why? Why have they worked so hard
    to close a lab that has received $4 million a year? Is it
    really about the $4 million?
        We will hear from the Department at our next hearing. Mr.
    Clay Sell has agreed to appear. He agreed to appear today, but
    his schedule and personal circumstances have made that
    impossible, so we will hear from him at a later date. I know
    there are some folks from the Department of Energy here today
    observing the hearing. We welcome you, and we hope that we do
    receive all the documents that we have requested in time to
    review them thoroughly before Mr. Sell does testify.
        And we look forward to hearing the Department to explain
    their side of events.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Nick Lampson,
    distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Environment
    Subcommittee.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Brad Miller
        An enormous amount of effort has gone into undercutting the support
    for a very small, but very important lab. The Savannah River Ecology
    Lab, housed on the Savannah River nuclear site since 1951 and run by
    the University of Georgia, has an unparalleled record of scientific
    contributions to the environmental sciences.
        Headquarters staff at the Department of Energy, right up to the
    former head of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, the current
    Deputy Secretary and the Secretary himself, have all played a role in
    trying to eliminate funding from the Department for the lab. Why would
    any of these figures spend even one minute worrying about a $4 million
    a year lab when they have to manage a $26 billion a year enterprise?
        The question could just as easily be put to the Committee: why do
    we care about the loss of such a small lab?
        The answer is easy: We care because while the dollar impact of the
    lab is small, the scientific importance of the lab has been enormous.
    Scientific research, and that was the core mission of the lab for most
    of its fifty-one years, is not about a return on an investment today
    but about giving us understanding that will guide our actions tomorrow.
    It is hard to put a price tag on such knowledge.
        The lab certainly contributed to the mission of the Department of
    Energy and the site in very direct ways. The documents we will enter
    into the record today, and the story that the former Director, Dr. Paul
    Bertsch, will tell makes it abundantly clear that the Departmental
    managers at the site valued the lab for all its contributions.
        The lab plays an essential role in the Savannah River site's need
    to meet environmental regulatory compliance requirements under the
    National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act,
    and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The lab also has helped
    manage the SRS National Environmental Research Park through public
    education and tour efforts. The lab conducts environmental outreach
    programs for DOE that give the site more credibility in the eyes of the
    local communities because the lab is seen as being independent of the
    Department. In all these ways and more, the lab was essential to the
    functioning of the site--or at least it was so viewed by site
    management. And, all of that for $4 million dollars a year.
        These conclusions are not based on hearsay or speculation, but a
    careful review of the Department's own materials. Many of those
    materials are being made public today and public scrutiny is long
    overdue.
        Just as an example, the tasks that DOE asked the lab to submit in
    February went through a ``technical peer review.'' In other places,
    including a letter to Representative Barrow and a statement from a DOE
    spokesperson that was prominently placed in the local press, the tasks
    supposedly went through scientific peer reviews. No peer review of any
    kind ever occurred--DOE staff admitted that to Subcommittee staff in a
    meeting some weeks ago.
        A different kind of review was done at the behest of headquarters--
    one that seems unprecedented and invented solely for the situation.
    Headquarters instructed the site to evaluate each task to see if it met
    a ``mission critical'' need in 2007. No one at the site knew what that
    meant. In the environmental management offices that invented the
    standard, ``mission critical'' meant one thing--does it clean up waste
    right now, today, or not? If work doesn't do that, then the work is not
    worth funding.
        It is a process designed to give one outcome and one outcome only.
    No science lab in the country does research that pays dividends in the
    next six months. That is just not what science is about. A handful of
    people at headquarters gutted a lab that is internationally renowned
    for work that has saved the taxpayer millions, maybe billions of
    dollars.
        One question eludes us: Why?
        It is hard to believe that the effort to close the lab is really
    about $4 million.
        We look forward to Departmental witnesses joining us at a later
    date. Mr. Clay Sell had agreed to appear today, but personal
    circumstances have pulled him away. We are working to find another date
    before the recess where we can have the Department in to explain their
    conduct and their letters to the Subcommittees and the Congress.
        Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Lampson, the distinguished
    Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

        Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Miller.
    I think it is excellent that our Committee on Energy and
    Environment joins the Subcommittee on Investigations and
    Oversight for this very important hearing. I certainly concur
    with all of the things that you have said here today and
    certainly we are here to attempt to solve a mystery, a mystery
    involving the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, SREL, a
    laboratory associated with the University of Georgia and
    located on the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site.
        What is SREL? It is a laboratory whose work has saved the
    taxpayers millions of dollars in remediation costs. A
    laboratory that has the confidence of the local communities in
    South Carolina and Georgia adjacent to the Savannah River Site,
    and the enthusiastic support of the Citizens Advisory Council
    associated with the site. A laboratory that has been in
    existence since the 1950's when the Savannah River Site was
    established. It was founded by one of the Nation's foremost and
    imminent ecologists, Dr. Eugene Odum, and it is maintained
    invaluable continuous long-term data sets on important animals
    and plants.
        This laboratory in conjunction with the University of
    Georgia has trained hundreds of environmental scientists and
    has run popular and successful public education and outreach
    programs on the Savannah River Site. SREL has also assisted the
    site in its efforts to comply with federal and State
    environmental laws. It also manages one of the seven National
    Environmental Research Parks in a network of ecologically
    important sites that exist on DOE property across the country.
    The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory has provided these
    services to the taxpayers of this country at a cost of less
    than $10 million a year.
        Well, this is a record of achievement that any organization
    would be proud of and certainly one that deserves recognition.
    And what is their reward for those 50 years plus of service?
    Well, they have certainly been recognized by the DOE
    headquarters. They have been, unfortunately, rewarded with a
    loss of funding in the middle of the fiscal year leading to
    layoffs and essentially the closure of the laboratory, a move
    that places the ongoing research and the continuity of long-
    term data sets in grave jeopardy. Bad faith bargaining in the
    renewal of a cooperative agreement with their federal partner,
    the Department of Energy, and the dismissal of the laboratory's
    director, apparently by personal request of the Secretary of
    Energy to the President of the University of Georgia.
        I simply do not know what to make of it. I feel as if I am
    in the middle of Wonderland with Alice.
        The callous treatment of the employees of SREL is
    disgraceful. Beyond the hardship inflicted on them by the
    sudden and unexpected job loss, this decision is absurd. It is
    not in the interest of the people of South Carolina and
    Georgia, the Savannah River Site, the Department of Energy, or
    the rest of this nation.
        And we have witnesses with us today who will be able to
    begin to tell us about this laboratory, its history, and its
    work. Dr. Paul Bertsch, the former Director of the lab, will be
    able to tell us about the events of the past few years that
    have brought us here today.
        We will hear from the Department of Energy at another
    hearing, but I am not confident that we will ever fully
    understand why the headquarters of the Department of Energy has
    spent a great deal of time and effort to close a world-class
    laboratory with an excellent record of service to the
    Department, to the Nation, and to the local community. I
    believe the ultimate reasons for this absurd and ill-advised
    decision may be and continue to be a mystery that will not be
    able to solve. Hopefully, though, we will reverse this decision
    and restore this laboratory so that it may continue its good
    work.
        And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
        We are here today to try to solve a mystery involving the Savannah
    River Ecology Laboratory (SREL)--a laboratory associated with the
    University of Georgia and located on the Department of Energy's
    Savannah River Site.
        What is SREL? Well it is a laboratory whose work has saved the
    taxpayers millions of dollars in remediation cost. A laboratory that
    has the confidence of the local communities in South Carolina and
    Georgia adjacent to the Savannah River Site and the enthusiastic
    support of the Citizens Advisory Council associated with the site. A
    laboratory that has been in existence since the 1950's when the
    Savannah River Site was established. It was founded by one of our
    nation's most eminent ecologists--Dr. Eugene Odum--and it has
    maintained invaluable continuous long-term data sets on important
    animals and plants. This laboratory in conjunction with the University
    of Georgia has trained hundreds of environmental scientists and has run
    popular and successful public education and outreach programs on the
    Savannah River Site. SREL has also assisted the Site in its efforts to
    comply with federal and State environmental laws. It also manages one
    of the seven National Environmental Research Parks in a network of
    ecologically important sites that exist on DOE property across the
    country. The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory has provided these
    services to the taxpayer at a cost of less than $10 million dollars per
    year.
        Well, this is a record of achievement that any organization would
    be proud of, and certainly one that deserves recognition. And what is
    their reward for these 50 years of service? Well they have certainly
    been recognized by DOE Headquarters. They have been rewarded with a
    loss of funding in the middle of the fiscal year leading to layoffs and
    essentially the closure of the laboratory--a move that places the
    ongoing research and the continuity of long-term data sets in grave
    jeopardy; bad faith bargaining in the renewal of a cooperative
    agreement with their federal partner--the Department of Energy; and the
    dismissal of the laboratory's Director--apparently by personal request
    of the Secretary of Energy to the President of the University of
    Georgia.
        I simply do not know what to make of this. I feel as if I am in the
    middle of Wonderland with Alice.
        The callous treatment of the employees of SREL is disgraceful.
    Beyond the hardship inflicted on them by the sudden, unexpected job
    loss--this decision is absurd. It is not in the interest of the people
    of South Carolina and Georgia, the Savannah River Site, the Department
    of Energy, or the rest of the Nation.
        We have witnesses with us today who will be able to tell us about
    this laboratory, its history and it work. Dr. Paul Bertsch, the former
    Director of the laboratory, will be able to tell us about the events of
    the past few years that have brought us here today.
        We will hear from the Department of Energy at another hearing, but
    I am not confident that we will ever fully understand why the
    Headquarters of the Department of Energy has spent a great deal of time
    and effort to close a world-class laboratory with an excellent record
    of service to the Department, to the Nation, and to the local
    community. I believe the ultimate reasons for this absurd and ill-
    advised decision may be a mystery we will not be able to solve.
    Hopefully, we will reverse this decision and restore this laboratory so
    that it may continue its good work.

        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Lampson. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Sensenbrenner for an opening statement.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I had
    a prepared opening statement that I was prepared to read into
    the record, but after hearing both the distinguished Chair from
    North Carolina and the other distinguished Chair from Texas,
    let me state that I am really disturbed that what appears to be
    a piece of bad faith on one side is being reciprocated with
    another piece of bad faith right here on the other side of the
    aisle.
        The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy had to
    leave town for a funeral. We can't help those kinds of things.
    Sometimes we have to leave town for funerals as well, whether
    it is a family member or a very close, personal friend, or a
    mentor or something like that. And there was a request that was
    made at the Majority staff to postpone this hearing until Mr.
    Sell could come on back to be able to testify on behalf of the
    Department of Energy on why the decisions were made. The
    Majority rejected that request, and I think that that in and of
    itself was unfair.
        Now, after hearing both Mr. Miller and Mr. Lampson's
    opening statement I think the purpose of the hearing is now
    clear. It is not to investigation the contributions of SREL,
    something that all of the witnesses that are here can testify
    to, and I think which is not at the heart of the controversy.
    The purpose of this hearing is to attack the Department of
    Energy, and specifically Deputy Secretary Clay Sell, which
    isn't able to be here to be able to defend itself.
        Now, I have heard from the other side of the aisle that we
    are going to go to the expense of having a second hearing where
    Mr. Sell will come on in and testify some time later on. That
    is not really necessary, and I think the purpose of having an
    investigation is to be able to hear both sides of the argument.
        Now, the argument I don't think is the contributions that
    SREL has made over the years. That really is not the issue. The
    issue is a disconnect between the Department of Energy people
    who were on site at SREL and the headquarters office of the
    Department of Energy that apparently made the decision to
    discontinue the funding.
        And the attack that I have heard from both of the
    distinguished Chairmen can't fairly take place when DOE can't
    be here to defend itself. The witness did have to leave
    Washington to go to a funeral, and it simply is not fair for
    this hearing to proceed without DOE being able to be present.
    You know, I come to these hearings like this with an open mind,
    but when there is a procedural overreach, and there clearly is
    a procedural overreach in the case of this instance because of
    Mr. Sell's necessity to go to a funeral, I would ask the two
    distinguished Chairs to postpone this hearing so that we can
    hear about all these issues at one hearing. And if you don't do
    so, I think that shows that you folks are hell bent to hang DOE
    in a time when DOE cannot be there to defend itself.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Lampson. May I interrupt one second?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to the Chairman.
        Chairman Lampson. And ask that----
        Chairman Miller. Well, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, I certainly
    agree that funerals of family members or close family friends
    or close friends is something we should respect, but what you
    just said I am advised by our staff is not correct. The
    Department of Energy did not request that the hearing itself be
    postponed, only that Mr. Sell be excused from appearing today.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I am requesting, reclaiming my
    time. I am requesting that the hearing be postponed because I
    think that to use kind of a tried phrase that we hear on one
    television network, we ought to be fair and balanced. And we
    can't be fair and balanced because Mr. Sell is attending a
    funeral. If you want to be unfair and unbalanced, go ahead. I
    think we ought to be fair and balanced, and when I held
    investigative hearings, I always had people on both sides
    testify, and if they couldn't come, we rescheduled the hearing
    so that everybody could see exactly what the issues were,
    starting with the Committee Members.
        Chairman Miller. Well, Mr. Sensenbrenner, you were not part
    of the telephone conversations that I was part of with the
    Department of Energy, and if you were under the impression that
    they were eager to have Mr. Sell come and appear before this
    committee, my experience is no, that that is not the case.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, reclaiming my time, of course,
    when we are investigating them they are not eager to have
    somebody appear before the Committee. My point is we ought to
    listen to both sides, and by going ahead with this hearing, you
    are not going to listen to both sides.
        Chairman Miller. My immediate concern is the convenience of
    several witnesses who have come to Washington today. Mr.
    Lampson, you wish to be recognized as well.
        Chairman Lampson. Well, and that is the point.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, it is my time, and I yield to the
    gentleman from Texas.
        Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. I, too, was
    concerned about the folks that had already been scheduled. I
    just wanted to ask of whom we had heard or to whom the
    statements from the Department of Energy were directed so that
    we could know about the request for postponement. And it is
    going to be only a postponement. We will have Mr. Sell here on
    August the 1st.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Reclaiming my time, this all goes to
    show that because the Majority wants to attack the Department
    of Energy, I guess we are going to have two hearings to attack
    the Department of Energy when we could very easily have done it
    with one and have both sides speak and have both sides on the
    witness stand at the same time and Members of the Committee can
    ask questions to actually get to the bottom of this. From
    everything I know the problem is DOE headquarters. It is not
    the DOE personnel that is down at SREL, and the only way we are
    able to get DOE headquarters to be able to testify
    knowledgeably is to have Mr. Sell here.
        I have made my point. It is now up to the Majority to
    decide whether we are going to have a fair and balanced hearing
    or not, and I see my time is up.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Inglis.
        Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I do recognize the significance
    of Mr. Sensenbrenner's questions. I think they are well placed
    before this committee, before the Chairs to--the hearing goes
    forward. It is, I think, important to get to the bottom of
    these things. I wish that we were having a balanced hearing
    here, and it is important to find out what is going on. For
    more than 50 years the Savannah River Ecology Lab at the
    University of Georgia has been a helpful resource as I
    understand it to the Savannah River Site. Savannah River
    Ecology Lab's research projects and educational outreach
    activities help Savannah River Site understand the ecological
    impacts of the site's operations.
        Today we will hear from several witnesses, not as many as
    we would like to hear from, who will attest to the usefulness
    of the lab's projects, both to SRS and to the surrounding
    community. And they will assert the need to continue funding
    these programs.
        I look forward to hearing their testimony. I also look
    forward to hearing what the Department of Energy has to say,
    and I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this joint hearing.
        For more than 50 years, the Savannah River Ecology Lab (SREL) at
    the University of Georgia has been a helpful resource to the Savannah
    River Site (SRS). SREL's research projects and educational outreach
    activities help SRS understand the ecological impacts of the site's
    operations.
        Today, we'll hear from several witnesses who will attest to the
    usefulness of SREL's research projects to both SRS and the surrounding
    community, and the need to continue funding these programs. I look
    forward to hearing their testimony.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my
    time.

        Chairman Miller. Well, again, Mr. Sensenbrenner said it is
    for the Majority to decide. I would like to take a quick recess
    for Mr. Sensenbrenner to discuss this matter on the Minority
    side and with the Minority staff, because, again, my
    understanding of what has happened is different from what Mr.
    Sensenbrenner just said. I am not accusing Mr. Sensenbrenner of
    misrepresenting the facts. I think perhaps our understanding is
    different.
        And I would like to take a brief recess, and I also would
    like to inquire quickly, and we are looking at a really long
    hearing if we try to do everything in one day. The hearing in
    less than two weeks is three panels of the Department of
    Energy, and this is today three panels if we count
    Representative Barrow.
        We, I have a long line of questioning prepared to go to Mr.
    Barrow's credibility as a witness, but my staff has advised me
    that is probably not appropriate. But for the other Members who
    are, the other witnesses who are here, I know it was not
    convenient to come to Washington. It would not be convenient to
    come back a second time, but what is your availability on
    August 1? Because I would rather have this hearing be about the
    decision and the conduct of the Department of Energy, not about
    procedural fairness.
        What is your availability? How inconvenienced will you be?
    I know you are all sitting on the front row. Could you, those
    who are set to testify in later panels today.
        Mr. Bertsch, what is your availability on August 1? I am
    sorry. What?
        Okay. Dr. Whicker. Dr. Schnoor. I yield to Mr. Hall.
        Mr. Hall. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts to approach
    fairness here, and there would be opening statements that I
    would ask permission to give in a little bit and name other
    people that probably ought to be here that were really a part
    of the line there----
        Chairman Miller. Again, Mr. Hall, there will be a hearing
    with three panels on August 1. Three panels all from the
    Department of Energy on August 1.
        Mr. Hall. Well, I think there are at least maybe three
    other people from the Department of Energy that were either--or
    those that, under his direction that have some information that
    the Chair would value, and Members of this panel in arriving at
    your decision.
        Chairman Miller. The reason, again, Mr. Sell was scheduled
    to testify today. It is his schedule, and I am----
        Mr. Hall. Yeah, and I recognize that.
        Chairman Miller.--sympathetic to his need to attend the
    funeral of someone close to him, but Mr. Sell was more than
    politely invited.
        Mr. Hall. I don't question that, and these gentlemen have
    indicated that they could come back.
        Chairman Miller. Well, actually, the two witnesses who will
    testify to the value of the research at the lab, I mean, I
    assume the Department of Energy, if they wish to tell their
    side of the story, it has to, with the negotiations with the
    lab about funding. And for that Dr. Bertsch has said that he
    believed he could come back. But it would, but the two
    scientists who are familiar with the work of the lab have
    traveled some distance to be here, and we have heard one of
    them say that he would have to interrupt a family vacation to
    come back on August 1.
        Mr. Hall. I don't like to do that.
        Chairman Miller. Well, I wouldn't like to do that either.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner, if Mr. Bertsch comes back and that the
    testimony be, and I am not terribly concerned about Mr.
    Barrow's schedule. I believe he is probably going to be in
    Washington regardless, but the two scientific witnesses could
    testify today, and we could hold Mr. Bertsch to testify on
    August 1. It would be a long day of hearings.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the Chairman would yield----
        Chairman Miller. I do yield.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner.I don't think the issue is the scientific
    value of what has been done at SREL. I can stipulate to the
    fact that the scientific value is there. The issue is why the
    DOE headquarters had a different view of the DOE personnel that
    were on site, and that is what we ought to be investigating.
    Now, you know, I would ask unanimous consent that the witness's
    prepared statements at today's hearings be included in the
    record, and if, you know, we want to get to the bottom of this,
    I think we ought to be looking into what went on at DOE
    headquarters on this.
        You know, I guess, you know, my point is, is that when Dr.
    Sell, you know, could not appear because of the necessity of
    him attending the funeral, there should have been sensitivity
    on the part of the Majority staff to reach a decision on
    whether to go ahead with this hearing before the witnesses
    ended up leaving wherever they were to come to Washington, D.C.
    You know, I certainly don't want to inconvenience them, but I
    do want to make sure, you know, that we have a fair and
    balanced hearing.
        I thank the Chair for yielding.
        Chairman Miller. All right. If Dr. Bertsch can come back on
    August 1, I believe that the contested, the factual issues,
    contested, disputed factual issues all have to do with Dr.
    Bertsch's testimony.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. That is true.
        Chairman Miller. Not with the testimony of Dr. Schnoor and
    Dr. Whicker, who will testify to the value of the scientific
    research done at this laboratory.
        Chairman Lampson. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized----
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Lampson.
        Chairman Lampson.--for a request? Can we take a five-minute
    recess and discuss this?
        Chairman Miller. We can take a five-minute recess. The
    Subcommittees will be in recess for five minutes.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Miller. We are back in order. The first I had
    heard from anyone from the Minority, from the Minority Members,
    from Minority staff, from the Department of Energy, that there
    was any complaint at all about this hearing going forward was
    Mr. Sensenbrenner's opening statement. I am not hard to find. I
    have found Mr. Sensenbrenner on the Floor to discuss matters
    before this committee. I have tried to consult with him. I
    think that is the way to proceed in a collegial fashion, as
    cooperatively as we can. His locker is across from mine in the
    House gym. We see each other. We talk. The first I have heard
    of any objection at all to today's hearing was in the opening
    statement.
        Now, Dr. Bertsch has said that he can come back. Dr.
    Bertsch, your testimony is very important. We need you back. I
    believe that the only factually-contested issues pertain to
    your testimony, Dr. Bertsch, and we will take that up on August
    1.
        The Department of Energy, it was my personal experience,
    not just what I heard through staff but my personal experience
    is the Department of Energy has been less than cheerful in
    dealing with this issue. We need your documents, we need all
    that we have requested. We don't need them in dribbles and
    drafts. We need the rest of what we have requested, and we need
    them well before August 1 so our staff has a chance to review
    them thoroughly so that everyone, the Minority, is prepared to
    ask questions of Dr. Bertsch, we are prepared to ask questions
    of the Department of Energy, everyone is prepared for the next
    hearing.
        But Dr. Bertsch's panel today will be postponed until
    August 1, which will be a long day. I also encourage the
    Minority Members to talk to the Minority staff, because my
    understanding, again, of what has happened with respect to this
    hearing is very different from what has been represented here.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Miller. I will yield in a moment. And it is the
    first that I have heard the Department of Energy objected in
    any way with going forward with this hearing as scheduled
    today. We will go forward on August 1. There will be four
    panels, three that we have already scheduled, the
    representatives of the Department of Energy and Dr. Bertsch.
    And we will hear the factual discussion of what happened, how
    the decision was made.
        Today we will hear from Representative Barrow, and we will
    hear from the two scientific witnesses who can testify to the
    value of this lab's work.
        Now, I now yield to Mr. Sensenbrenner.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, let me say that it is not my
    intent to further inconvenience the two scientific witnesses,
    except to reiterate the point that the scientific value is not
    the issue that is in contention, that we are investigating.
        What I will say is that I was not aware of Mr. Sell's
    personal problem where he had to leave town for a funeral until
    late last night or the first thing this morning. I was not in
    the gym this morning working out. I didn't see the Chairman
    there. But, you know, let me say in order to make sure that we
    do have a complete record, it is my hope that on the August 1
    hearing that in addition to Mr. Sell that the Chair call
    Charlie Anderson, who is the principle Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management, and Jill
    Sigal, who is the former Assistant Secretary of Energy for
    Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. She has left the
    DOE in April of 2006, but she was around and dealing with this
    at the relevant time when the decision was made.
        I would hope that if we are accommodating to the Majority
    and going ahead with the hearing today, that they would be
    accommodating to us in having all three of these individuals as
    Minority witnesses. Failing that, the Minority will have no
    opportunity except to invoke that part of the rule that allows
    for a Minority day of hearings. Then we end up having three
    hearings on this, whereas if the Majority were sensitive, we
    could have rolled this all into one.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Miller. And Mr. Sensenbrenner, all those witnesses
    are scheduled is my understanding, are scheduled on August 1.
    So we should hear from everyone. If the Minority has other
    witnesses to suggest, we certainly are willing or we certainly
    will try to accommodate the Minority and to have a procedurally
    fair hearing, that our inquiry into this will be procedurally
    fair. That does not mean the Department of Energy will like the
    outcome, but we will, it will be procedurally fair.
        And, again, I am not that hard to find. My office has a
    telephone number, all the Members have a directory of all of
    our offices' telephone numbers. I have a Blackberry. I actually
    read my messages, somewhat compulsively like most people who
    have Blackberries. I am easy to find on the Floor. It is not
    hard to find me, and I believe that our staff talks constantly.
    The Minority and the Majority staffs talk constantly.
        Mr. Lampson.
        Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
    express my chagrin at this. There hasn't been very much
    fairness up to this point on DOE, and there has been, there
    have been many things said and many actions made that many
    people are finding absolutely abhorrent. SREL has been treated
    unfairly. I think they should be able to tell their story to as
    best as possible get us prepared for those future hearings.
        It disappoints me to hear the kind of things that we are
    hearing here this morning. To me there has not been balance in
    the way the budget or the people at SREL have been treated. The
    budget has been cut, people have been terminated, jobs have
    been lost as of June the 29th, I believe. There is the
    potential for significant amount of data that has been
    continuously gathered since 1951, to not be able to be
    gathered, and the longer that we wait before, as I said
    earlier, this mystery begins to unfold, the harder it is going
    to be for it to be put back together again, and the potential
    for valuing what is going to be potentially lost.
        So if we postpone this based on a technicality, and I think
    that we were notified on Wednesday, the 12th of July, that Mr.
    Sell would have to be out of town for a funeral, today is the
    17th, so that was five days ago. I am not going to say that
    there have been additional shenanigans being played, but I
    think the question of fairness on the part of that agency, to a
    lot of lives and to a lot of information that means a great
    deal to the lives of citizens across the United States of
    America, is at least questionable.
        It disappoints me very significantly that an issue like
    this would be raised in the manner in which it has been raised.
    I for one am embarrassed with it, and I think that this
    committee should be.
        I will yield back my time.
        Chairman Miller. I think we have had opening statements of
    a sort from the Chairs and the Ranking Members of both of the
    Subcommittees. If any other Member has an opening statement, we
    will welcome that in writing for the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
        Good morning. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to
    examine the past and current work of the Savannah River Ecology
    Laboratory (SREL) and the events leading up to the current funding
    crisis.
        SREL was established to track the ecological changes and
    environmental consequences of establishing nuclear weapons production
    facilities on the Savannah River Site (SRS). SREL evaluates the effects
    of SRS operations through a program of ecological research, education,
    and outreach involving both basic and applied environmental processes
    and principles. SREL has a distinguished record of publications, with
    the research staff publishing more than 80 articles in peer-reviewed
    scientific publications annually, and an astounding amount of unbroken
    data sets on the ecology of the site.
        I am concerned that in the past few years, the Bush
    Administration's budget requests have decreased funding and, at one
    point, called for an elimination of funding all together for this
    important laboratory.
        Further, I am concerned the cooperative agreement reached on
    December 1, 2006 between the Department of Energy (DOE) and SREL did
    not fully disclose the terms and scope of the ``technical peer review''
    system. It was not until months later that the term was properly
    defined by the DOE. As a result of the scope and standards of the new
    technical peer review system, the DOE was able to drastically cut
    projects and informed SREL that only $800,000 of its proposed $3
    million in work would be funded. Due to the lack of DOE projects
    funded, the University of Georgia reduced the personnel at the lab and
    currently employs 30-40 individuals on site to carry out work funded
    through grants already in place from other agencies. I am interested in
    hearing from Dr. Bertsch why SREL signed the cooperative agreement;
    what SREL's understanding of ``technical peer review'' was; and how the
    DOE's implementation has affected their ability to complete projects.
        Mr. Chairman, because of the significant impact of the DOE's
    decision to withdraw funding for the laboratory, I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses their thoughts regarding the events leading
    up to the funding crisis, the decision to withdraw funding, and the
    future of SREL.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:]
             Prepared Statement of the Honorable J. Gresham Barrett
                 Third Congressional District of South Carolina
                         U.S. House of Representatives
        Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, thank you for
    allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding the Savannah
    River Ecology Lab with you. I also appreciate the work you are doing to
    find a practical solution which will allow the lab to continue to
    operate.
        As you are probably aware, the Savannah River Ecology Lab (SREL) is
    located on the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS) in
    South Carolina. The only laboratory of its kind in the Department of
    Energy's (DOE) complex, the SREL has been operated by the University of
    Georgia since its 1951 founding by Dr. Eugene P. Odum. At that time, it
    was tasked and funded by the Atomic Energy Administration, DOE's
    predecessor, to perform the ecological baseline studies on the Savannah
    River Site. Over the past fifty-six years, the SREL's mission has
    evolved to include not only an independent evaluation of the ecological
    effects of nuclear activities at SRS, but also internationally
    recognized research, education, and public outreach programs.
        I am proud to represent the Third District of South Carolina in
    which the lab is located, and I have been fortunate to see firsthand
    the valuable work that the SREL does. As an independent laboratory
    staffed with university scientists, the SREL provides a thoughtful and
    unbiased evaluation of the effects of SRS operations on the environment
    and helps to ensure the safety of the surrounding community. Today, as
    environmental cleanup becomes an important part of the overall SRS
    mission, we believe the operation of SREL remains critical and will
    continue to provide valuable information related to the long-term
    stewardship issues at the site.
        Throughout the lab's existence, SREL has also been highly-touted
    for its insightful research and education on subjects such as
    remediation and the effects of environmental contamination, restoring
    degraded habitats, and environmental stewardship. It is home to award-
    winning scientists who have authored more than 3,050 scientific journal
    articles as well as approximately 50 books since its founding, and
    students from universities across the United States have studied, co-
    authored peer reviews, and developed their dissertations based on
    research at SREL. Without a doubt, as interest in nuclear energy
    continues to increase worldwide, the value of the scientific work being
    done at the SREL will only grow in importance.
        In addition to the essential research being done at the lab, the
    SREL provides important Environmental Outreach programs to individuals
    and families of the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA). Each year, the
    lab creates greater awareness of the diverse ecosystems of the SRS
    among children and adults across the region by offering Ecotalks, live
    plant and animal exhibits, and tours open to the public. Additionally,
    the SREL outreach programs supply informative materials regarding basic
    ecology and biology to students and teachers throughout the CSRA and
    even nationally, greatly enriching students' understanding of the
    sciences.
        As you can see, for over 56 years, the Savannah River Ecology lab
    has served the SRS, South Carolina, and the Nation through innovative
    research and outreach. Because of its strong track record, the lab has
    received strong bipartisan support from both the South Carolina and
    Georgia delegations in the House of Representatives and the Senate. I
    continue to be a proponent of the work the lab does and am saddened by
    the situation it finds itself in today. While there has been much
    argument as to who is at fault, it is my hope that the Department of
    Energy, the University of Georgia, SREL, and Congress can work side-by-
    side to find a solution that will allow the lab to continue to serve
    our country through its threefold mission of research, education, and
    outreach. I look forward to any insight this committee may be able to
    provide on the matter and again thank you for allowing me to submit my
    statement.

        Chairman Miller. And now the Chair will recognize Honorable
    John Barrow, who represents the district that includes the
    University of Georgia campus and the communities that border
    the Savannah River Site, who has devoted a great deal of his
    time and energy, effort to protect the lab's work and to insure
    its future.
        And I want to thank him for bringing this, his role in
    bringing this to our, to the Subcommittees, the two
    Subcommittees' attention, and we look forward to his testimony
    today.
        And, Mr. Barrow, I am somewhat disappointed. We usually
    place witnesses under oath and remind them of the penalties of
    perjury, but for whatever reason we are not doing that with
    respect to you.
        Mr. Barrow.

                                    Panel I:

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE OF
                         GEORGIA, 12TH DISTRICT

        Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Chairman Miller, thank you, Chairman
    Lampson. All right. Well, that is the one I started out with,
    but someone turned this one away and turned that, flipped that
    other one on.
        Thank you all for calling this hearing. In the interest of
    full disclosure, I don't represent the University of Georgia
    campus any longer, but I do represent the part of this country
    that is probably most affected by the ongoing work, that is the
    entire watershed from the fall line at Augusta all the way down
    to the mouth of the Savannah River at the city of Savannah.
        I share that interest with my colleagues in South Carolina,
    Gresham Barrett, Mr. Inglis to a certain extent, and Joe Wilson
    down at the other end.
        I want to try and put in my words what it is I think we are
    dealing with here, what it is I think we have here, and what I
    hope we will take away from this.
        First of all, what we are dealing with here. Over half a
    century ago our country embarked at the height of the Cold War
    on a technological building boom to build the weapons that we
    would use to win the Cold War. Now, we either use them by
    dropping them or use them by not dropping them. It was our fear
    that we might have to drop them, in which case we would all
    lose, but it was our hope and our expectation that if we had
    them, we wouldn't have to use them. And we embarked on a
    building plan that rivals nothing that we have seen in this
    country before or since, and it took place at places like the
    Savannah River Site, took place at Hanford, took place at Oak
    Ridge, Los Alamos, all over the country this was going on.
        This was a building program that involved buying up a whole
    bunch of land so we could put buffers between the people and
    the work that was being done there. We are talking about dirty
    work that had never been done before, on a scale that had never
    been imagined before, with consequences we never faced before,
    and that is what we started to do about half a century ago.
        It was all a non-peer-reviewed work done by Government
    contractors submitting the lowest bid. At the same time there
    was a fellow who had a vision about how to deal with, at least
    to monitor the situation by the name of Eugene Odum. He was
    literally the father of modern ecology, wrote the book,
    practically invented the word, certainly is the guy who was
    responsible for the words, currency and usage, in everyday
    English.
        Dr. Odum had a vision. His vision was something along these
    lines. This is something that is worth watching, this is
    something that needs watching, and here is an opportunity to
    watch it that we have never had before. It is worth watching
    because we were involved in all kinds of dirty work on hundreds
    of square miles, ascribed a watershed, and what was going on
    there wasn't just going on. It was going on all over the
    country.
        Now, Congress adopted this vision way back in 1972, when we
    first adopted the National Environmental Research Parks
    Program. The Savannah River Site was the first National
    Environmental Research Park, and this ain't a park like the
    kind of parks we are used to. This isn't a park where folks can
    go. It is a park where animals wander in and wander out. It is
    a park where water and the ceaseless cycle of waters comes and
    goes. It is a park that was supposed to be open to scientists
    in the words of the DOE as a protected outdoor laboratory where
    long-term projects can be set up to answer questions about what
    we are doing on this scale and in places like this.
        These are parks that are unique in the words of the DOE
    because they provide opportunities for research to study the
    compatibility of the environment with energy technology
    options. That is fancy words to say can we survive doing what
    we are doing here? Or are we going to kill ourselves in the
    process? Are we going to poison ourselves in order to keep
    ourselves from being blown up?
        Again, these are parks, but they are not real parks. These
    are parks that are closed to people but supposed to be open to
    scientists.
        Now, the thing I want to emphasize is when the DOE talks in
    sort of fancy language about how these are places where you
    can, a protected outdoor laboratory. This is a normative
    statement. This is something we ought to have. We are actually
    conducting great big old laboratories. These are laboratories,
    in fact, whether we like it or not. We are conducting
    experiments on a scale that has never been done before. The
    industrial generation of nuclear waste and its ponding and
    pooling and amassing in these places is something that has
    never been done before. We are experimenting like crazy in
    these seven places around the country, and whether or not we
    recognize it and treat it as a laboratory is up to us. But
    whether or not it really is a laboratory, where we are doing
    things that have never been done before, playing God in ways
    that have never been done before, that is a fact. And Congress
    recognized that back in 1972.
        The only issue here as I see it is not whether or not
    scientists are going to be allowed to run the lab. It is still
    going to be run by bean counters accountable to politicians.
    The question is not whether scientists are going to be allowed
    to run the lab. The question is whether or not there are going
    to be scientists actually in the lab watching what is going on
    on a continuous basis.
        Now, these parks are, in the words of the DOE, a unique
    asset to the country. SREL is unique because it is the only
    institution in the entire country where we have actually been
    monitoring and treating it like a laboratory from the very get
    go. It is the only place in the country where we have set data
    to, data sets to use the term, where we know what has been
    going and watching what has been going continuously from the
    beginning.
        And so it is unique. It has a unique role to play for all
    the others.
        It is also unique because it sets astride an ecosystem that
    has more complexity and more diversity than any of the others.
    If we can get it right, if we can understand what is going on
    in the euphemistically referred to Southeastern Mixed Forest,
    swamp, pine, slash, you name it. If we can figure out what is
    going on there, we can figure out what is going on in shrub
    step, we can figure out what is going on in Juniper, Penyan,
    and Grassland, we can figure what is going on in all the other
    places where environmentally speaking it is a cakewalk compared
    to the complexity and the diversity of what is going on in
    Savannah River.
        So what I am trying to do is set the stage and point out
    that this has enormous implications beyond just the local. This
    isn't just a question, although it is a question, of the way we
    treat the employees and the loyalty and the support we given
    the folks that are doing this work. It is not just that. That
    is important to me, it is important to Gresham Barrett. It is
    not just important to the immediate environmental watershed of
    the Savannah River. That is important to me, it is important to
    Barrett, it is important to Inglis, and it is important to
    Wilson and the Senators on both sides. It is about trying to
    maintain and monitor the lab, and the one place where we have
    been doing this from the very get go so that we don't lose
    sight of that vision.
        We have got to watch what is going on so we don't poison
    ourselves in the process of not blowing ourselves up.
        Now, what do we have here? What I think we have here is a
    five-year plan to defund the SREL by folks who basically think
    it ought to be converted into any other kind of commercial
    contractor, sort of a gigantic Serve Pro, bidding for some of
    the cleanup work at the Savannah River Site.
        Now, with all due respect to the Serve Pro folks, I
    acknowledge what they do, but this is not that kind of mission.
    This is not that kind of asset. It is not that kind of legacy.
        What we also have here is a failure to communicate, and you
    are all going to get to that, and I encourage you all to get to
    the bottom of it. What I hope we will take away from this, let
    us talk about what I want to take away from this series of
    hearings. This is not about the jobs in the area, although that
    is important. It is not about the immediate environmental
    impact, although that is important. And it is certainly not
    about Dr. Odum's legacy. That gentleman's--I knew the man. He
    was the greatest man I have ever met, the most brilliant and
    unassuming person you will ever know. He is an amazing fellow,
    but his legacy is established far beyond our poor power to add
    or detract.
        It is about, though, the work of his hands, which is still
    running there and which serves as the only institution that has
    been doing this work from the very beginning and do it in the
    one place where if you can do it no place else, it has got to
    be done there for the benefit of all these National
    Environmental Research Parks around the country.
        It is about, try to take our cue from Dr. Odum. Dr. Odum
    did anything in his life. He helped us understand the
    connections between things and the importance of things that we
    took for granted and the importance of the little things, the
    little things that we didn't really think much about until they
    were gone. If we can take anything away from this, if we would
    apply Dr. Odum's vision toward this problem, then the temporary
    elected officials who occupy this political nitch for the time
    being can preserve and protect something that we badly need
    everywhere. We ought to expand and have SREL in all of the
    National Environmental Research Parks. That ought to be what we
    take from this is a commitment to expand this elsewhere.
        But if we can take his vision, the appointed officials and
    the elected officials who are occupying this little nitch for
    just the time being won't destroy something that needs to be
    protected. We can actually preserve it, enhance it, and that I
    think is what we really need to do.
        I thank the Chairman for the courtesy of allowing me to
    speak here. I thank you all for your stick-to-it-iveness, and I
    know I have talked too much. I will yield back whatever time I
    may have left.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barrow follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative John Barrow
    Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner; Chairman Lampson,
            Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the Committee:

        Thank for holding this hearing and thank you for inviting me to
    appear before you today.
        I am extraordinarily concerned with recent actions by the
    Department of Energy that I understand have drastically reduced the
    adequate, stable, and mission-based funding for the Savannah River
    Ecology Laboratory and have caused the Laboratory, for all practical
    purposes, to close.
        Over the past five years, the Department's support for the Lab has
    been drastically reduced and manipulated, while the University of
    Georgia, which manages the Laboratory, has continued to uphold its end
    of the financial bargain that has kept the SREL going over the years.
        It seems evident to me that the Department of Energy's policy of
    reducing funding for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) is
    about to take from all of us a valuable research tool to protect our
    citizens and our environment. I am convinced that the need for
    sufficient and sustained Laboratory funding from the Department is
    crucial. The Department's drastic reduction in funding, and the
    processes they employed in reducing funding, have come under increased
    scrutiny recently, we must learn the truth.
        I thank you and your staff for the timely and energetic
    investigation of the Department of Energy's current and past plans to
    reduce and eliminate funding for this laboratory. The more I learn
    about the situation involving the Department's SREL funding, the more
    I'm puzzled.
        After first becoming aware of the dire funding situation at SREL,
    and in my initial contacts with Secretary Bodman and his staff, I
    suggested to the Secretary that we work together to develop and plan an
    expanded, ample, and stable DOE budget that would support the
    laboratory's vital mission. The Department's response to me was vexing.
    I was told a story that didn't quite jive with the communications that
    I had received from the scientific community, local leaders, and others
    who were familiar with the situation.
        Specifically, I was told by the Department in a letter from
    Secretary Bodman's staff, that the research being conducted at the
    facility was not `peer reviewable.' When I checked on this I was
    assured by some of the top scientists in the country that the research
    at SREL was fully peer reviewable and that the quality of the research
    was top-rank. This is only one of the inconsistencies that been
    unearthed in the early stages of discovery.
        The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, founded by Dr. Eugene Odum,
    one of the most influential figures in the history of ecology in the
    20th century, has been studying the effects of the Department's nuclear
    production and processing activities on the environment, wildlife
    creatures, and habitat at Savannah River Site (SRS) for over fifty-five
    years. Currently, the Laboratory supports cleanup missions as well as
    providing critical information related to long-term stewardship issues
    at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. This kind of
    research has enormous implications for the surrounding watershed, which
    includes a large part of the 12th District of Georgia, and quite
    frankly for nuclear production sites around the world.
        SREL is an independent academic laboratory that provides
    significant credibility among the general public and regulators on
    issues related to environmental impacts of nuclear facility operations,
    as well as the overall health of Savannah River Site ecosystems.
    Through its partnership with the DOE, the Savannah River Ecology
    Laboratory has established a strong international reputation for
    conducting high quality ecological research. In fact, SREL is often
    cited as an institution whose expertise and research forms the basis of
    stakeholder support critical to the Department for conducting existing
    and future missions at the Savannah River Site.
        The Laboratory is unique in its focus and mission, and the body of
    research that it has produced in over a half century of scientific
    exploration, is important not only for our country, but this body of
    work is recognized and utilized throughout the scientific world.
        To this end I believe it is critical to have an independent and
    credible source of information on how activities at our nuclear
    productions sites affect wildlife, habitats, and our ecosystems. In
    addition to its ongoing research activities at the Savannah River Site,
    SREL is the organization that has the expertise, institutional memory,
    and academic credibility to develop and implement long-term monitoring
    plans at SRS and potentially at other DOE production sites that will be
    accepted and trusted by the general public, regulators, and other
    stakeholders.
        After this investigation is concluded, and the findings published I
    would like to offer a view for the future. I would like to draw the
    Committee's attention to the issue of the best utilization of the
    National Environmental Research Parks. There are seven of these parks
    located on DOE sites throughout the country. The first one was
    established in 1972 on the Savannah River Site itself. Called the
    Savannah River Park, the site contains the greatest diversity of plants
    and animals in the entire southeastern region and has every major
    ecosystem found within the southeastern U.S. within its borders.
        DOE originally acquired large tracts of land around its national
    nuclear production sites for security. These sites have been protected
    from commercial development and public access has been controlled and
    limited to the purposes of public education and research. In 1997,
    there was a suggestion that DOE divest these properties and the
    scientific community argued passionately for their preservation because
    of their great value for research and education.
        Over the past, almost forty years, these sites have become
    ecological sanctuaries and natural laboratories unmatched in their size
    and diversity. Whether we talk about sound management of land and water
    resources, important species of animals, or better understanding and
    mitigation of the impacts of human activities on the environment, we
    must have information that has been systematically collected over many
    decades. That is exactly the type of information we have at SREL, and
    potentially this kind of research could be duplicated at these other
    National Environmental Research Parks.
        This unfortunate crisis at SREL has brought an opportunity for
    Congress to use these parks more effectively. Once we get to the bottom
    of this investigation, and we restore Savannah River Ecology Lab
    functioning, I would propose that we should have SREL-like labs
    throughout the country at these parks, and then offer this model for
    interested allies, for most nuclear production sites around the world.
    This would be a great tribute to Dr. Odum, and a fitting recognition of
    the work that has been carried out by the dedicated scientists and
    staff at SREL for the past 55 years. I wouldn't even know how to place
    a value on the body of research that has been produced at SREL, it
    certainly cannot be duplicated or replaced if this laboratory is
    shuttered.
        Instead of jeopardizing the future of valuable scientific assets
    with arbitrary and malicious budget cutting, the Department should be
    working to secure the future of these unique and valuable national
    assets that Dr. Odum foresaw these many years ago.
        Thanks again for letting me come before you today, and I'd be glad
    to answer any questions.

        Chairman Miller. And that time is a negative five minutes.
        It is not typically that Members ask questions of other
    Members, but actually I did ask questions of Mr. Hunter when he
    was here a couple weeks ago. Does any Member of the Committee
    have a question of Mr. Barrow?
        If not, Mr. Barrow, thank you very much, and I will not use
    the questions that I had going to the credibility of the
    witness.
        Our next panel we will receive the testimony of Dr. Ward
    Whicker, Professor of Radiological Health Science at Colorado
    State University. Professor Whicker, you can come forward now.
    Professor Whicker is regarded as one of the founders of the
    field of radioecology. He has had more than 98 articles
    published in peer-review journals. He is an honorary council
    member of the National Council of Radiation Protection and
    Measurements. He has also received the prestigious E.O.
    Lawrence Award in 1990, from the Department of Energy.
        And then the final witness, Professor Jerald Schnoor. If
    you could take your seat here. Dr. Schnoor is the Alan S. Henry
    Chair in Engineering at the University of Iowa. Dr. Schnoor is
    a member of the National Academy of Engineering, a member of
    the EPA Science Advisory Board. He is the editor in chief for
    the journal, Environmental Science and Technology.
        As our witnesses should know, your oral testimony, your
    spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, and the Chair may
    be a little more likely to enforce that than I was with respect
    to Mr. Barrow. And after that there will be questions from any
    Member of the Committee. It is our practice typically, except
    when we are dealing with one of our colleagues perhaps, to take
    testimony under oath. Do either of you have any objection to
    being sworn in, to swearing an oath?
        All right. You also have a right to be represented by
    Counsel. Are either of you represented by Counsel today?
        All right. And if you would please stand and raise your
    right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn]
        Chairman Miller. Dr. Schnoor, you may begin.

                                   Panel III:

       STATEMENT OF DR. JERALD L. SCHNOOR, PROFESSOR, CIVIL AND
     ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR GLOBAL AND
          REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

        Dr. Schnoor. Chairman Miller and Chairman Lampson, Ranking
    Member Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Inglis, and Subcommittee
    Members, I thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding
    the funding crisis facing the University of Georgia's Savannah
    River Ecology Laboratory located on the Department of Energy's
    Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina.
        As the Chairman said, my name is Jerry Schnoor. I am a
    professor at the University of Iowa and member of the National
    Academy of Engineering, and I serve on the U.S. EPA's Science
    Advisory Board.
        As Editor-in-Chief of the leading journal in the field,
    Environmental Science and Technology, I manage the peer review
    process for thousands of scientific papers which are submitted
    each year, including several from Savannah River Lab. One of my
    personal areas of research is groundwater and hazardous wastes
    remediation, especially phytoremediation. That is the use of
    plants to try to help clean the environment. It is a promising,
    long-term technology for some contamination problems at the
    Savannah River Site as well.
        I do not have any public or private research grants related
    to SREL stock or stock options held in publicly-traded or
    privately-owned companies, nor have I received any form of
    payment or compensation from any relevant entity connected with
    this testimony.
        Therefore, I hope and believe that I am qualified to
    testify about the quality and importance of the scientific
    research being performed at the Savannah River Lab and its
    relevance to DOE's strategic initiatives.
        The information I am providing is based largely on my
    professional interaction with SREL faculty and a visit to the
    laboratory, a review of the institution's publication and
    history, and other DOE documents that are readily available in
    the public record.
        Due to time constraints, greater detail and additional
    supporting information and documentation has been provided in
    my written testimony, and I ask that it be read into the
    record.
        Since its founding in 1951, SREL's research emphasis has
    constantly evolved to meet the changing needs of DOE and SRS in
    particular in my opinion, which is reflected in even a cursory
    review of SREL's scientific publications and their site
    reports.
        In response to a growing cost associated with environmental
    cleanups at DOD and DOE sites, the National Academy of Science
    has issued a report entitled, Groundwater and Soil Cleanup:
    Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants, by the
    National Research Council in 1999. In the report the committee
    clearly recognized the value of the Savannah River Ecology Lab,
    noting, ``Ecological risks are better characterized at the
    Savannah River Site than at other DOE installations, due in
    part to the designation of the site as a National Environmental
    Research Park and the presence of the Savannah River Ecology
    Laboratory.''
        Despite such praise, the discussion concerning the current
    funding crisis has directly called into question the technical
    expertise of the SREL faculty and indirectly the overall
    quality and relevance of its research.
        First, I want to address some misconceptions concerning the
    type of research conducted at SREL. Over the last decade or so
    there has been a clear shift in research emphasis at the lab
    with an increasing focus on contaminant fate and transport,
    largely in response to a more focused DOE cleanup mission. SREL
    faculty have demonstrated expertise in several active fields of
    research that are directly relevant to the Savannah River Site
    remediation efforts.
        In addition to the clear practical benefit, SREL's support
    for the SRS pump-and-treat system resulted in four refereed
    articles in ES&T, my journal, two in Vadose Zone Journal, one
    in Groundwater, and one in the Journal of Contaminant
    Hydrology. In addition, SREL researchers have developed three
    other patented technologies, including a system that combines
    both contaminant immobilization with phytoextraction, the use
    of plants. And they have submitted initial paperwork for an
    automated environmental monitoring system.
        The Savannah River Lab also plays an important role in the
    regulatory process by providing independent scientific
    credibility necessary for site management to propose and
    receive approval for alternative, cost-effective remediation
    strategies. In some instances SREL faculty have been asked to
    accompany site contractors to regulatory negotiations in case
    certain questions arise for which their technical expertise is
    required.
        Mr. Chairman, my candid overall opinion is that the
    Savannah River Ecology Laboratory is providing the DOE and the
    Nation with high quality research in a very cost effective
    manner. It has long been recognized as perhaps the foremost
    land in terrestrial ecology in the country, and in recent years
    it is performing extremely useful research related to the date,
    transport, effects, and remediation of chemical contaminants
    relevant to SRS.
        During the past 30 months alone, Savannah River Lab
    researchers have published eight rigorously peer-reviewed
    journals in ES&T, my journal, on nickel, uranium, mercury,
    radio-cesium, and lead, all important contaminants at the site.
    In light of these accomplishments, I strongly believe that
    SREL's funding should be continued. The survival of the
    Savannah River Ecology Lab as an independent academic
    institution on the Savannah River Site ensures that long-term
    management and remediation strategies and scenarios will be
    developed and implemented based on independent, verifiable
    science.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Schnoor follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Jerald L. Schnoor
        Chairman Miller and Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner,
    Ranking Member Inglis, and Subcommittee Members: I thank you for the
    opportunity to testify regarding the recent funding crisis facing the
    University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL),
    located on the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS), near
    Aiken, SC.
        My name is Jerry Schnoor. I am Professor of Civil and Environmental
    Engineering and Occupational and Environmental Health, and Co-Director
    of the Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research at the
    University of Iowa. I am also a member of the National Academy of
    Engineering, inaugurated in 1964 to provide technical advice to the
    Nation, and I serve on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
    Science Advisory Board (SAB). As Editor-in-Chief of the leading journal
    in the field, Environmental Science and Technology, I manage the peer-
    review process for thousands of scientific papers which are submitted
    each year, including several from SREL. One of my personal areas of
    research expertise is groundwater and hazardous wastes remediation,
    especially phytoremediation, the use of plants to help clean the
    environment, which remains a promising long-term technology for some
    contamination problems at the Savannah River Site. I do not have any
    public or private research grants related to SREL, stock or stock
    options held in publicly traded and privately owned companies, nor have
    I received any form of payment or compensation from any relevant entity
    connected with this testimony. Therefore, I believe I am qualified to
    testify about the quality and importance of the scientific research
    being performed at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and its
    relevance to DOE's Strategic Initiatives.
        The information I am providing is based largely on my professional
    interaction with SREL faculty and a visit to the laboratory, a review
    of the institution's publication history and the faculty's research
    accomplishments (available on UGA website), and other DOE documents
    that are readily available in the public record. Due to time
    constraints, greater detail and additional supporting documentation has
    been provided in my written testimony.
        Since it's founding in 1951, SREL's research emphasis has
    constantly evolved to meet the changing needs of DOE and the SRS in
    particular, which is reflected in even a cursory review of SREL's
    scientific publications and site reports. In response to the growing
    cost associated with environmental cleanup at DOE and DOD facilities,
    the National Academy of Sciences issued a report entitled ``Groundwater
    & Soil Cleanup: Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants'' (NRC,
    1999). In the report, the committee clearly recognized the value of
    SREL, noting:

             ``Ecological risks are better characterized at the Savannah
            River Site than any other DOE installation, due in part to the
            designation of the site as a national environmental research
            park and the presence of the Savannah River Ecology
            Laboratory.''

        Despite such praise, the discussion concerning the current funding
    crisis has directly called into question the technical expertise of the
    SREL faculty, and indirectly the overall quality and relevance of their
    research. First, I want to address some misconceptions concerning the
    type of research conducted by SREL. Over the last decade or so, there
    has been a clear shift in research emphasis at the lab with an
    increasing focus on contaminant fate and transport, largely in response
    to a more-focused DOE cleanup mission. SREL faculty have demonstrated
    expertise in several active fields of research that are directly
    relevant to SRS remediation efforts.
        In addition to the clear practical benefit, SREL's support for the
    SRS pump-and-treat system resulted in four refereed articles in ES&T,
    two in the Vadose Zone Journal, one in Groundwater, and one in the
    Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. In addition, SREL researchers have
    developed three other patented technologies, including a system that
    combines both contaminant immobilization with phytoextraction (U.S. No.
    6719822), and they have submitted initial paperwork for an automated
    environmental monitoring system. SREL also plays an important role in
    the regulatory process by providing the independent scientific
    credibility necessary for site management to propose and receive
    approval for alternate, cost-effective remediation strategies. In some
    instances SREL faculty have been asked to accompany site contractors to
    regulatory negotiations in case certain questions arise for which their
    technical expertise is required.
        My candid overall opinion is that the Savannah River Ecology
    Laboratory is providing the DOE and the Nation with high quality
    research in a very cost effective manner. It has long been recognized
    as perhaps the foremost laboratory in terrestrial ecology in the
    country, and in recent years it is performing extremely useful research
    related to the fate, transport, effects, and remediation of chemical
    contaminants relevant to SRS. During the past 30 months alone, SREL
    researchers have published eight rigorously peer-reviewed articles in
    ES&T on nickel, uranium, mercury, radio-cesium, and lead, all important
    contaminants at the site. (The references are listed at the end of this
    written testimony.) In light of these accomplishments, I strongly
    believe that SREL's funding should be continued. The survival of SREL
    as an independent academic institution on the SRS ensures that long-
    term management and remediation scenarios will be developed and
    implemented based on independent, verifiable science.
        DOE management in Washington may not be aware that SREL researchers
    have assisted in the choice, refinement, and even the implementation of
    several high-profile SRS remediation efforts. For example, SREL
    researchers actively supported the F- & H-Area pump-and-treat
    groundwater remediation system, the Mixed Waste Management Facility's
    (MWMF) tritium remediation system, the 488D Ash Basin reclamation, and
    reclamation and closure of the SRL basins to name a few. SREL research
    was used in designing the water treatment facility for the $120 million
    dollar F- and H-Area pump-and-treat operation. These efforts further
    led to the development of a patented pump-and-treat technology for
    enhancing the extraction of contaminants from aquifers (U.S. No.
    5,846,434).
        As documented in the latest renewal of the Cooperative Agreement,
    SREL research ``provides a further understanding of the environmental
    effects of SRS operations.'' More specifically, however, the
    Cooperative Agreement lists nine responsibilities in Appendix A,
    including the following (see the attached Appendix A from the Coop
    Agreement):

             SREL will assess the impact of site operations on the
            environment, and will continue to provide the public and DOE
            with an independent view of the environmental management of the
            SRS.

             SREL will continue basic and applied environmental research
            with emphasis upon expanding the understanding of ecological
            processes and principles, and upon evaluating the impacts of
            site activities, new missions, and land use practices on the
            environment.

             SREL will use the information collected in the environmental
            research to develop and test hypotheses that will contribute to
            the scientific foundation necessary to conduct meaningful
            ecological risk assessments and to understand the environmental
            consequences of energy technologies, remediation efforts and
            other SRS activities.

             SREL scientists will work closely with SRS personnel to assist
            DOE and other SRS contractors in making wise and informed
            decisions concerning land and facilities management. SREL will
            continue to publish its scientific findings in peer-reviewed
            scientific journals to aid the public and to assist DOE in
            making policy decisions by providing a basis of independent,
            verifiable science.

        Although SREL is well positioned to fulfill these responsibilities
    and more, one must note the inconsistency between the language of
    Appendix A and the assertion that all DOE funding will be provided only
    on a task-by-task basis based on ``mission critical'' needs in the
    current year. Two obvious questions quickly come to mind.

             How does DOE define mission critical needs?

             Through what process does DOE review SREL's research
            activities to determine if they are consistent with such needs?

        In preparing for today's testimony, I studied the research task
    matrix that DOE instructed SREL to provide for the FY07 ``funding
    review'' (see attachment), and compared it with the April 2007 Draft
    version of the DOE-Office of Environmental Management's Engineering &
    Technology Roadmap: Reducing Technical Risk and Uncertainty in the EM
    Program, which is available on the DOE-EM website (http://
    www.em.doe.gov/pages/emhome.aspx). As noted in the document's
    introduction (see attachment), the Technology Roadmap was developed by
    DOE-EM, Deputy Secretary for Engineering and Technology, Mark
    Gilbertson, under Congressional direction within the FY 2007 House
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Report to identify
    technology gaps and develop a strategy for funding proposals that
    address such needs.
        It is clear that several ongoing SREL research programs (e.g.,
    support for the tritium phytoremediation facility and characterization
    of grouts and other engineered waste isolation materials) and the
    proposed research tasks included in the task matrix, indeed, directly
    address many of the strategic initiatives identified in the DOE-EM
    Technology Roadmap.
        The local public's response to the SREL funding crisis is
    indicative of the areas general support for DOE activities, a support
    that I contend has been fostered by SREL's presence on the site since
    it was established in the 1950s. Given this support, I want to draw
    attention to the general consistency between the DOE-EM Technology
    Roadmap and the NRC report drafted almost ten years earlier. Both
    documents clearly indicate that we lack the technical expertise
    required for the safe and cost-effective cleanup of the legacy wastes
    and facilities in the DOE complex. As the Roadmap notes:

             ``. . . the remaining [cleanup] challenges will require a
            strong and responsive applied research and engineering
            program.''

        Although considerable progress has been made in the last decade,
    the DOE-EM Roadmap acknowledges that numerous challenges remain.
    However, environmental research over the last two decades indicates
    that following some initial intervention, like removing the pollutant
    source, many environmentally degraded systems will recover through
    natural biogeochemical processes, an observation that forms the basis
    for the widely adopted concept of Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA).
    Furthermore, adopting a costly, highly invasive remediation strategy
    can result in ecosystem disruption that is far worse than the original
    contamination. It is my opinion that SREL's presence on the SRS has
    easily resulted in continued DOE cost savings that far outweigh the
    institutions annual operating budget.
        Despite the apparent disconnect with respect to DOE-HQ's perception
    of SREL expertise, there are additional reasons for DOE to reinstate
    SREL's long-term funding. In contrast to the primary site contractors
    that must focus on more immediate management and remediation deadlines,
    often dictated by regulatory agreements, SREL's academic independence
    allows scientists to focus on more long-term remediation and
    stewardship concerns so that the required background information is
    available to support responsible decision-making now and in the future.
        Research institutions like SREL are largely evaluated based on
    publication record and external grants. Despite the recent loss of
    several faculty positions due to budget cuts, SREL has averaged 85
    refereed publications a year for the last six years, which is a very
    good rate of scientific productivity considering SREL's number of full-
    time faculty and the declining budget situation. Earlier this year SREL
    reached a significant milestone with the publication of the 3,000th
    peer reviewed article. Since 1991 alone, SREL researchers have
    published 44 articles in ES&T, a journal ranked #1 in total citations
    and articles published out of 140 journals in the field of
    environmental sciences, and #4 in Impact Factor, a measure of the
    relative number of times a specific manuscript within a journal is
    cited. Even a cursory review of the article titles verifies that they
    are directly relevant to our understanding of the fate, transport,
    ecological impact, and remediation of contaminants on the SRS,
    including major contaminants of concern (COC) such as chromium,
    uranium, plutonium, cesium, tritium, and chlorinated solvents, such as
    TCE and PCE, to name a few. The same is true of the work published in
    other journals as well.
        Any summary of faculty accomplishments is sure to overlook numerous
    outstanding contributions, and so I encourage the committee to review
    the concise two-page CV's, typical of the format that is submitted with
    funding proposal, that have been attached to my written testimony.
    However, a few specific examples are worth noting that are relevant to
    the current discussion. SREL researchers have served as Associate
    Editors for the Journal of Environmental Quality, the Soil Science
    Society of America Journal, and Water Air and Soil Pollution. Members
    of the SREL faculty regularly provide scientific reviews of manuscripts
    submitted to ES&T and other scientific journals. Dr. Lee Newman is the
    Editor of the International Journal of Phytoremediation. A recent
    publication in Geochemical Transactions by Dr. A. Neal et al., (2007)
    was recognized as the most accessed paper for June 2007 and is the
    eighth most accessed for all time in the journal. Another publication
    by Neal, Rosso, Geesey, et al. (2003) was listed in top 25 most
    downloaded papers for 2003-2004 in Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta. These
    accomplishments are evidence of a vibrant and productive faculty who
    are publishing articles of high impact in the best journals in the
    world.
        Recently, Dr. John Seaman served as the guest editor for a special
    edition of the Vadose Zone Journal showcasing remediation activities at
    the SRS, and he co-authored with Drs. Mary Harris and Brian Looney of
    SRNL the introductory article entitled ``Research in support of
    remediation activities at the Savannah River Site,'' which highlighted
    collaborative research activities of SREL, SRNL, the U.S.-Forest
    Service, and other universities in addressing DOE needs. Furthermore,
    SREL research activities in support of SRS cleanup were also recently
    highlighted in several submissions to a special SRS edition of
    Environmental Geosciences. Representative from SREL have served as
    technical advisors to the Citizen's Advisory Board (CAB), a local
    independent organization established by DOE to provide local
    stakeholder input regarding operations and environmental issues
    associated with the SRS.
        In summary, SREL research activities clearly support DOE's ongoing
    site remediation and long-term stewardship goals. The lab's presence
    fosters a more open dialogue that promotes stakeholder consensus when
    choosing an eventual course of action with respect to federal lands and
    resources. As demonstrated in the past, SREL's research efforts can
    reduce the long-term cost associated with site management and cleanup,
    lessen the public's anxiety concerning possible health risks associated
    with continued site operation, improve our fundamental understanding of
    subsurface processes that can be applied to other impacted sites, both
    government and commercial facilities, and prevent or greatly lessen the
    possible impact of future site activities on the environment and the
    surrounding public. The quality of SREL's science, the faculty's
    research productivity, and the relevance of the science to the DOE and
    SRS argues strongly for continued funding of the laboratory.

    Appendices:

    DOE-EM Technology Roadmap (April 2007 Draft)

    SREL FY07 Funding Matrix

    UGA Cooperative Agreement Appendix A

    Two Page Summary CVs for each SREL Faculty member

    References

    Van Nostrand, J.D., Khijniak, T.J., Neely, B., Abdus Sattar, M.,
            Sowder, A.G., Mills, G., Bertsch, P.M., Morris, P.J. (2007).
            Reduction of nickel and uranium toxicity and enhanced
            trichloroethylene degradation to Burhholderia vietnamiensis
            PR1301 with hydroxyapatite amendment. Environ. Sci.
            Technol. 41:1877-1882.

    Unrine, J.M. Jackson, B.P., Hopkins, W.A. (2007). Selenomethionine
            biotransforamtion and incorporation into proteins along a
            simulated terrestrial food chain. Environ. Sci. Technol.
            41:3601-3606.

    Rodriguez-Navarro, A.B., Romanek, C.S., Alvarez-Lloret, P., Gaines,
            K.F. (2006). Effect of in ovo exposure to PCBs and Hg on
            Clapper Rail bone mineral chemistry from a contaminated salt
            marsh in coastal Georgia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:4936-4942.

    Hinton, T.G., Kaplan, D.I., Knoz, A.S., Coughlin, D.P., Nascimento,
            R.V., Watson, S.I., Fletcher, D.E., Koo, B-J. (2006). Use of
            illite clay for in situ remediation 137Cs-
            contaminated water bodies: field demonstration of reduced
            biological uptake. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:4500-4505.

    Jackson, B.P., Williams, P.L., Lanzirotti, A., Bertsch, P.M. (2005).
            Evidence for biogenic pyromorphite formation by the nematord
            Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:5620-5625.

    Shaw-Allen, P.L., Romanek, C.S., Bryan, A.L. Jr., Brant, H., Jagoe,
            C.H. (2005). Shifts in relative tissue del15N values
            in snowy egret nestlings with dietary mercury exposure: a
            marker for increased protein degradation. Environ. Sci.
            Technol. 39:4226-4233.

    Stepanauskas, R., Glenn, T.C., Jagoe, C.H., Tuckfield, R.C., LIndell,
            A.H., McArthur, J.V. (2005). Elevated microbial tolerance to
            metals and antibiotics in metal-contaminated industrial
            environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:3671-3678.

    Jackson, B.P., Ranville, J.F., Bertsch, P.M., Sowder, A.G. (2005).
            Characterization of colloidal and humic-bound Ni and U in the
            ``dissolved'' fraction of contaminated sediment extracts.
            Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:2478-2485.

                        Biography for Jerald L. Schnoor

    (i) Professional Preparation

    Iowa State University, Chemical Engineering, B.S. 1972

    University of Texas, Environmental Health Engineering, M.S. 1974

    University of Texas, Civil Engineering, Ph.D. 1975

    Manhattan College, Environmental Modeling (postdoc), 1976

    (ii) Appointments

    2002-present--Allen S. Henry Chair Professor of Engineering, University
            of Iowa

    1990-present--Co-Director, Center for Global and Regional Environmental
            Research, University of Iowa

    1985-1990--Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
            University of Iowa

    1983-present--Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
            Engineering, University of Iowa

    1980-1983--Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
            Engineering, University of Iowa

    1977-1980--Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
            Engineering, University of Iowa

    (iii) 5 Publications (selected from 150 journal articles, 6 books, 3
                        patents)

    Boulanger, B., J. Vargo, J.L. Schnoor, and K.C. Hornbuckle. ``Detection
            of Perfluorooctant Surfactants in Great Lakes Water.''
            Environmental Science & Technology, 38(15), 4064-4070, 2004.

    Boulanger, B., A.M. Peck, J.L. Schnoor, and K.C. Hornbuckle. ``Mass
            Budget of Perfluorooctane Surfactant in Lake Ontario.''
            Environmental Science & Technology, 39(1), 74-79, 2005.

    McCutcheon, S.C., and J.L. Schnoor, Eds. 2003. Phytoremediation--
            Transformation and Control of Contaminants. New York: John
            Wiley & Sons. 987 pp.

    Mihelcic, J.R., J.C. Crittenden, M.J. Small, D.R. Shonnard, D.R.
            Hokanson, Q. Zhang, H. Chen, S.A. Sorby, V.U. James, J.W.
            Sutherland, and J.L. Schnoor. ``Sustainability Science and
            Engineering: The Emergence of a New Metadiscipline.''
            Environmental Science & Technology, 37(23), 5314-5324, 2003.

    Schnoor, J.L. 1996. Environmental Modeling: Fate and Transport of
            Pollutants in Water, Air, and Soil. New York: Wiley
            Interscience, 682 pp.

    (iv) Synergistic Activities

    1.  Editor-in-Chief, Environmental Science & Technology, 2003-present

    2.  U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 2006-

    3.  Chair, National Research Council Colloquium, Water Implications of
    Biofuels, 2007

    4.  National Research Council, Water Science and Technology Board,
    2000-2005

    5.  Chair, U.S. EPA ORD, Board of Scientific Counselors, 2000-2004

    6.  Distinguished lectureships:

            -  Walter J. Weber Jr. Distinguished Lecturer, University of
            Michigan, 2004

            -  Soil Science Society of America Honorary Lecturer, Soils and
            Environmental Quality, 2004

            -  Henske Distinguished Lecturer Award, Yale University, 2000

            -  Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer, 1999-2000

            -  Association of Environmental Engineering Professors
            Distinguished Lecturer, 1998

            -  Presidential Lecturer, University of Iowa, 1996

    7.  Awards:

            -  Paper of the Year 2005, Award for Integration of Human and
            Ecological Risk Assessment, HERA Human and Ecological Risk
            Assessment, An International Journal

            -  Soil Science Society of America, Soils and Environmental
            Quality, Honorary Lecturer, 2004

            -  National Academy of Engineering, member, elected 1999-
            present

            -  Best Theoretical Paper Award, Environmental Water Resources
            Institute, ASCE, 2004

            -  Hancher-Finkbine Medallion, University of Iowa, 2000

            -  Rudolph Hering Medal, American Society of Civil Engineers,
            1998

            -  Distinguished Fellow Award, Iowa Academy of Science, 1996

            -  Walter L. Huber Research Prize, American Society of Civil
            Engineers, 1985

    (v) Collaborators & Other Affiliations

    (a) Collaborators: Pedro Alvarez, Gregory R. Carmichael, John
            Crittenden, Larry Erickson, Charles Haas, Keri C. Hornbuckle,
            Peter Jaffe, Craig Just, Steve McCutcheon, James Merchant,
            Barbara Minsker, Kenneth Moore, Tatsuaki Nakato, Richard Ney,
            Gene Parkin, Gary Pierzynski, John Rosazza, Michelle Scherer,
            Ming-Che Shih, Mitchell Small, Peter Thorne, Richard Valentine,
            Benoit Van Aken

    (b) Graduate and Postgraduate Advisees: Eric Aitchison, Bryan
            Boulanger, Joel G. Burken, Annette Dietz, Africa Espina,
            Claudia Espinosa, Sumeet Gandhi, Kirk Hatfield, Shan He, Brad
            Helland, James Jordahl, Roopa Kamath, Sara Kelley, Thorjorn
            Larssen, Sijin Lee, Louis A. Licht, Malva Mancuso, Drew C.
            McAvoy, Sara McMillan, Melissa Mezzari, Nikolaos Nikolaidis,
            Deborah O'Bannon, Kurtis Paterson, Kimberly Precht, Jeremy
            Rentz, Sanjay Singhvi, Philip L. Thompson, Benoit Van Aken,
            John Veenstra, Mark Wiesner, Jong Moon Yoon, Bryan Young

    (c) Graduate and Postgraduate Advisors: E. Gus Fruh (deceased), Donald
            J. O'Connor (deceased), Werner Stumm (deceased)

    (vi) Current and Pending Support

              Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research
            (CGRER), Source of Support: Iowa Department of Commerce, 12/1/
            2007--on going, $600,000 per year.

              Sensors for CyberEngineering: Monitoring and Modeling
            the Iowa River for Nutrients and Sediments, Source of Support:
            Iowa Water Center (ISU) and U of Iowa matching, 3/1/2005-2/28/
            2007, $109,378.

              CLEANER/WATERS Project Office, Source of Support:
            University of Illinois (UIUC) and NCSA, 7/1/2005-6/30/2008,
            $3,000,000 total (subcontract $400,000 to UI-Schnoor).

              Phytoremediation for the Containment and Treatment of
            Energetic and Propellant Materials on Testing and Training
            Ranges, Source of Support: SERDP (DOD), 9/1/2005-8/31/2008,
            $729,975.

              Superfund Basic Research Program, ``Effects of
            Airborne PCBs,'' Project #5 Schnoor P.I., Source of Support:
            NIEHS, 5/1/2006-9/30/2010, $750,000.

        Chairman Miller. Dr. Whicker.

       STATEMENT OF DR. F. WARD WHICKER, PROFESSOR, RADIOLOGICAL
               HEALTH SCIENCES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Whicker. This is supposed to advance, but it is not
    advancing. Okay. I am a professor emeritus at Colorado State
    University. I have been in the business of doing radioecology
    teaching and research for about 45 years now. My familiarity
    with the Savannah River Ecology Lab stems from spending three
    years there doing research on my own full-time, and I have had
    a number of graduate students that have done their research
    there for their dissertations and theses.
        I think in the interest of time I will come back to this
    one. The importance of the Savannah River Site environment is
    important to recognize both scientifically as well as in other
    areas, educationally and so forth. The upper left slide is an
    aerial view of the Savannah River Site taken from a satellite.
    It shows mostly green surrounded by farmland and some
    urbanization. The large reservoir on the right hand of that
    green blob is our pond, which I am going to come back to in a
    moment.
        But when you are there as a scientist working, you would
    almost think that you are you in a national park. It has a
    tremendously diverse wildlife and as many people have said, it
    has been a National Environmental Research Park since about
    1972. These and many other species live there, and they are
    exposed to contaminants that have resulted from releases from
    the nuclear reactors and other industrial activities at the
    site.
        One of the main issues and things that the laboratory,
    Savannah River Laboratory can do is that they can get involved
    in the question about cleanup. The key to this is determining
    whether cleanup is really needed at all, not necessarily how to
    do it, unless it is important to do it. This requires risk
    analysis and the sciences which underpin the risk analysis.
        Cleanup costs, if you plot the level of contamination
    versus cost, you have two distinct thresholds. The biggest one
    of which is when you decide to have engineered cleanup. At that
    point the costs go up by many orders of magnitude, and the SREL
    science applies directly to that.
        I want to give you a case history if I can of Par Pond,
    because this is, I think, an example that really speaks to the
    value of the laboratory. This is a large impoundment created
    for cooling reactors. It operated for about 30 years, and then
    it was shut down in 1988, because the reactors were shut down,
    but the reservoir was still there. However, there were some
    leaks in the dam, and they decided that they needed to figure
    out what to do.
        In order to reduce risk in case the dam should fail, they
    dropped the lake level 20 feet. This exposed cesium-137
    contamination led to designation under CERCLA\1\ that something
    had to be done. This required a management decision. Yet there
    were several alternatives of how to treat this ranging from
    draining the reservoir and breaching the dam and repairing the
    dam and refilling the reservoir to contain the contaminants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ CERCLA: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
    and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Risk assessment, one risk assessment was done by an outside
    firm. It was a paper assessment that said that it would be okay
    for somebody to farm the land, but SREL research showed this
    not to be the case based upon actual data. It basically showed
    that cesium-137 has extremely high plant uptake and that moves
    into the food chain, and it would produce a lifetime risk to
    somebody living there that would exceed the EPA guideline of
    one chance in 10,000 of getting a cancer some time in your
    lifetime. So that was not an acceptable option.
        The two remaining options were to fix the sediments in
    place or to excavate it. There was no feasible way at the time
    to fix it in place, and so one looked carefully at excavation,
    and the cost of excavation of this reservoir was going to be $4
    billion, at least. So we came down to the best option to repair
    the dam and fill the reservoir at a cost of about $12 million.
    This is less than one percent of the excavation.
        Then the question arose is what about the health and of
    humans and ecological impacts of allowing this contaminated
    reservoir even to exist. Well, the SREL research demonstrated
    that radiation dose rates to plants and animals were well below
    the applicable DOE standards. The radiation health risks for
    hypothetical sport fisherman or hunter would be well below EPA
    standards, and there would be essentially no risk to other
    people using the reservoir.
        Also, from many years and decades of research on the
    reservoir, there was never any clear evidence of ecological
    impacts from either radiation or chemicals, and so that gave
    one comfort that the radioactivity there was just there, it
    could be measured, but it wasn't causing any ecological damage.
        The outcome was that they did, in fact, repair the dam and
    refill the pond. It was essentially recovered in about five
    years. Over $4 billion was saved from this decision. The
    research that was done to lead to this outcome cost about
    $200,000 or 800 times less than the cost of that of dredging.
        In conclusion, I see I am out of time, SREL should be
    funded, and I think even expanded as an independent scientific
    organization. In fact, the SREL research has saved the
    Government more money than it has received. This Par Pond
    example I think proves that notion.
        A number of these other points have been made by others.
    Let us see if there is any here I should state. I guess down to
    the very bottom line. The funding required to maintain the
    infrastructure is relatively trivial. The cost of not restoring
    this funding, I think the costs of that are going to be
    extremely high.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Whicker follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of F. Ward Whicker
        I have been a member of the faculty at Colorado State University
    (CSU) for about 45 years. I retired from full-time duty about two years
    ago, but continue to teach and conduct research as a part-time,
    temporary employee. My field of teaching and research is called
    ``radioecology'' which deals with natural and man-made radioactivity in
    the environment, the movement and accumulation of radioactive materials
    through the environment and food chains, the effects of radiation on
    plants and animals, and the assessment of health risks to people
    exposed to environmental radioactivity. Teaching, research and service
    have been the primary duties assigned to me at CSU, but I also served
    as Head of the Department of Radiological Health Sciences from 1998 to
    2002. I have had a number of national and international assignments
    outside of the university over my career and these are briefly
    summarized in my biographical sketch that accompanies this document.
        I have considerable experience working with scientists at the
    Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), and spent three years (1982,
    1991 and 1992) there conducting full-time research. I also mentored 13
    graduate students from CSU who each conducted research projects at SREL
    over the last 30 years or so. Most of my work at SREL has dealt with
    the distribution and transport of radioactive contaminants in reactor
    cooling reservoirs located on the Savannah River Site (SRS). I also
    spent considerable effort conducting human health risk assessments for
    various management options of a large, radioactively-contaminated
    reservoir (Par Pond), which had finished serving its main purpose of
    cooling hot water from P and R reactors, and which had shown leakage
    and internal erosion of the dam. I maintain an informal scientific
    collaboration with Dr. Thomas Hinton, a radioecologist at SREL, but
    have no financial interest with the laboratory nor with any other
    organization at the SRS.
        My testimony today is intended to provide my personal assessment of
    the overall value of SREL to the Department of Energy and to science
    and society in general. The main points I will attempt to make include
    the following:

              The SRS has enormous ecological, scientific and
            educational value, in addition to its nationally important
            programs related to defense, and potential programs related to
            sustainable energy development.

              There will be a need for environmental assessments at
            the SRS into the foreseeable future while the government
            conducts various programs there in the national interest. These
            programs may include national defense, nuclear fuel
            fabrication, energy research and production, remediation
            technologies, etc.

              Portions of this site may be ecologically-threatened
            by scientifically unwarranted remediation, privatization or new
            programs that may be ecologically damaging.

              SREL has and can continue to play a critical role at
            the SRS by providing objective, independent science that
            contributes information that is vital to decisions on
            remediation, land management, stewardship and environmental
            assessments of site activities. SREL research can
            simultaneously spare valuable ecosystems and save large sums of
            federal money.

              SREL has a very impressive track record for cost
            effective, credible research. Unlike some DOE-sponsored
            laboratories, SREL is a University of Georgia organization that
            publishes nearly all of its work in peer-reviewed scientific
            journals without censorship by DOE or other governmentally-
            affiliated organizations.

              Unique opportunities remain for education (K-12,
            college, graduate levels and the general public) through SREL
            outreach programs at the SRS. These opportunities range from
            basic biology, ecology and numerous environmental sciences to
            fields with direct application to Site activities such as
            remediation technology, risk assessment, toxicology,
            radioecology and geochemistry.

        The SRS encompasses over 300 square miles, approximately 85 percent
    of which is relatively pristine forest lands and aquatic ecosystems
    (streams, ponds and wetlands). Only about 15 percent of the land area
    has been developed for roads, parking lots, utility lines and
    industrial structures. The undeveloped land and waters essentially
    serve as a large buffer zone that protects the public from potential
    accidents or routine activities that could release radioactive and
    chemical contaminants to the environment. The buffer zone concept has
    functioned extremely well, and only very minor amounts of contamination
    have reached the lands and waterways that surround the SRS. A satellite
    view of the SRS clearly shows a roughly circular area of green forest
    surrounded by farmland and otherwise developed land. The SRS buffer
    zone provides a very rich and diverse flora and fauna that flourishes
    in the absence of significant human impact. This landscape provides
    enhanced air and water quality, not only within the boundaries of the
    SRS, but also in the surrounding landscape. The SRS serves not only as
    a sanctuary for fish and wildlife, but also as a nursery for plants and
    animals that can migrate outside the boundaries of the site, enhancing
    the environmental quality of surrounding areas.
        Scientifically, the SRS is of tremendous value because of its
    largely undeveloped nature and the fact that it is protected from
    unauthorized human intrusion. This situation provides extremely rare
    opportunities to study ecosystems that are not impacted by human
    activities, and those that may be impacted to various degrees by
    physical, chemical and radiological agents resulting from site
    operations. This situation led to the designation of a large portion
    (nearly 200,000 acres) of the SRS in 1972 as a National Environmental
    Research Park. The SREL has a distinguished history of over 50 years of
    existence on the SRS and has provided a tremendous body of knowledge
    that has contributed to Site operations, science in general, and public
    education.
        Much of the DOE budget in the past 15 years or so has been devoted
    to environmental cleanup, or remediation, of radioactively/chemically-
    contaminated lands. Because most residual, long-lived radionuclides
    such as cesium-137 and plutonium-239 adhere very strongly to soil
    particles, their removal from contaminated areas by necessity involves
    removal of the soil or sediment in which the contamination is located.
    Thus, most cleanup methods require removal of topsoils on land and
    sediments in streams and impoundments. The volumes of contaminated soil
    or sediment can be enormous, and the material needs to be excavated and
    transported to a disposal location elsewhere. This process is not only
    extremely costly; it also damages the ecosystem that may be
    contaminated but is otherwise healthy, and it unavoidably leads to
    damage to the area designated for disposal of the material (see
    attached article: ``Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites,''
    Science 303: 1615-1616 (March 2004)). There have been various DOE
    estimates of the total cost of such remediation activities, and most
    have been in the range of 100 to 500 billion dollars. As of about 2003,
    over $60 billion had been spent on remediation. In many cases,
    scientific risk assessments supporting the decision to remediate have
    been done poorly, and sometimes not done at all. Clearly, much of the
    soil remediation completed in the DOE complex has not actually reduced
    real health risks to real people. Instead, they have possibly reduced
    future risks to hypothetical people assumed to use the land in very
    unrealistic ways. Actually, the cleanup process itself produces risks
    to cleanup workers, and it has also caused spreading of otherwise
    stable contamination (Science 303: 1615-1616 (March 2004) ).
        I believe that the only objective and quantifiable way to determine
    the necessity of cleanup of contaminated areas is a rigorous,
    scientific assessment of the human health and ecological risks of
    proceeding with engineered cleanup, and comparing the results with the
    same risks of simply protecting and monitoring the area involved. It
    costs somewhat more to isolate and monitor a contaminated area than to
    just ignore it, but proceeding with aggressive, engineered soil removal
    escalates the costs by several orders of magnitude. The risks resulting
    from leaving contaminated soil or sediment in place generally increases
    in proportion to the level of contamination, so it is critical to
    carefully measure and document the levels of each identifiable
    contaminant in the area of concern as a first step in determining what
    action, if any, to take. The second action is to use science-based
    methods of assessing the human health and ecological risks from such
    documented levels of contamination. If the risks resulting from leaving
    contamination in place are sufficiently low, and if the costs of, and
    damage from, cleanup are sufficiently high, then it is difficult to
    justify action to remediate. The SREL is ideally poised to continue the
    science needed to make such decisions at the SRS. Just as importantly,
    SREL has the necessary credibility with the public and the regulatory
    agencies to have their findings trusted and used in the decision-making
    process.
        It seems instructive at this point to summarize an actual case
    study at the SRS that involved choosing between alternative approaches
    to managing a contamination situation that required relatively urgent
    action. The case study involved Par Pond, a 2,600 acre impoundment that
    was used for about 30 years to cool hot water from the P and R military
    production reactors. The reactors were shut down permanently by 1988,
    so the reservoir was no longer needed for the purpose of cooling. In
    1991, there were signs that the dam which created the reservoir was
    beginning to erode internally and starting to leak. As a safety
    precaution for people living downstream, the water level was lowered by
    about 20 feet, which exposed approximately 50 percent of the area of
    bottom sediments. The sediments in the reservoir had accumulated
    radioactive contamination during various periods of reactor operations,
    but most came from leaking fuel elements in R reactor in the late 1950s
    and early 1960s. The primary contaminant was cesium-137, a radionuclide
    with a 30 year half life that tends to be mobile in local ecosystems
    and which readily accumulates in plants, animals, and potentially in
    people.
        This situation led to the need to examine alternatives for managing
    Par Pond and its lakebed. On the one hand, the levels of cesium-137
    were sufficiently high to generate concern about protecting
    hypothetical people in the future who might use the area to grow crops,
    or people who might consume fish living in the reservoir. On the other
    hand, the 30 year stability and unexploited nature of the reservoir
    allowed the natural development of 30 shoreline miles of rich wetland/
    littoral vegetation, a diverse and productive fishery that attracted
    bald eagles and osprey, American alligators, turtles and other
    wildlife. It also attracted thousands of waterfowl that found sanctuary
    from hunters during the winter months. In essence, Par Pond had become
    a large fish and wildlife refuge of exceptional quality. It was often
    referred to as one of the ``crown jewels'' of the many different and
    exceptional ecosystems of the SRS. Clearly, remediation of the
    reservoir would destroy this entire ecosystem.
        The Par Pond situation did not escape the attention of the
    regulatory agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared
    the exposed lakebed a CERCLA or ``Superfund'' site, a designation which
    imposes a defined protocol for assessing all feasible alternatives for
    managing the site. The main alternative strategies that were developed
    and studied included:

            1.  Draining, breaching the dam, and converting the lakebed to
            forest or other vegetation cover,

            2.  Draining, breaching the dam, and excavating and removing
            the sediments,

            3.  Draining and attempting to fix the sediments in place, and

            4.  Repairing the dam and refilling the reservoir to cover the
            137Cs-contaminated sediments.

        Option 1 initially looked feasible, and a generic, ``paper'' risk
    assessment by a non-SRS affiliated laboratory suggested acceptable
    risks for a hypothetical self-sufficient site resident who farmed the
    lakebed and subsisted on foods grown there. However, SREL research by
    scientists who made actual measurements on the lakebed contradicted the
    earlier study. Site-specific research showed the 137Cs to be
    taken up by food crops to a much greater extent than did the generic
    ``paper'' risk assessment, leading to a hypothetical risk that could
    exceed the EPA-unacceptable threshold of 10-4 by a factor of about 30.
    The 10-4 threshold means a one chance in 10,000 of getting fatal cancer
    from the exposure to radiation. This meant that Option 1 was an
    unacceptable management strategy.
        Option 3, fixing the 137Cs in place was not considered
    feasible, due to unproven technologies for doing so, and very high
    costs. That left Options 2 and 4 for further consideration. Option 4,
    repairing the dam and refilling the reservoir initially looked
    unfavorable due to the cost, estimated at 10-15 million dollars.
    However, when Option 2, excavating and transporting the sediments
    elsewhere was examined, the cost estimate exceeded 4 billion dollars!
    Furthermore, Option 2 would have destroyed the Par Pond ecosystem and
    would have created serious water quality problems downstream due to
    erosion of sediments before the soil became stabilized with vegetation.
    At this point, Option 4 appeared to be the best solution, but then the
    question arose as to the effects of the 137Cs radiation
    exposure to plants, animals, and hypothetical fishermen who might
    consume fish from the reservoir. Again, SREL research and assessment
    provided the answers. The radiation dose rates to plants and animals
    living in Par Pond would be well under the DOE protection guidelines
    (0.1 or 1.0 rad/day, depending on species), and the risk to the
    hypothetical fisherman consuming fish from the reservoir would also be
    under the EPA risk guideline of 10-4. Furthermore, decades of SREL
    research on the Par Pond biota showed no indication of radiation
    effects. On the contrary, the plants and animals living in the
    reservoir were diverse, robust and self-sustaining.
        In the end, the decision was made to pursue Option 4, repairing the
    dam and refilling the reservoir. The dam repair and enhancement was
    completed at a cost of about 12 million dollars. The reservoir was
    refilled and the ecosystem was almost fully recovered within about five
    years. The cost to repair the dam was less than one percent of the cost
    of Option 2, engineered cleanup. The cost for the SREL research which
    supported Option 4 was approximately $200,000, or at least 800 times
    less than the cost of engineered sediment removal. A final way in which
    SREL contributed to this sensible decision was to provide tours of Par
    Pond for personnel affiliated with State and federal regulatory
    agencies. Actually seeing the ecosystem in person and talking with
    scientists having first-hand knowledge gave key people a far different
    impression than just reviewing piles of documents. I believe that this
    kind of success story can be repeated many times over in the future,
    leading to preservation of ecologically-valuable areas and saving large
    sums of money as well. However, a decision such as this requires
    detailed scientific information directly relevant to the problem, and
    the information needs to be generated by an independent, credible
    laboratory. SREL is that kind of laboratory.
        In conclusion, I believe the following points are true and relevant
    to the current funding crisis for the SREL:

              The SRS is of great social, ecological, scientific
            and educational value. SREL should be funded to continue and
            even expand its role as an independent scientific organization
            that plays a key role in the long-term stewardship of the SRS.

              SREL research has saved the government far more money
            than it has received. The Par Pond example alone proves this
            notion.

              SREL research over the last 50 years has demonstrated
            time and again how nuclear activities can be compatible with a
            high degree of environmental quality.

              SREL's work is credible to other scientists,
            regulators and the general public because it is an independent
            scientific/academic organization with an excellent reputation
            for integrity, high-quality work, productivity and educational
            outreach activities.

              Some of the SREL research will be essential to the
            generation of public and political support for commercial
            nuclear power, which is expected to be a significant part of
            the solution to our over-dependence on foreign oil and global
            warming.

              In terms of cost per scientific publication, the SREL
            has been one of the most, if not the most, cost-efficient
            environmental research laboratory in the DOE complex.

              Largely as a result of SREL research, the SRS is
            probably the most well-characterized site in the DOE complex.
            This will continue to save time and resources in the planning
            process for new missions and providing required environmental
            regulatory documents, if SREL's ``corporate knowledge'' is
            retained through restored funding.

              SREL provides training unique to environmental
            problems of military and industrial sites. Students and
            visiting faculty from colleges in every state have come to SREL
            for hands-on experience. Few, if any, other sites in the DOE
            complex can offer this kind of training in a truly academic
            atmosphere.

              The funding needed to maintain the infrastructure of
            SREL is relatively trivial, while the costs of shutting it down
            are not.

        I fully believe that shutting down the SREL is a serious mistake
    that is not in the national best interest. I sincerely hope that this
    is realized before it is too late, and that funding for the laboratory
    can be restored.

                         Biography for F. Ward Whicker
        Dr. Whicker has been a member of the CSU faculty since 1965 and,
    from 1998-2002, Head of the Department of Radiological Health Sciences.
    He played the key role in the development of the internationally-
    recognized graduate program in Radioecology, and is widely regarded as
    one of the founders of this field, which addresses the fate and effects
    of radioactivity in the environment. His formal teaching extends beyond
    CSU to numerous organizations, including the International Atomic
    Energy Agency, the International Union of Radioecologists, and the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. In 1989 he established the Par Pond
    Radioecology Laboratory at the Savannah River Site. His over 170
    scientific publications include 98 in peer-reviewed journals, 33 book
    chapters and five books. His awards include the ``E.O. Lawrence Award''
    from the Department of Energy (1990), the ``Distinguished Scientific
    Achievement Award'' from the Health Physics Society (2004), and the
    ``V.I. Vernadsky Award'' from the International Union of Radioecology
    (2005). His research on the effects of ionizing radiation on plants and
    animals has contributed to the development of national and
    international standards and guidelines for protecting the general
    environment from radioactive contamination. Dr. Whicker has served on
    many committees and advisory panels at national and international
    levels. These include the Board of Directors, Scientific Vice
    President, Honorary Council Member, and Member or Chair of several
    committees of the National Council on Radiation Protection and
    Measurements. He has served on Committees of the National Academy of
    Science/National Research Council in the area of environmental problems
    of the DOE Weapons Complex. He has chaired national and international
    working groups and scientific writing teams, for example, for the
    International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Commission on
    Radiation Units and Measurements, and the National Council on Radiation
    Protection and Measurements. He has served on review panels for many
    organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
    Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention, the States of Colorado and Maine, the Office of
    Naval Research, Sandia National Laboratory, Battelle-Pacific Northwest
    Laboratory, and the Southwest Research Institute. He has consulted for
    many private organizations and has served as an expert witness on
    numerous litigation issues concerning radioactivity in the environment.
    He served four years as Associate Editor for the Americas for the
    Journal of Environmental Radioactivity.

                                   Discussion

        Chairman Miller. Thank you. At this point we will open our
    first round of questions, and the Chair recognizes himself for
    five minutes.

                          Private Contractors Vs. SREL

        First, Dr. Whicker, your example of remediation at Par
    Pond, could a contractor have provided similar information to
    support the option of remediation in place as opposed to
    excavation?
        Dr. Whicker. They could not have come in and done the job
    very quickly. One of the key things was that the observation of
    fish and wildlife in that reservoir had been going on for
    decades, and the radioactivity had been there for decades. It
    was gradually decaying. If there were going to be effects, it
    probably would have occurred 30 or 40 years ago. So, no, I
    don't think a private contractor could come in and do the job
    properly.
        There was a risk assessment done by a private contractor on
    what the risks would be of farming the lake bed and someone
    living on the lake bed. They are the ones that came up doing a
    paper study with the notion that, yeah, it would be safe to
    farm out there, but they didn't take any data, they didn't
    really factor in the increased mobility of cesium-137 in that
    particular kind of soil.
        So, and I was told that that research cost about $1
    million. It was done very quickly and on paper. They never came
    to the site to look at it.

                     National Environmental Research Parks

        Chairman Miller. SREL is one of seven National
    Environmental Research Parks associated with DOE installations
    in different parts of the country, different ecological zones.
    What is the value of having research in each ecological zone?
    Is it important that there be a network of sites to allow kind
    of a regional understanding of ecological issues?
        Dr. Whicker. Yes, it is. Each of the DOE sites, the major
    sites, have different kinds of soil and the type of soil
    determines the mobility of radio-nuclides and contaminants in
    that soil, including how much is taken up into the food chain
    and thereby how much risk will there be to someone living on
    that side. So, yeah, it is important to do these kinds of
    studies at all the major sites. They all differ quite a bit in
    terms of their ecology and their geochemistry.

                   The Value of Long-term Ecological Research

        Chairman Miller. What is the importance of longer-term data
    for reptiles, birds, amphibians in deciding which is, deciding
    on a credible risk assessment for different remediation
    options, excavation versus remediation in place?
        Dr. Whicker. Well, the long-term aspect is important. It
    is, you know, you can go out on the field and observe things in
    the field of ecology, but figuring out what is causing what is
    very, very difficult. Let us say you see a decline in a
    particular wildlife species, and you say, well, gee, is it
    because there is a little bit of, there is cesium-137 out
    there, or is it a natural cycle? Is it due to some other factor
    that we are not even aware of?
        Ecology is a science that has to be very innovative to try
    to figure out what causes what. You can observe things, but
    understanding the causes takes years, if not decades, of
    observation.
        Chairman Miller. To set an example to other Members of the
    Committee I will now yield to Mr. Lampson for his first round
    of questions.
        Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start
    with Dr. Whicker, and I have a question or two.
        Radio-nuclides like cesium-137 and plutonium-239 are
    tainted in the environment for a long time, and although they
    attach to soil particles, they do move in the environment and
    sometimes are detected offsite. Now, I understand that the
    monitoring of animals and plants helps us to understand those
    paths. If these substances moved through the food chain, is it
    possible that larger, longer-lived animals carry this
    contamination offsite? And so is monitoring of birds, mammals,
    fish, and reptiles important from the perspective of insuring
    the safety and human health of people in surrounding
    communities?
        Dr. Whicker. It is true that animals such as birds and fish
    do pick up contamination, and yes, indeed, they can migrate off
    site. Studies have been done at Savannah River Ecology Lab and
    at other sites, and they generally show that just a very tiny
    amount of radioactive or chemical materials actually get moved
    off site by immigration of individuals from the side.
        Clearly observing these pathways of contaminant transport
    in animals and so forth does tell us a lot about what humans
    might be exposed to, and a lot of the work that has been done
    there has even been done in the context of agriculture. It
    isn't just pure ecology that we are concerned about. It is
    agriculture ecosystems, and we can learn about, a lot about
    that from the kind of work that has gone on at the Savannah
    River Site.
        We planted crops that people eat right on the Par Pond
    lakebed, for instance, and we looked at the uptake of cesium
    and other radio-nuclides into corn and okra and turnips and
    lettuce and so on, and that would be something that a self-
    sufficient farmer who might occupy that land in the future
    would be exposed to.
        Chairman Lampson. Would both of you comment on this
    question. Can natural attenuation be used safely as a
    remediation option if it is not coupled with a credible long-
    term monitoring program?
        Dr. Schnoor. By definition monitored natural attenuation
    includes long-term monitoring and modeling to make sure that
    the contaminants aren't migrating off site or posting an undue
    risk to humans or to animals. So, no, it cannot be done without
    long-term monitoring.
        Dr. Whicker. And I might add that the idea of monitored
    natural attenuation is a very effective one. The wisdom of
    putting these DOE sites in large areas where there is a buffer
    zone has really resulted in extremely small amounts of
    contamination ever getting off site. That is not to say that
    none does, but the levels that do get off site are extremely
    small because they do get tied up in the sediments, they are
    taken up in the biota. Actually, I can tell you that the
    presence of the Savannah River Site actually helps to improve
    both water quality and air quality for that whole region, as
    opposed to the idea if that whole area were say agricultural.
    The streams coming off the Savannah River Site are largely
    black water streams. They are clear. They are generally devoid
    of contaminants, where if you look at the streams coming into
    the river from the other side where they are coming off
    farmland is usually muddy, and that is usually loaded with
    pesticides and that kind of thing.
        So I think the site engenders a high degree of
    environmental quality that extends well beyond the borders of
    the plant.
        Chairman Lampson. Mr. Chairman, instead of carrying over,
    my next question will be longer than five minutes, so I will
    yield out my time at this point.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Lampson. Mr. Sensenbrenner
    for five minutes.

                     National Laboratories' Overhead Costs

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Both of you, do you believe as a general rule that research
    funds should be parceled out on a competitive peer review basis
    or by Congressional or Executive Branch earmarks?
        Dr. Whicker. I am not sure I quite understand your point.
    If I understand it a little bit, the work that the Savannah
    River Ecology Lab does is submitted to peer review journals and
    so forth, has to go through peer review before it can be
    published. However, it is not subject as far as I know to any
    kind of censorship from the Department of Energy.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am talking about the grants to do the
    research that result in the publication.
        Dr. Whicker. Well, yeah. The grants that they get, they
    have to compete for grants. When they go after funding that
    would be from now DOE sources or non site, you know. It would
    be over and above their normal.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Dr. Schnoor.
        Dr. Schnoor. I agree that funding should be competitive,
    however, in the case of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory,
    a certain base level of funding I think is necessary to keep
    the operation going and to insure and maintain the long-term
    research.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yeah. I guess, you know, I guess the
    observation that I would make or make two observations, you
    know. One is is that neither Colorado State University nor the
    University of Iowa, or for that matter the University of
    Wisconsin, Madison, is able to get a specific line item from
    the DOE for things that should be competitively peer reviewed.
    You know, they ache to basically have their projects compete
    against everybody else's, and if they end up losing out, then
    those scientists are not funded by the Federal Government, and
    it is up to, in the case of each of these three institutions
    that I mentioned or for that matter, the University of Georgia,
    to determine whether or not to use their own funds to get from
    the legislature to continue that base.
        And I guess my question is is why should SREL be treated
    differently in terms of competitive peer review funding for
    this type of research than most of the other institutions in
    the country when they compete for scientific research grants?
        Dr. Schnoor. The Savannah River Ecology Lab, their research
    is peer reviewed, and my testimony----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. No. I am talking about, you know, this
    is after the research is done. I am talking about----
        Dr. Schnoor. About the award.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner.--the award, because, you know, with you
    at the University of Iowa, you don't get the award. You don't
    do the research unless you get the state legislature to decide
    to fund it. Now, why shouldn't the same hold true with research
    that is done at SREL, where if they don't get the award, then
    it is up to the Georgia legislature to determine whether or not
    to continue the funding?
        Dr. Schnoor. A certain amount of funding is necessary at
    these laboratories just to keep the doors open and to keep a
    base-level research going.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Uh-huh.
        Dr. Schnoor. Then they should compete and do compete for
    other outside funds.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I guess neither of you get my
    point, and I am trying to see why SREL ought to be dealt with
    differently in terms of funding for the basic research than
    practically every other institution in the country, whether it
    is a state university or whether it is a private university.
    Everybody else rolls the dice, well, with competitive peer
    review grants, and they have got to do it year after year after
    year. And if they don't win the competitive peer review grants,
    then they either go to the legislature or fold up shop. What is
    different about SREL?
        Dr. Schnoor. I am trying to answer your question, and that
    is that at research laboratories and SREL is no different than
    other EPA or DOE laboratories, you need a base level of funding
    to keep the----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Uh-huh.
        Dr. Schnoor.--infrastructure, the research operation going.
    And that is really what we are talking about here, and a
    rather, in my opinion, a small amount of funding also. Ten
    million dollars is really quite small considering the quality
    and level of research that is going on at SREL.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. But why should SREL get a line item and
    the University of Iowa doesn't?
        Dr. Schnoor. Well, the SREL gets a line item just like all
    the other National Research Laboratories.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I am saying but why should they,
    because a peer review committee might decide that research that
    is done not at a National Research Laboratory has a higher
    priority for funding than SREL.
        Dr. Schnoor. I understand your question, and, of course, at
    the University of Iowa we would love to have a line item
    funding also, but we are not a National Laboratory located in
    one of these----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. But, Dr. Schnoor, my time is up. You
    know, my point is turning the coin over, you know, and that is
    that I know you would like to have, you know, a line item of
    funding, but why should SREL's line item of funding take away
    the potential of you getting more because your peer review
    research proposal is determined to be better by the committee?
        I yield back.
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Bartlett for five minutes.
        Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Is it your understanding
    that generally speaking in the community at large and the
    scientific community and in the medical community that the
    lower the level of radiation the better?
        Dr. Whicker. Yes. The lower the better.
        Mr. Bartlett. Do you agree, Dr. Schnoor?
        Dr. Schnoor. Yes. There is a, in certain types of health
    outcomes, health effects, it is still thought that even a
    single bit of radiation could be enough to begin the disease
    process.
        Mr. Bartlett. Are you familiar with Hansey Selea? That name
    mean anything to either one of you?
        Dr. Whicker. Could you pronounce it again?
        Mr. Bartlett. Hansey Selea. H-a-n-s-e-y.
        Dr. Whicker. No. I am sorry.

                               Radiation Hormesis

        Mr. Bartlett. Hansey Selea was a, one of the early
    investigators from Montreal, Canada, I believe, in stress. I am
    81 years old, so my work in the scientific community is 50
    years old and more, so he is back in history. But he was the
    first investigator to begin to understand the role of stress in
    the body. I wish I had come prepared with the actual data, but
    there is scientific evidence that appropriate levels of
    radiation are beneficial. Because what they do like any other
    stressor out there, they challenge the body's defenses, and
    these defenses are martialed so that we are then better able to
    withstand other stresses.
        I know that your perception is the perception of the
    general community and it should not be the perception I think
    of the scientific community, particularly the medical
    community. You know, radiation is just another stressor. As far
    as I know there is nothing unique about that, and I think that
    we are spending excessive amounts of money in cleanup, which
    with a hard look is really silly. It is just another stressor.
    Water is a great absorber. Your observation that refilling the
    impoundment was the right thing to do. It doesn't take much
    water to absorb this radiation, and the organisms living near
    it are probably better off for the moderate levels, the
    appropriate levels of radiation they are getting because their
    residence is built up, the body's defenses work that way.
        What do we have to do so that we change this perception
    that the less the better? I don't believe that radiation is a
    unique stressor. I don't think the scientific evidence
    indicates it is a unique stressor, and we just are straining
    that and spending all sorts of money we don't need to spend in
    cleaning up the last vestiges of this contamination.
        All of the ground in these cleanup areas don't have to be
    appropriate for establishing a daycare center where the kids
    may sit and put dirt in their mouth.
        That is the rules that we adhere to, and I think that we
    are spending at least an order of magnitude, too much money in
    cleaning up these sites, because we don't understand the
    science and physiology and the medicine.
        Dr. Whicker. Well, I agree with you, and in fact, my
    written testimony has an article published in Science that says
    basically what you are saying. The thing of it is is that it
    takes a lot of science to demonstrate what you are talking
    about and oftentimes to convince the regulatory community and
    the public that cleanup may not always be warranted because the
    damage can be great, the cost can be high.
        The notion of a little bit of radiation being good for you,
    that is a well-known phenomenon called hormesis, and that has
    received a great deal of attention over the years. Of course,
    we live in a radiation environment. We are sitting here right
    now, and we are getting a fair amount of radiation just because
    our environment, cosmic radiation, radioactivity in the earth's
    surface that has been there since the earth was formed. And so
    but the way that I answered your original question of, is that
    for the purposes of radiation protection, they assume that the
    dose and response to that dose is a linear phenomenon, but
    there is evidence--the trouble is there is not consensus on
    that, and getting the data to pin it down at the very low doses
    is very difficult.
        Mr. Bartlett. Yeah. I don't know of any evidence that says
    that this is not true. Thank you very much.
        My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
        I will now recognize myself for an additional five minutes
    for a second round of questioning.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner's questions regarding peer review I think
    foreshadows the testimony on August 1. Both of you are involved
    in scientific research and are familiar with what is involved,
    what is required typically of peer review. Is that correct?
        Dr. Schnoor. Yes.
        Dr. Whicker. Yes.

                       Competitive Grants and Peer Review

        Chairman Miller. My impression of peer review for a grant
    is that the grant application is very thorough in the
    information called for, in the information that the applicant
    must provide. Is that correct?
        Dr. Schnoor. Yes.
        Dr. Whicker. Yes.
        Chairman Miller. Okay.
        Dr. Schnoor. I might add, Chairman Miller, that there are
    grants that are competitive, and there are grants that are part
    of a mission agency.
        Chairman Miller. Right.
        Dr. Schnoor. And I think that----
        Chairman Miller. With respect to peer review.
        Dr. Schnoor.--you need both kinds----
        Chairman Miller. To make a judgment by, to allow a judgment
    by others expert in the same field. Would it typically be the
    case that the information requested would be very thorough and
    would be the information needed to review?
        Dr. Whicker. Yes.
        Dr. Schnoor. Yes.
        Chairman Miller. Okay. If Dr. Bertsch testifies on August 1
    that the information required of him was a sentence or two
    description of the work they plan to do, does that sound to you
    like the information usually required for a scientific or
    technical peer review?
        Dr. Schnoor. No.
        Chairman Miller. Okay. And a second question about peer
    review. With respect to peer review, what kinds of documents
    does it generate? Are there memoranda describing the failings
    of the proposal if peer review is critical? What, are there
    documents typically generated as a result of peer review?
        Dr. Whicker. Are you talking about in applying for a
    research money or----
        Chairman Miller. Well, in making the decision.
        Dr. Whicker.--when it comes to publishing?
        Chairman Miller. Whoever makes the decision with respect to
    peer review, are there not generally documents generated as a
    result of peer review?
        Dr. Whicker. I think----
        Chairman Miller. Memoranda, letters, something that would
    say what exactly the reviewer was looking for or if the
    reviewer found something wanting, exactly what was wanting.
        Dr. Whicker. Sometimes the person who submits the grant
    proposal will hear about those things, and they will get some
    communication back, but not always in my experience. Sometimes
    you just find out that you don't get funded, but you never hear
    about why.
        Dr. Schnoor. Well, normally I would say you, as one who
    proposes for research funding, you do receive letters of review
    back from panels who have looked at your research, and those
    remain anonymous. You don't find out what they were.
        Chairman Miller. Okay.
        Dr. Schnoor. But you do get to see----
        Chairman Miller. Well, that is what you see as having
    applied for a grant----
        Dr. Schnoor. That is correct.
        Chairman Miller.--subject to peer review, but internally,
    whether you see it or not, would you expect there to be some
    document of some kind that sets forth what the failings were
    that led to the denial of funding?
        Dr. Schnoor. Yes. That would be my belief.
        Chairman Miller. Okay.
        Dr. Schnoor. Yes.
        Dr. Whicker. I would think so as well.
        Chairman Miller. And if the Department of Energy has no
    documents that really reflect a peer review, an analysis of the
    work done at the Savannah River, the SREL, Ecology Lab, then
    perhaps there was not a genuine peer review. Is that----
        Dr. Whicker. I would hate to speculate.
        Dr. Schnoor. I couldn't speak for the Department of Energy.
    I can say that there are, papers from the Savannah River
    Ecology Lab have been peer reviewed, their technical scientific
    papers.

                Environmental Remediation Research Done By SREL

        Chairman Miller. All right. Dr. Schnoor, we still have
    Superfund sites we are still cleaning up. The sites were on
    federal and private lands throughout the country. Are the
    studies that have been done at SREL applicable to remediation
    of environmental damage and other areas?
        Dr. Schnoor. Yes. I think my testimony shows that most of
    the papers, especially recently, are related to the problems at
    the Savannah River Site. But certainly these problems are
    shared by many other sites, and the research is applicable
    broadly.
        Chairman Miller. What is the status of our developing the
    technologies to cleanup safely environmentally-contaminated
    sites, particularly DOE sites, particularly radiation sites
    with the contaminous radiation?
        Dr. Schnoor. Especially where you have mixed wastes, that
    is both radio-contaminants as well as other contaminants
    together. These are considered to be among the more difficult
    sites to clean up, and proportionately more of those remain
    than other sites.
        Chairman Miller. All right. How would you evaluate SREL as
    a candidate for undertaking further research into remediation
    as a technique for cleanup? Based upon your experience with
    that lab?
        Dr. Schnoor. I think this lab is performing extremely well
    considering the rather small number of faculty involved in
    research there and the small federal funds and state funds
    committed to it.

                           Fate and Transport Studies

        Chairman Miller. All right. I think we throw around terms
    like all of us know what they mean on this hearing. I think in
    hearings like this where members are not willing to betray
    their general ignorance of the signs, but what are fate and
    transport studies?
        Dr. Whicker. Am I part of the questioning here?
        Chairman Miller. Yes. Either one of you. Yes, sir. Dr.
    Whicker
        Dr. Whicker. Fate deals with where contaminants go once
    they are released, usually either to air or water. In other
    words, let us say you put a contaminant into water. It is, some
    contaminants will stay in the water but most of them will stick
    to soil particles, silt particles, phytoplankton, little
    organisms in the water. Then they might move through the food
    chain or they might not, depending on their chemistry. So that
    is what we mean by fate, what happens to it, where does it go.
        Chairman Miller. And transport. Is that different or is
    that part of fate?
        Dr. Whicker. It is the same thing basically.
        Dr. Schnoor. Transport is sort of where it goes----
        Dr. Whicker. Yeah.
        Dr. Schnoor.--and fate is sort of what happens to it along
    the way.
        Dr. Whicker. Yes.
        Chairman Miller. Okay. A knowledge of where contaminants go
    and what happens to it, is that important beyond cleaning up on
    site. Would that be important, for instance, in any kind of
    activity at a contaminated site that disturbs the soil,
    construction activity, for instance?
        Dr. Whicker. Oh, yes. It is extremely important, and in
    fact, there are cleanups that have been done in the DOE complex
    that the cleanup itself generated dust and that dust blew
    offsite, and that led to a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. This
    was at Rocky Flats.
        Chairman Miller. I think that is all the questions that I
    have and since that is all the questions I have, that is all
    the questions that any Member has. But thank you for being here
    today. We will have a second panel on August 1. Dr. Bertsch,
    this will be your second trip to Washington. I understand that
    you have time on your hands now, but I appreciate and apologize
    for your coming today without testifying. We will try to
    accommodate your schedule on August 1. I will let you testify
    first and get on with your day.
        With respect to the Department of Energy witnesses, I
    strongly urge all the witnesses not to make lunch plans, not to
    make dinner plans. We will continue until we have completed the
    testimony scheduled for August 1.
        The best predictor of what a hearing, an Investigations and
    Oversight hearing will be like, how searching the questioning
    will be, how thorough it will be, is how motivated the Members
    are and the staff is. I think you should assume that the staff
    and the Members will be very motivated on August 1.
        With no further business, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittees were
    adjourned.]